Upload
Login or register

Vandeekree

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:12/04/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#10468
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 6403 total,  8701 ,  2298
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 48% (48/100)
Level 255 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:2442
FJ Points:5409

latest user's comments

#75 - I haven't sacrificed anyone. I have failed to save those peopl…  [+] (4 replies) 09/20/2016 on /pol/ shit 0
User avatar
#78 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
You fucking moron failed to safe them by not sacreficing!

Is that so fucking hard?! Is it so difficult to just take responsebility that you are eithet the death angel for this millions or the girl?!

Tjere is no TRYING in this scenario! IF you want you will kill the girl absolutly for sure and not fail killing her, saving for sure anyone! If you decide not to kill jer you will not somehow magicly fail to not kill her!

You have no " chance " of failure, no way of helping this people but this one, absolut safe action!

This discussion is also now done as you dont even reply to your shit answer. Any person unable to love himself could after your idea do whatever he wants to people as long as it is not loving them.

Objectivr absolutes exist just on the base of physicle laws! NOT ON FROM HIGHER DEVOLPED APES WHO CAN FAIL IN THEIR SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

Because this is what morals are! SOCIAL COBSTRUCTS!

If tomorrow all humans die so will the human deffinition of morals! That simple! Light is always at a constant speed! Moral applycation that have PROVEN to change even in your fucking toilet paper book ( which made me btw atheistic alone from being unable to belief a perfect being creating imperfection, just to build them a fate of missery and pain that they will never be able to dodge from the very moment they are forced to chose between knowleadge and innocence! ) which was written by thousend upom thousend of people who all put their biased bullshit into it!

Also btw any fucking retard can make prophecys ' spookly ' accurate! I predict tomorroe will the sun rise! Also in 10 years will a war break out near 2 mountains and a continent will be on the edge on dying from a sickness!

After youe retarded idea of absolut moral choice i would be wrong to put someone out of his missery while he is dieng and unable to be safed while he begs me to, when i lovr myself to much to beg anyone to kill me!

I would be in moral wrong if i killed a serial killer while he plans to kill people, because i love myself to much as to allow people to kill me!

Your shit literally says that i am the asshole for doing things that many people would feel split in half and you take thr fucking arroganta to belief some omnipotent shitface, that had since 1000 years not shown his fucking face, came personely to your fucking ear and whispered you absolut wisdome into your ear!

THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER!
User avatar
#82 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Alright, we're going around in circles and you seem to be becoming increasingly upset so I'm going to stop. I really hope you will reread this conversation at a later date and try to understand what you are missing here. I'm not trying to insult at all but you really don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm truly sorry I upset you
User avatar
#76 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
No you failed safing this people be sacreficing the girl.

Same as you failed to safe the girl by sacreficing millions.

Willingly or not, you decide right now over millions of peoples life, regardless what you do, your action is paying ones life with the other.

We could also just take a single human life to a other single human life. You would still either sacrefice him or the other the each others life.

Also now youe horseshouing, you said clear and strictly that you will sacrefice NO ONE for anyones life!

Also if this is now your absolut moral bullshit you goal mover then we take a person that loves himself 0. Any human being theirfore can be of no importance for him nd he could ignore anyone in dire help and not be considered evil! Which is bullshit and you know it.
User avatar
#77 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand what absolute morality means. It has nothing to do with if a person fails or succeeds at it. And nothing was done wrong here. Sometimes you try your best and still fail. It happens. It doesn't mean you were morally wrong.

And yes. I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for anyone. But I'm not sacrificing those millions. I'm not killing them. They do not die by my hand. I might fail to save them. But no one would call me a murderer for not being able to save a life even with my best effort.

And again. You seem to be putting a ton of words in my mouth. I never said I would ignore the people in peril. Not once. I said I would try to save them. I would try to save everyone. That's perfectly in line with not sacrificing anyone. Doing your best to save everyone means you are willing to sacrifice none. Even if you fail to save them that doesn't change.
#3538 - That seems unfair to say as Christian apologists, at least the…  [+] (14 replies) 09/20/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3541 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
No, apologetics deals with arguments. Arguments aren't evidence.

That's fucking hilarious. No really, tell me another joke about the bible being accurate.
Why then do historians disagree with you. I trust them more than you.

History is not science. History is estimation.
Yeah, because no one can emulate the past. If the bible were written in 21st century english then that would be proof of god, but it isn't.

Let's examine these arguments:
So you say the "probability of events", which I can only assume is some nonsense about how likely it is for life to have formed etc. This is fallacious because whilst any one circumstance is very unlikely, one circumstance must exist.
Design isn't "probable", it either is or isn't. In the case of our universe, it isn't. We know this because we have fully satisfactory material explanations for all observable phenomena. No designer is evident.

The ontological argument is an argument from ignorance.

The argument of necessity is predicated on fallacious assertions; that life needs a purpose and that absolute morality exists.

The bible isn't perfect, it's self refuting on numerous occasions, and heavily contradictory. Here's a catalogue of every one ;)
infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
But you're right, they're fake! The perfect bible has fake contradictions in it to trick non-believers!

The bible contains zero prophecies.
User avatar
#3542 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Arguments are made of evidence. You present the evidence in a persuasive manner. I'm not sure why this needs explaining.

And some historians certainly contest things not the majority by any stretch. Unless you're talking about the things creationists believe. But that's less about history and more about the accuracy of historical dating methods. The more recent post Moses stuff is pretty agreed upon for the most part.

History is a form of science. Using evidence in the form of relative and absolute dating techniques to piece together. I agree it's not an exact science but just before you were contesting the accuracy of something that two groups estimate to be within 200-400 years of each other.

Yes, it's 100 percent sure that something would happen. But that doesn't reduce the incredibly tiny chance that it was this exact life supporting form. In fact, science is continuing to find it more and more unlikely that life should be possible. Any little variation in the constants of physics equations would render a life incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Read into it, it's rather fascinating.

Skipping over the ontological argument from just the surface huh? I was afraid of that. If you'll take some time to actually study it I think you'll find it's the strongest. No atheist that I have yet read the work of has even come close to a decent reply to it. But from how quickly you replied I get the feeling you didn't do much more than skim a wiki article about these arguments. Wikiperdia is a rather poor source for anything beside modern events. And even those articles are pretty biased, either left or right leaning.

As for the necessity argument, try to focus on what it's saying. It's not saying that life has to have a meaning. That's a whole different argument. It's saying that a life without an absolute meaning is illogical for a human to choose to live. Subtle difference but important.

Ah yes. This is the type of list I mentioned before. The best way, I think, for us to go about this one, is for you to read through them and find ones you find compelling, then bring them to me and I will show you why they are incorrect. I really don't know what else to do. I don't know if you have the biblical knowledge(or the patience) to go through them all on your own.

But they're not fake, they're simply false. Contradictions found by atheists hungry for something to use against the bible. Grasping at straws and weak attempts to show some problem. Most of them break even the definition of a contradiction, and some are simple translation errors where they pick a certain kind of bible translation and point to a word that could have been picked better.

As for the bible containing zero prophesies. I'm a bit surprised. Are you quite sure you looked hard enough? Nothing in there about the coming of Jesus? Nothing about Israel? The fall of Tier? All the pagans of Europe turning Christian? None of that?

User avatar
#3543 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Evidence does not require persuasion, it is empirical. If you have to coerce someone then you aren't using evidence.

So it's perfect, except those parts? Interesting. And no, actually the bible is MORE logically inconsistent in the second half of the old testament, and hilariously so in the new testament.

No. I'm sorry but that's just wrong. History is an estimation of the past, science can ONLY know things that it can directly observe or empirically measure. History is comprised primarily of accounts written by people, that shit doesn't fly in science.
If it isn't an "exact science" then it isn't science...

You've made the same fallacy again. The universe must exist in one state. This state is no more special than any other. And this world isn't life supporting, life ONLY EXISTS on this one planet.
If the universe was another way, then the people in that universe would claim that it was finely tuned for them specifically. We are the puddle, the universe is the hole.
Please don't insult my intelligence when displaying your own lack of intelligence, it does not contribute to the discussion and is merely an attack against me.

The ontological argument is a fallacy, there's nothing to discuss... I can't dismantle something that hasn't even been put together.
I don't need to read a wiki article, I have encountered them multiple times before.

Why is it illogical to live in a world without absolute morality. I get along just fine. What's illogical is attributing morality to magic, as opposed to the naturalistic explanation derived from our evolutionary history.

All of them are compelling, and you can't refute them, because they're taken directly as quotes from your bible. What you must employ is apologetics, where you pretend that the words have a different meaning, and twist reality to fit your explanation. I have no interest in such nonsense, since it doesn't begin to constitute an argument, and is little more than damage control.

I don't need to use anything against the bible, it has less realistic content than Harry Potter...
"They translated it wrong" then you should have no problem getting the book altered with the new translation, since it's so obviously incorrect. In fact, you should translate the entire book yourself, since you of course speak ancient greek, and know the correct translations!

Yes, I read the entire book cover to cover, and encountered no prophecies. I assure you that if you take the time to read it you will find that every so-called prophecy is either an obvious statement with no future sight required, a self-fulfilling prophecy, or merely a historical account retold as prophecy years after the fact. The bible is not magic, the bible is one of many ancient texts that claims to know the answers to every question, so long as you don't think too hard.
User avatar
#3544 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I didn't say coerce. And you have to persuade with an argument. Evidence, especially empirical evidence, helps. The new iphone 7 won't come out unless the ceos get convinced headphones are unnecessary with a profit margin argument.

And again, no. That's not even close to what I said. It's perfect in all ways. Those contradictions are wrong and made up and I'm happy to show you.

And we can observe the things left by the past and measure them. I don't know why this is an argument. Go read the definition of history. It's not worth arguing honestly.

You misunderstand and I explained poorly then. It's not that if the universe was a different way people would say the same. It's that there wouldn't be people if the universe was a different way. And I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I'm trying to show you that you need to read into it because I cannot explain it in depth enough here. This is proven by how you misunderstood thanks to my lack of explaining it deeply enough.

And again. You dismiss the argument without understanding. Please look up some information about it. I suggest William Lane Craig's books. He doesn't explain is perfectly but he does a way better job than I am, clearly.

You do not get along just fine. Do you really think this world is doing well? The state we are in? I might agree you survive but what is truly illogical is to think that just because we can describe the mechanism of evolution used to get us here that it couldn't have been done by a creator. But if you look at the facts of societal structure and health. Being a moral religious, especially Christian person is just best in so many ways. Society was built on it. Just before the fall of the major empires, the Romans, the Persians, the Greeks, they fell into a debotcherous lifestyle that was the cannery in the coal mine to their fall.

I'm afraid I can refute them. Because yes, they are taken from the bible. Most of the time out of context or without understanding. There are some so dumb as to say "KIll those who would defy me." but the story is about a king that is in a story who says that and then gets punished by God. Context is very important.

I don't care for the translations of the bible. There's a reason it was illegal to translate the bible up until Martin Luther did it in Germany. It's very hard to take a language and get the exact meaning into another language. Especially when the very structure of the languages are different. Why do you think there is so much trouble with interpretations? When you have various different words they can have different meanings to different readers. Like the difference between "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and "the humble shall inherit the Earth" they are similar but different.

I have looked over every prophesy and I can tell you these are specific and intentional prophesies. They say that they are telling the future and they go into great detail as to what will happen. So, again, no trying to insult, but if you read it and missed the prophesies then you didn't read it very carefully nor did you understand what you were reading. This I can be confident in asserting because I have studied it harshly looking for holes back when I was still figuring out which religion was the correct one, if any.
User avatar
#3546 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Yes, and the release of shitty consumer products isn't science... Go to a physicist and try arguing that god exists, they will laugh you out of the building. Science doesn't play with arguments, it deals with evidence. If you want to convince me that your god is real, then you need evidence, not arguments.

Please do show me, I'll just be here with my talking snake and worldwide flood.

Yes, you can observe what remains, but you rely on interpretation, not empiricism.

There is no reason to believe that the universal constants can be anything other than what they are, so speculating is pointless.

WLC XD Really? Why is it that apologists always cite other apologists, and always the worst ones.
I've seen all his arguments, and they're terrible. Frankly it was insulting that you even mentioned them in the first place.

Yes. The world is safer and more pleasant than any time in history.
Evolution is a natural process, it does not require a creator.
Christianity is just a derelict faith from the middle east, it has no place in secular western civilisation.
Society was built on the golden rule, which has nothing to do with christianity.
No they didn't, they fell because they were conquered by someone else. And again, you're preaching "end times" nonsense.

Context is interpretation, there is no inherent context that is more correct than any other. The book stands on its own merits, not on what you have to say about it.

I can find no evidence of any law preventing translation, and apparently there was a 1383 translation into middle english, so you're talking nonsense.
The trouble arises from what I said before: everyone has a personal god. People disagree about what god says when they really disagree with each other.
Ok, well pick a translation and I'll dissect that one.

I didn't miss anything, as I said they are easily explained by the phenomena I listed. The fact that you want there to be magic is the only reason that you entertain the notion that someone predicted the future. But if predicting the future is so easy, then you should have no trouble making a prediction for me now.
User avatar
#3568 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Well, then I guess we are at an impasse. What I have shown you is solid evidence but you keep dismissing them and saying you have already heard of them and yet misquote and incorrectly repeat them back to me. I don't know how to have an argument with someone who refuses evidence and proof without even looking. It seems to me you believe you already know it all. To be honest, I can tell you don't, but you're certainly not going to take my word because you will just interpret it as me trying to insult you or perhaps accuse me of changing the argument. Either way, that's the impasse.

And what do you mean by this comment? Everyone agrees that a talking snake and world flood couldn't happen under normal circumstance. But with the help of God they of course could. So are you trying to say that they couldn't happen without God? Yeah, I agree. Isn't that obvious? God did them. I'm not sure that that statement is meant to imply. Mockery perhaps? Alright then. Mockery and jabbing jokes is often all an atheist has to argue with.

Perhaps you don't realize how much interpretation science relies on. It's scant few empirical figures supported by loads of interpretation of data and meta data.

And I find it interesting but it's not me that's believing it heavy. It's the mathematical physicists and astronomers who are making those claims.

Yes. He gets made fun of a lot. He's shaking up a lot of very old dusty schools of thought and the secular atheist schools don't like it very much. Make fun of him all you like. He's quite good at what he does.

The world is safer with the literal destruction of all human life a few minutes away from launch at all times?

But if it doesn't require a creator, when did it start? Evolution touches upon what happened after the first cell was created But created by what? Look back over the arguments I stated and you might figure out why it does indeed need a creator.

It built western civilization, just as the bible predicted it would.

Yeah. Christian morals didn't shape western civilization and the morality systems of the world or anything.

And why were they conquered? Because they were weak. And what made them weak? Hedonism.

I can tell you, as someone who has studied the bible extensively, that interpretation is harder to do the more you study. There is a reason that all of Christianity, all the sects, all the different denominations, they all believe just about the same thing and only argue about the small points. It's the every rare and small group that off shoots to believe anything radical. The bible has a single message, you just have to we wise enough to learn it.

And I wouldn't doubt if there were other translations. But it was against church law at the time. Martin Luther did it mostly to spite the church.

I use every translation as well as the original Hebrew and Greek texts to get the full message that was intended. You can kind little flaws with ever translation. But they are minor and only matter if you are really studying deeply.

Do I look like a prophet to you? I'm a sinner and a fool. I have no power through God I barely have the power to live a half moral life. And what you said means nothing. You can't just explain how it might be wrong and then it is. These prophesies have been around for thousands of years. You think you are the first to realize they might be wrong? It's not even a debate. Go read them yourself and learn. They are in any bible.
User avatar
#3569 - platinumaltaria (09/21/2016) [-]
You still haven't shown me any evidence. You've recited the same tired arguments as every other apologist, and expected them to carry more weight than the hundred other times I've heard them.

Yes, you believe in magic. I do not, ergo the idea of talking wildlife and impossible weather are laughable. Snakes do not have vocal chords, so no amount of magic is ever going to allow them to speak. The fact that people in the modern world believe such ludicrous fairy tales is distressing.
No I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you of your own stupidity. What you choose to do with that information is none of my concern. Perhaps opening a book and learnign something with some semblance of fact?

By definition science does not rely on interpretation, empiricism is the opposite of interpretation.

Yes, and unlike you they are backing their claims with evidence...

No, he's doing what every apologist does; pretending that the past 200 years of scientific advancement didn't happen, and ascribing every thing to magic. That's silly, and you will never convince any rational person with that without EVIDENCE.

Yes. Have you heard the phrase "mutually assured destruction"? We can't have large scale wars anymore, because there would be no winners. Conflict is now resigned to small terror cells and militant factions.

It started when the first organism came into being...
Abiogenesis (the inception of life in the universe) has nothing to do with evolution. And no, if you read this Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis you will what we currently understand of the subject. None of it is attributed to a deity.

No it didn't, western civilisation has risen in spite of religion. The church has always been the hand pushing people backwards into the dark ages, because religion cannot survive when people are educated. It needs minds full of unanswered questions so that it can provide made-up answers.

If you think that then you're an idiot. The golden rule, the foundation of morality, was not devised by Christians (it's not even followed by Christians), it is a part of our evolutionary programming that favours helping the group to survive. Every culture takes part of this to some extent, both long before christianity and far away from its influence.

No. The Roman empire fell because it couldn't keep up with the large number of barbarians on its borders. As an empire grows its border gets longer, meaning more to defend. Thus, every empire will collapse eventually. Their lifestyle didn't change at all, if anything their lives would have gotten worse in the impending doom, becoming more pious and less frivolous.

Really? Catholicism completely disagrees about the 2nd commandment (as evidenced by their giant gold palace), Mormons believe in a completely different creation story. Christian denominations really only agree on one thing; there was a guy called Jesus who was the son of god (and even that point is contested).

No, you interpret it, the same way the person who wrote the bible down had to interpret the story for themself.
So there are flaws? Not perfect then.
If the flaws are minor then it shouldn't matter which version you read, eh?

You're right on one account there, sins aren't real though.

Here's a question for you; why on earth did you decide that a thousand year old book of fairy tales was the most accurate description of reality? Why do you think that nearly every scientist on earth disagrees with that sentiment? Are they all lying? Is there a conspiracy to hide god? Why do you want to live in such a silly world anyway, you can't seriously think that we're all descended from 2 people.
User avatar
#3571 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
To answer your very last question(Sorry, I ran of out characters)

The reason I decided upon the bible was after first studying philosophy to figure out if there was a God or not. Once I was certain then i moved on to study the nature of God to see if he was good or not. I could only determine that he has to be good out of necessity because if he is not good then there is nothing we can do about it. I then needed to determine which record of what he did and said was the correct one in order to know what to do. I settled, with great confidence, upon the bible.

And nearly every scientist doesn't disagree. There are a large part of the scientific population who are religious and even Christian. Greater still are the number who are diet or spiritual.

And of course the ones who don't believe aren't lying. They simply don't care enough. It's so very easy and tempting to live your life without every looking around you. You do your job, you work for a new car and for a bigger house. You have kids and they suck up huge parts of your life. There's so little energy left at the end of the day to study into what is morally right and wrong. And they are experts in science but naive about philosophy and religion. And will take it at face value if someone were to tell them all religion is made up magic. It's easier to accept than having to go into a long life long journey to find out for themselves. And it means you get to sleep in Sunday. Morality is a pain in the butt and gets in the way quite often.

And there is a conspiracy to hide God. God and morality get in the way of sin. So many people love their sin. They love being rich, they love having sex, they love expensive toys and being able to not help those in need. You can see it in modern society where people so often get offended and even angry if you try to judge them. Saying "How dare you say I shouldn't do this! How dare you say something I like is morally wrong!" You'll see it time and time again, the death of Christianity is the death of religion.

And it's not silly to me. In fact it;s the only heartening way of living. And I think there is a good chance we did descend from two people. Were they a metaphor for the early populations of humans that rose up from Africa/The Middle East? I lean towards no, that they very much were just the first two humans, born from protohuman parents, that both had the capacity for understanding high enough concepts to be considered a modern human. They may have even been brother and sister. It would explain the higher chance of passing on the traits that give them higher intelligence. And yes, ew incest and all that but incest is only bad when it's bad.
User avatar
#3570 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
Indeed, that's why I switched my argument. When I presented you with those same arguments and their latest advancements, you repeated them back to me incorrectly. You didn't seem to understand them and, I'm sorry, but it seemed that the reason that you misunderstood is because you haven't actually taken the time to understand them. You argue against a modified version of them. One that you seem to have made up in your mind but not what the actual arguments state. So I changed my talk from pushing those arguments to trying to convince you to go back and study them again with (I'm sorry to say it this way but I don't know how else to put it) less bias.

And yet you would believe it without being shown if someone read that "scientist discover snake with mutated vocal cords." It's not magic. Magic has the connotation of being something suddenly happening without explanation. If I turned myself into a frog it would be magic, but if I told you I was going to do it because God gave me the power then it becomes a miracle. Why? Semantics. But you know exactly why you choose to use the word magic. Because it is belittling and flippant instead of the more respectable way of calling it an "act of God." Again, I'm sure mockery will push plenty of people away from religion for fear of being mocked. I'm not one of them and in a civil argument please don't resort to it.

And no one is ignoring any scientific advances. In fact, apologists expressly look at those advances and study them to help see if any proof for or against God can be made. I don't know how much work from Christian apologists you have studied but when I read their work I was impressed with the unbiased look at science they had. Often citing the counter arguments to what they say and making sure that anything that prevents their argument from being air tight is known. You seem to have gotten the opposite impression that apologists ignore all facts and reason and just blather about emotionally driven faith. I really have no idea what apologists you have been studying.

Of course not. None of science touches on if a deity is making these things happen or not. Why would you? Science is simple observation of phenomena around us, it doesn't and can't touch on what causes these things to happen. That was my intended point, that it can't touch on the existence of God and is in no way contradictory to God.

And that's just historically false. Religion made science and made academicia. There's a reason the bible calls men to seek knowledge. I'm not going to argue this because it really is just a fact that you can find with simple reading into the eras described. If you don't care to and would rather have your world view helping but wrong ideas that religion was just there while modern learning happened beside it then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it as bias again.

Again you speculate and profile. Christians do indeed follow the golden rule and you assume that it was around before Christianity. But before Christianity there was Judaism that spanned all the way back to the first man and woman.

And it was a Roman that took down the Romans, Not the barbarians, they simply came in and pillaged once it was weak and helpless. And their lifestyles did change. Did you notice how they began with Olympic games of running and wrestling, then slowly changed to violent chariot races where men would die and then went further to men fighting each other and animals to the death for sport? Over time the power corrupted their morals. To say otherwise isn't arguing against me, it's arguing against well established history.

While the Catholics do have some big differences, an idol is something you worship. They do not worship their statues or finery though I agree they would be better off taking it out of their museums and selling it for charity. And Mormons are not Christian at all.

The bible is flawless. You refuse to read those words so it's all I'll say.
User avatar
#3572 - platinumaltaria (09/22/2016) [-]
No I wouldn't, because that's impossible. Science is about the evidence, not the answer.
I'm not belittling your beliefs, I'm pointing out how ridiculous they are. God is magic, the fact that you think he's real doesn't change the fact that he isn't, and he's just another supernatural explanation like santa.
A lot of theists try and use the "please be nice or I won't discuss it", which boils down to "agree with everything I say or I'll have to hide from reality". Don't resort to it.

There's your problem; you start with "god exists" and move on to "how can I prove it". That's not scientific, that's crazy. You always start with a hypothesis, not a statement of certainty.
I'll cite Eric Hovind as an excellent example of not viewing science unbiasedly, or reality itself for that matter. Your entire argument is predicated on the presumption of a god, which you then use to prove there's a god. That's circular reasoning.

No, science is a study of the material world; what can be shown to exist. If there is a god, then said god is not interacting with this universe in any measurable way, otherwise the deity would be material. If you can't detect something, what reason do you have to believe that it exists?

No. Just no.
Here's the church denying heliocentrism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_Heliocentrism

The catholic church didn't even accept evolution until this decade, and most Christians still haven't. Religion cannot accept science, because science contradicts it at every turn. But totally this stuff never happened, it's "historically false".

No, Christians follow the ten commandments and the laws in deuteronomy. None of these are the golden rule.
The golden rule is inherent to our biological programming, so yes, it was around before christianity. And before humans.
No dear, you aren't descended from one man and one woman, you're descended from one replicating molecule.

I know that your religion has a narrative of "Sodom and Gomorrah" where everything has to go to shit before the end, but that's factually inaccurate, ask any historian.
The Olympic Games were greek, not roman... The greeks had a culture of artists and philosophers, the romans were more interested in shows of physical strength and skill, pertaining to their more military lifestyle. Neither of these is inherently superior to the other; both had a huge impact on the world after them. Open a book please.

If you actually listened to what you think jesus said, you'd sell everything you own and wander the earth preaching god's word. But you won't, because that would be too hard.
Mormons are Christians, they believe that Christ is the son of god... the fact that they believe more crazy shit than you is irrelevant.

The bible isn't even true, let alone flawless...

>>3571
I have some advice for you, consider the EVIDENCE that you have for your god, and whether or not you believe because you want to, or because the evidence indicates it.

www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
And that's just what people call themselves, how many of those people are religious in name only? And what about the people who follow a different god to you?

There are no moral absolutes, I am more than content living my life by my own moral code, rather than someone else's.
That's because philosophy and religion have nothing to do with science.

Do you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Yes, we're in a society where people can choose to live how they want, not how you dictate. That's a good thing.

You have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
No, if humans descended from two people they would have NO genetic diversity, this is called a genetic bottleneck, and it is extremely harmful.
User avatar
#3575 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when having a talk like this, I wouldn't try to threaten not to talk with you over it. Though if it were to come to cursing and anger then I would end the argument simply because I'm clearly provoking rather than discussing.

But you really can't say that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when so much evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it make no logical sense that there isn't a creator and a first causeless cause as no other explanation has been proposed. If you study the arguments of the prominent atheists they simply don't address this. It can be argued if God is perhaps evil or what an all powerful being thinks and feels, there's just no argument presented that God doesn't exist besides deferring to refusing to believe he could exist and saying that something else yet unknown or unable to be understood was the cause, that's just illogical in all ways, scientific or otherwise.

And no, I did not start with "God exists" in fact I started with the opposite. No reason to believe in him and an expectation that it would turn out there was no reason to think a god existed. But through years of study the opposite has become apparent. You seem to assume a lot about how I think. But that tends to be how atheists I argue with go. They want to tell me what my argument is without realizing they are creating a straw man.

And I'm not using circular logic, that can be seen with how I begin with the arguments for the existence of God without ever deferring to his nature or anything to do with Christianity.

As for the church denying heliocentrism, did you even read that? How it was a Bishop that encouraged him to publish that theory and how he was given an audience before the Pope and clergy who listened with great interest? Do you know why? It was because academia, including astronomy, was controlled by the church. Of course the new idea met with some skepticism but so do scientific ideas of today.

And of course it didn't accept evolution. Evolution is a half theory with explanations that fit well but leave tons of room for doubt. Now if it had been more solid sure, but with the dubious nature of carbon dating and the less than important idea that God could have either made everything in a flash or does it slowly over time through natural process as he does everything else mattered little. Are you not aware of how politically wrapped up evolution was? Why would the church jump right on board without clear evidence?

Christians do not follow the ten commandments. They are part of the old covenant and no longer valid. They are simply kept as a history of the law and a hint at what to do now. But they are old. I'm afraid you don't understand biblical law very well if you think anything from the old covenant is still valid.

And there's no reason to think that single replicating cell(a molecule is a group of bonded atoms) couldn't have slowly evolved into the proto-humans that gave birth to Adam and Eve.

Do you think all Christians reject evolution? You know it doesn't contradict anything but maybe fundamental creationism but even that one accepts it in some sects.

The first Roman Olympics were in 776 BC, copying the Greeks as they did often.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the only way into heaven which is the definition of Christianity, they are not a Christian sect.

And yes, if I listened to Jesus I would sell everything and preach. I try to do that online as much as possible but I'm not a saint. I'm still learning and growing and maybe someday I will get there but certainly not now. Please do not look at me as a model Christian, I fall very short.

(More below)
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
User avatar
#3574 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
(Continued, ran out of room again.)
The bible is true and flawless but just saying that means little. As I said, point out some flaws, I will clear them up for you. I can show the bible is flawless if you will take the time.

I do my best to only believe because of the evidence. But I will admit I often find myself believing just because it feels good and right and brings me contentment. Those feelings are fine but should I find proof that the bible is wrong I would stop believing and even strong evidence would make me pause to do some deep study and research. I know you think all Christians are dumb emotionally driven and illogical but I can assure you this isn't true of me at the least.

And yes, I have read about what that article is talking about. It's sad that someone has to worry about their career being at risk just because they are religious. Being questioned if they are fit for the job just because they believe. The odd culture that smart people aren't religious driving the educated to strive to appear smart and thus not believe in things that might cause them to be mocked. Don't fear being mocked. Often it is from the insecurities of those who mock that the mockery comes.

But surely you have researched into absolute verses relative morality and know that your moral code is relative and thus made up and can change at the drop of a hat? You are aware that most educate atheist will submit that without God there can be more real morality and thus no morality at all. That such things are only there to keep social structure and thus there is nothing wrong with murder or rape. But there in lies the self defeating nature of such a belief. Without absolute morality, then it can't be said there is anything wrong with believing in a God or absolute morality. So someone who follows an absolute moral system is either right or at the least, not wrong.

Are you calling the Roman comment a conspiracy? Because that's just history, you can read it anywhere really.

And of course we have a society where we can live however we want. We always have. Men can dominate who they please, hurt who they want, do anything they please and try to stop one another from doing anything they please. The question is what actions are right or wrong. You seem to have an idea that freedom is what is right. But Christianity isn't calling for us to restrict the freedoms of each other. It calls for us to restrict our own freedoms. To restrain ourselves from doing bad things. From hurting each other, from lusting for flesh or wealth, from gluttony and self serving. You seem to think religion is oppressing you and yet what is the worst you have experienced? Being condescendingly talked to? Being made to feel uncomfortable about something you were doing that might be a sin?

And the lack of genetic diversity is only a theory, contested by other scientific genetic theories such as the genetic clock and mitochondrial DNA. But you will likely say that anything supporting the Adam and Eve pairing is simply silly Christians skewing science to try and prove something so it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought to you. You will continue to deny it is evidence at all and simply say I lack understanding on the subject.

I honestly don't feel like you are being very open to this discussion when you don't give any more of a explanation or evidence than "No. Just no." and "The bible isn't true, let along flawless..." They are statements for sure, but don't really add much of anything to the discussion.

Your cutting remarks and jabs make it very tedious to argue with you and while I am happy to explain things, I would request we keep things civil. Saying I am wrong is one thing. But calling me "dear" really comes off as provocative. So again, just a request.
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.
#66 - But you are telling me that it is wrong to not kill the girl a…  [+] (6 replies) 09/20/2016 on /pol/ shit 0
User avatar
#72 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
God damn it is it so hard to wrap around your head? I JUST TOLD YOU THAT OBJECTIVLY NONE OF THE ANSWERS CAN BE WRONG OR RIGHT! It is not even important HOW many people are on stack:

Your moral objective is : " i shall sacrefice no one for anything or anyone " This is as from you described absolut moral.

REGARDLESS if you do now something or nothing, YOU WILL sacrefice out of the consequences of your actions or lack off, certain amount of humans, for other humans, out of your own free fucking will!

If you answer my rigged question, you are always in the moral wrong (atleast from your standpoint, thats why the question is rigged against your absolut bullshit) , as your moral was broken by yourself. you sacreficed. That´s why its rigged! You can´t make a from your position moral good, just moral bad.

So yes, the question is rigged, regardless what you do, from your bibli founded and understood "objective and absolut morals " you just did regardless what you do a bad thing, still while trying to excuse it.

Why are you excusing your actions with bullshit if after your OWN rules you just broke you did something wrong? Shouldn´t you just accept instead your fuckign decision instead of trying to push the consequences of with " god will forgive me " even though you broke a absolut constante?

You have no choice but doing something wrong in this scenario, no fucking objective moral would be able to put into such a situation!

I PROOFED That YOUR moral code is not absolut! It can be broken! It can be put into a laughing stock and into absolut question if it makes even sense.

ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU CAN NOT SAFE THIS MILLIONS, THE INSTANT YOU CHOSE THE GIRL THEY ARE DEAD! You literally decide with your very single action, their maybe painful death ABSOLUT! AND YOU KNOW THIS! This is the entire situation at fucking hand! Stop putting circumstances into a situation that where not given you question avoider!

So to put it into summary: You broke your absolut moral rule of not sacreficing anyone, while being unable to not even NOT break your moral rule. What absolut rule can put into a situation that can JUST be broken?! If something absolut would exist it would come out ALWAYS as the good moral choice! In this one there exists NO moral good! Just FROM YOUR STANDPOINT MORAL BAD!

And if you don´t understand this yet, then im sorry but i will not keep discussing with someone unable to understand such simple position stacking.
User avatar
#75 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I haven't sacrificed anyone. I have failed to save those people and do a good deed. But failing to do a good thing isn't bad so long as you honestly did your best to do good.

So nothing wrong was done on my part with that choice.

But I think I see your confusion. The absolute moral code isn't to not sacrifice anyone. It's to TRY and no sacrifice anyone. Like I said. All you have to do is try your best.

Where did you get that my moral code was "sacrifice nothing?" I told you my moral code could be summed up in "Treat others as you would yourself"
User avatar
#78 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
You fucking moron failed to safe them by not sacreficing!

Is that so fucking hard?! Is it so difficult to just take responsebility that you are eithet the death angel for this millions or the girl?!

Tjere is no TRYING in this scenario! IF you want you will kill the girl absolutly for sure and not fail killing her, saving for sure anyone! If you decide not to kill jer you will not somehow magicly fail to not kill her!

You have no " chance " of failure, no way of helping this people but this one, absolut safe action!

This discussion is also now done as you dont even reply to your shit answer. Any person unable to love himself could after your idea do whatever he wants to people as long as it is not loving them.

Objectivr absolutes exist just on the base of physicle laws! NOT ON FROM HIGHER DEVOLPED APES WHO CAN FAIL IN THEIR SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

Because this is what morals are! SOCIAL COBSTRUCTS!

If tomorrow all humans die so will the human deffinition of morals! That simple! Light is always at a constant speed! Moral applycation that have PROVEN to change even in your fucking toilet paper book ( which made me btw atheistic alone from being unable to belief a perfect being creating imperfection, just to build them a fate of missery and pain that they will never be able to dodge from the very moment they are forced to chose between knowleadge and innocence! ) which was written by thousend upom thousend of people who all put their biased bullshit into it!

Also btw any fucking retard can make prophecys ' spookly ' accurate! I predict tomorroe will the sun rise! Also in 10 years will a war break out near 2 mountains and a continent will be on the edge on dying from a sickness!

After youe retarded idea of absolut moral choice i would be wrong to put someone out of his missery while he is dieng and unable to be safed while he begs me to, when i lovr myself to much to beg anyone to kill me!

I would be in moral wrong if i killed a serial killer while he plans to kill people, because i love myself to much as to allow people to kill me!

Your shit literally says that i am the asshole for doing things that many people would feel split in half and you take thr fucking arroganta to belief some omnipotent shitface, that had since 1000 years not shown his fucking face, came personely to your fucking ear and whispered you absolut wisdome into your ear!

THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER!
User avatar
#82 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Alright, we're going around in circles and you seem to be becoming increasingly upset so I'm going to stop. I really hope you will reread this conversation at a later date and try to understand what you are missing here. I'm not trying to insult at all but you really don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm truly sorry I upset you
User avatar
#76 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
No you failed safing this people be sacreficing the girl.

Same as you failed to safe the girl by sacreficing millions.

Willingly or not, you decide right now over millions of peoples life, regardless what you do, your action is paying ones life with the other.

We could also just take a single human life to a other single human life. You would still either sacrefice him or the other the each others life.

Also now youe horseshouing, you said clear and strictly that you will sacrefice NO ONE for anyones life!

Also if this is now your absolut moral bullshit you goal mover then we take a person that loves himself 0. Any human being theirfore can be of no importance for him nd he could ignore anyone in dire help and not be considered evil! Which is bullshit and you know it.
User avatar
#77 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand what absolute morality means. It has nothing to do with if a person fails or succeeds at it. And nothing was done wrong here. Sometimes you try your best and still fail. It happens. It doesn't mean you were morally wrong.

And yes. I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for anyone. But I'm not sacrificing those millions. I'm not killing them. They do not die by my hand. I might fail to save them. But no one would call me a murderer for not being able to save a life even with my best effort.

And again. You seem to be putting a ton of words in my mouth. I never said I would ignore the people in peril. Not once. I said I would try to save them. I would try to save everyone. That's perfectly in line with not sacrificing anyone. Doing your best to save everyone means you are willing to sacrifice none. Even if you fail to save them that doesn't change.
#3519 - And I was asking you to disprove the arguments I presented. Yo…  [+] (16 replies) 09/20/2016 on platinumaltaria's profile 0
User avatar
#3524 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Could you repeat said arguments?

As I said, you can't disprove a negative. Christian apologetics will never stop because apologists don't care about evidence.

Yeah those theologians are fucking stupid, it's not like they study the bible or anything.
Oh it says that it was written then, it must be true then. We don't typically believe scripture when it contradicts the evidence. And again, that's the first half, which has a different author to the second.

If I write in "Shakespearean English" does that prove my writing is 500 years old? We don't date books by what they say happened, that's silly.

And yet devout Christians predicted it anyway... -_-

Ok, well I assure you that I am, so you're just going to have to accept it.

I've spoken to plenty of religious apologists, and none of them have presented a compelling case. The fact that you don't even know when your own religious text was written isn't exactly reassuring that you know more than me.

Yes you are, however you're required to play the "holier than thou" card for the sake of your god.
User avatar
#3538 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
That seems unfair to say as Christian apologists, at least the respectable ones, do their best to only go with evidence and fact. I happen to be one myself and I would never discount a good argument and try very hard to remain unbiased at all times.

Yes. I was only talking about the date of the part I was referring to. But the bible is very historically accurate. Incredibly so in fact. Far more accurate than any other ancient book as it can be shown to talk about real people and real places in real historical time. That's not to say we have evidence of every single happening but it's reliability. And it's true that some people have tried to change the date and post date the prophesies but there is just far more evidence, like what I said before, that shows it was certainly written around the 600 B.C.E.

And no, we don't exclusively date books by what they say. We use historical science. Both relative dating to things we know and dating techniques such as carbon and linguistic style of the era. It's quite scientific which would have made me think you would like it but apparently not.

I would never play the holier than thou. If anything I'm being a know it all. But I told you my motive and I apologized and tried not to let it become offensive. I'm sorry if it was out of place.

And sense you claim to understand the arguments despite me telling you you don't then I will have to go back and ensure I understand them to be sure I'm not in error.

Lastly the arguments I was talking about are the teleological argument regarding the probability of events and how probable design is. The ontological argument regarding the causeless cause. The argument of necessity regarding the lack of purpose a life without God and absolute morality and why it's illogical to live that way. And the perfection and prophesy of the bible. This one is difficult to suggest because when you google it you will likely be taken to places like evilbible.com where they have long lists of proposed contradictions and false prophesies in the bible and the only way to address it would be to go through each one and find the verse and study it and study the context and debunk the fake contradiction. And trust me, it was quite a chore. So that one I'd probably want to help with.
User avatar
#3541 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
No, apologetics deals with arguments. Arguments aren't evidence.

That's fucking hilarious. No really, tell me another joke about the bible being accurate.
Why then do historians disagree with you. I trust them more than you.

History is not science. History is estimation.
Yeah, because no one can emulate the past. If the bible were written in 21st century english then that would be proof of god, but it isn't.

Let's examine these arguments:
So you say the "probability of events", which I can only assume is some nonsense about how likely it is for life to have formed etc. This is fallacious because whilst any one circumstance is very unlikely, one circumstance must exist.
Design isn't "probable", it either is or isn't. In the case of our universe, it isn't. We know this because we have fully satisfactory material explanations for all observable phenomena. No designer is evident.

The ontological argument is an argument from ignorance.

The argument of necessity is predicated on fallacious assertions; that life needs a purpose and that absolute morality exists.

The bible isn't perfect, it's self refuting on numerous occasions, and heavily contradictory. Here's a catalogue of every one ;)
infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
But you're right, they're fake! The perfect bible has fake contradictions in it to trick non-believers!

The bible contains zero prophecies.
User avatar
#3542 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Arguments are made of evidence. You present the evidence in a persuasive manner. I'm not sure why this needs explaining.

And some historians certainly contest things not the majority by any stretch. Unless you're talking about the things creationists believe. But that's less about history and more about the accuracy of historical dating methods. The more recent post Moses stuff is pretty agreed upon for the most part.

History is a form of science. Using evidence in the form of relative and absolute dating techniques to piece together. I agree it's not an exact science but just before you were contesting the accuracy of something that two groups estimate to be within 200-400 years of each other.

Yes, it's 100 percent sure that something would happen. But that doesn't reduce the incredibly tiny chance that it was this exact life supporting form. In fact, science is continuing to find it more and more unlikely that life should be possible. Any little variation in the constants of physics equations would render a life incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Read into it, it's rather fascinating.

Skipping over the ontological argument from just the surface huh? I was afraid of that. If you'll take some time to actually study it I think you'll find it's the strongest. No atheist that I have yet read the work of has even come close to a decent reply to it. But from how quickly you replied I get the feeling you didn't do much more than skim a wiki article about these arguments. Wikiperdia is a rather poor source for anything beside modern events. And even those articles are pretty biased, either left or right leaning.

As for the necessity argument, try to focus on what it's saying. It's not saying that life has to have a meaning. That's a whole different argument. It's saying that a life without an absolute meaning is illogical for a human to choose to live. Subtle difference but important.

Ah yes. This is the type of list I mentioned before. The best way, I think, for us to go about this one, is for you to read through them and find ones you find compelling, then bring them to me and I will show you why they are incorrect. I really don't know what else to do. I don't know if you have the biblical knowledge(or the patience) to go through them all on your own.

But they're not fake, they're simply false. Contradictions found by atheists hungry for something to use against the bible. Grasping at straws and weak attempts to show some problem. Most of them break even the definition of a contradiction, and some are simple translation errors where they pick a certain kind of bible translation and point to a word that could have been picked better.

As for the bible containing zero prophesies. I'm a bit surprised. Are you quite sure you looked hard enough? Nothing in there about the coming of Jesus? Nothing about Israel? The fall of Tier? All the pagans of Europe turning Christian? None of that?

User avatar
#3543 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Evidence does not require persuasion, it is empirical. If you have to coerce someone then you aren't using evidence.

So it's perfect, except those parts? Interesting. And no, actually the bible is MORE logically inconsistent in the second half of the old testament, and hilariously so in the new testament.

No. I'm sorry but that's just wrong. History is an estimation of the past, science can ONLY know things that it can directly observe or empirically measure. History is comprised primarily of accounts written by people, that shit doesn't fly in science.
If it isn't an "exact science" then it isn't science...

You've made the same fallacy again. The universe must exist in one state. This state is no more special than any other. And this world isn't life supporting, life ONLY EXISTS on this one planet.
If the universe was another way, then the people in that universe would claim that it was finely tuned for them specifically. We are the puddle, the universe is the hole.
Please don't insult my intelligence when displaying your own lack of intelligence, it does not contribute to the discussion and is merely an attack against me.

The ontological argument is a fallacy, there's nothing to discuss... I can't dismantle something that hasn't even been put together.
I don't need to read a wiki article, I have encountered them multiple times before.

Why is it illogical to live in a world without absolute morality. I get along just fine. What's illogical is attributing morality to magic, as opposed to the naturalistic explanation derived from our evolutionary history.

All of them are compelling, and you can't refute them, because they're taken directly as quotes from your bible. What you must employ is apologetics, where you pretend that the words have a different meaning, and twist reality to fit your explanation. I have no interest in such nonsense, since it doesn't begin to constitute an argument, and is little more than damage control.

I don't need to use anything against the bible, it has less realistic content than Harry Potter...
"They translated it wrong" then you should have no problem getting the book altered with the new translation, since it's so obviously incorrect. In fact, you should translate the entire book yourself, since you of course speak ancient greek, and know the correct translations!

Yes, I read the entire book cover to cover, and encountered no prophecies. I assure you that if you take the time to read it you will find that every so-called prophecy is either an obvious statement with no future sight required, a self-fulfilling prophecy, or merely a historical account retold as prophecy years after the fact. The bible is not magic, the bible is one of many ancient texts that claims to know the answers to every question, so long as you don't think too hard.
User avatar
#3544 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I didn't say coerce. And you have to persuade with an argument. Evidence, especially empirical evidence, helps. The new iphone 7 won't come out unless the ceos get convinced headphones are unnecessary with a profit margin argument.

And again, no. That's not even close to what I said. It's perfect in all ways. Those contradictions are wrong and made up and I'm happy to show you.

And we can observe the things left by the past and measure them. I don't know why this is an argument. Go read the definition of history. It's not worth arguing honestly.

You misunderstand and I explained poorly then. It's not that if the universe was a different way people would say the same. It's that there wouldn't be people if the universe was a different way. And I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. I'm trying to show you that you need to read into it because I cannot explain it in depth enough here. This is proven by how you misunderstood thanks to my lack of explaining it deeply enough.

And again. You dismiss the argument without understanding. Please look up some information about it. I suggest William Lane Craig's books. He doesn't explain is perfectly but he does a way better job than I am, clearly.

You do not get along just fine. Do you really think this world is doing well? The state we are in? I might agree you survive but what is truly illogical is to think that just because we can describe the mechanism of evolution used to get us here that it couldn't have been done by a creator. But if you look at the facts of societal structure and health. Being a moral religious, especially Christian person is just best in so many ways. Society was built on it. Just before the fall of the major empires, the Romans, the Persians, the Greeks, they fell into a debotcherous lifestyle that was the cannery in the coal mine to their fall.

I'm afraid I can refute them. Because yes, they are taken from the bible. Most of the time out of context or without understanding. There are some so dumb as to say "KIll those who would defy me." but the story is about a king that is in a story who says that and then gets punished by God. Context is very important.

I don't care for the translations of the bible. There's a reason it was illegal to translate the bible up until Martin Luther did it in Germany. It's very hard to take a language and get the exact meaning into another language. Especially when the very structure of the languages are different. Why do you think there is so much trouble with interpretations? When you have various different words they can have different meanings to different readers. Like the difference between "The meek shall inherit the Earth" and "the humble shall inherit the Earth" they are similar but different.

I have looked over every prophesy and I can tell you these are specific and intentional prophesies. They say that they are telling the future and they go into great detail as to what will happen. So, again, no trying to insult, but if you read it and missed the prophesies then you didn't read it very carefully nor did you understand what you were reading. This I can be confident in asserting because I have studied it harshly looking for holes back when I was still figuring out which religion was the correct one, if any.
User avatar
#3546 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
Yes, and the release of shitty consumer products isn't science... Go to a physicist and try arguing that god exists, they will laugh you out of the building. Science doesn't play with arguments, it deals with evidence. If you want to convince me that your god is real, then you need evidence, not arguments.

Please do show me, I'll just be here with my talking snake and worldwide flood.

Yes, you can observe what remains, but you rely on interpretation, not empiricism.

There is no reason to believe that the universal constants can be anything other than what they are, so speculating is pointless.

WLC XD Really? Why is it that apologists always cite other apologists, and always the worst ones.
I've seen all his arguments, and they're terrible. Frankly it was insulting that you even mentioned them in the first place.

Yes. The world is safer and more pleasant than any time in history.
Evolution is a natural process, it does not require a creator.
Christianity is just a derelict faith from the middle east, it has no place in secular western civilisation.
Society was built on the golden rule, which has nothing to do with christianity.
No they didn't, they fell because they were conquered by someone else. And again, you're preaching "end times" nonsense.

Context is interpretation, there is no inherent context that is more correct than any other. The book stands on its own merits, not on what you have to say about it.

I can find no evidence of any law preventing translation, and apparently there was a 1383 translation into middle english, so you're talking nonsense.
The trouble arises from what I said before: everyone has a personal god. People disagree about what god says when they really disagree with each other.
Ok, well pick a translation and I'll dissect that one.

I didn't miss anything, as I said they are easily explained by the phenomena I listed. The fact that you want there to be magic is the only reason that you entertain the notion that someone predicted the future. But if predicting the future is so easy, then you should have no trouble making a prediction for me now.
User avatar
#3568 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Well, then I guess we are at an impasse. What I have shown you is solid evidence but you keep dismissing them and saying you have already heard of them and yet misquote and incorrectly repeat them back to me. I don't know how to have an argument with someone who refuses evidence and proof without even looking. It seems to me you believe you already know it all. To be honest, I can tell you don't, but you're certainly not going to take my word because you will just interpret it as me trying to insult you or perhaps accuse me of changing the argument. Either way, that's the impasse.

And what do you mean by this comment? Everyone agrees that a talking snake and world flood couldn't happen under normal circumstance. But with the help of God they of course could. So are you trying to say that they couldn't happen without God? Yeah, I agree. Isn't that obvious? God did them. I'm not sure that that statement is meant to imply. Mockery perhaps? Alright then. Mockery and jabbing jokes is often all an atheist has to argue with.

Perhaps you don't realize how much interpretation science relies on. It's scant few empirical figures supported by loads of interpretation of data and meta data.

And I find it interesting but it's not me that's believing it heavy. It's the mathematical physicists and astronomers who are making those claims.

Yes. He gets made fun of a lot. He's shaking up a lot of very old dusty schools of thought and the secular atheist schools don't like it very much. Make fun of him all you like. He's quite good at what he does.

The world is safer with the literal destruction of all human life a few minutes away from launch at all times?

But if it doesn't require a creator, when did it start? Evolution touches upon what happened after the first cell was created But created by what? Look back over the arguments I stated and you might figure out why it does indeed need a creator.

It built western civilization, just as the bible predicted it would.

Yeah. Christian morals didn't shape western civilization and the morality systems of the world or anything.

And why were they conquered? Because they were weak. And what made them weak? Hedonism.

I can tell you, as someone who has studied the bible extensively, that interpretation is harder to do the more you study. There is a reason that all of Christianity, all the sects, all the different denominations, they all believe just about the same thing and only argue about the small points. It's the every rare and small group that off shoots to believe anything radical. The bible has a single message, you just have to we wise enough to learn it.

And I wouldn't doubt if there were other translations. But it was against church law at the time. Martin Luther did it mostly to spite the church.

I use every translation as well as the original Hebrew and Greek texts to get the full message that was intended. You can kind little flaws with ever translation. But they are minor and only matter if you are really studying deeply.

Do I look like a prophet to you? I'm a sinner and a fool. I have no power through God I barely have the power to live a half moral life. And what you said means nothing. You can't just explain how it might be wrong and then it is. These prophesies have been around for thousands of years. You think you are the first to realize they might be wrong? It's not even a debate. Go read them yourself and learn. They are in any bible.
User avatar
#3569 - platinumaltaria (09/21/2016) [-]
You still haven't shown me any evidence. You've recited the same tired arguments as every other apologist, and expected them to carry more weight than the hundred other times I've heard them.

Yes, you believe in magic. I do not, ergo the idea of talking wildlife and impossible weather are laughable. Snakes do not have vocal chords, so no amount of magic is ever going to allow them to speak. The fact that people in the modern world believe such ludicrous fairy tales is distressing.
No I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you of your own stupidity. What you choose to do with that information is none of my concern. Perhaps opening a book and learnign something with some semblance of fact?

By definition science does not rely on interpretation, empiricism is the opposite of interpretation.

Yes, and unlike you they are backing their claims with evidence...

No, he's doing what every apologist does; pretending that the past 200 years of scientific advancement didn't happen, and ascribing every thing to magic. That's silly, and you will never convince any rational person with that without EVIDENCE.

Yes. Have you heard the phrase "mutually assured destruction"? We can't have large scale wars anymore, because there would be no winners. Conflict is now resigned to small terror cells and militant factions.

It started when the first organism came into being...
Abiogenesis (the inception of life in the universe) has nothing to do with evolution. And no, if you read this Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis you will what we currently understand of the subject. None of it is attributed to a deity.

No it didn't, western civilisation has risen in spite of religion. The church has always been the hand pushing people backwards into the dark ages, because religion cannot survive when people are educated. It needs minds full of unanswered questions so that it can provide made-up answers.

If you think that then you're an idiot. The golden rule, the foundation of morality, was not devised by Christians (it's not even followed by Christians), it is a part of our evolutionary programming that favours helping the group to survive. Every culture takes part of this to some extent, both long before christianity and far away from its influence.

No. The Roman empire fell because it couldn't keep up with the large number of barbarians on its borders. As an empire grows its border gets longer, meaning more to defend. Thus, every empire will collapse eventually. Their lifestyle didn't change at all, if anything their lives would have gotten worse in the impending doom, becoming more pious and less frivolous.

Really? Catholicism completely disagrees about the 2nd commandment (as evidenced by their giant gold palace), Mormons believe in a completely different creation story. Christian denominations really only agree on one thing; there was a guy called Jesus who was the son of god (and even that point is contested).

No, you interpret it, the same way the person who wrote the bible down had to interpret the story for themself.
So there are flaws? Not perfect then.
If the flaws are minor then it shouldn't matter which version you read, eh?

You're right on one account there, sins aren't real though.

Here's a question for you; why on earth did you decide that a thousand year old book of fairy tales was the most accurate description of reality? Why do you think that nearly every scientist on earth disagrees with that sentiment? Are they all lying? Is there a conspiracy to hide god? Why do you want to live in such a silly world anyway, you can't seriously think that we're all descended from 2 people.
User avatar
#3571 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
To answer your very last question(Sorry, I ran of out characters)

The reason I decided upon the bible was after first studying philosophy to figure out if there was a God or not. Once I was certain then i moved on to study the nature of God to see if he was good or not. I could only determine that he has to be good out of necessity because if he is not good then there is nothing we can do about it. I then needed to determine which record of what he did and said was the correct one in order to know what to do. I settled, with great confidence, upon the bible.

And nearly every scientist doesn't disagree. There are a large part of the scientific population who are religious and even Christian. Greater still are the number who are diet or spiritual.

And of course the ones who don't believe aren't lying. They simply don't care enough. It's so very easy and tempting to live your life without every looking around you. You do your job, you work for a new car and for a bigger house. You have kids and they suck up huge parts of your life. There's so little energy left at the end of the day to study into what is morally right and wrong. And they are experts in science but naive about philosophy and religion. And will take it at face value if someone were to tell them all religion is made up magic. It's easier to accept than having to go into a long life long journey to find out for themselves. And it means you get to sleep in Sunday. Morality is a pain in the butt and gets in the way quite often.

And there is a conspiracy to hide God. God and morality get in the way of sin. So many people love their sin. They love being rich, they love having sex, they love expensive toys and being able to not help those in need. You can see it in modern society where people so often get offended and even angry if you try to judge them. Saying "How dare you say I shouldn't do this! How dare you say something I like is morally wrong!" You'll see it time and time again, the death of Christianity is the death of religion.

And it's not silly to me. In fact it;s the only heartening way of living. And I think there is a good chance we did descend from two people. Were they a metaphor for the early populations of humans that rose up from Africa/The Middle East? I lean towards no, that they very much were just the first two humans, born from protohuman parents, that both had the capacity for understanding high enough concepts to be considered a modern human. They may have even been brother and sister. It would explain the higher chance of passing on the traits that give them higher intelligence. And yes, ew incest and all that but incest is only bad when it's bad.
User avatar
#3570 - Vandeekree (09/21/2016) [-]
Indeed, that's why I switched my argument. When I presented you with those same arguments and their latest advancements, you repeated them back to me incorrectly. You didn't seem to understand them and, I'm sorry, but it seemed that the reason that you misunderstood is because you haven't actually taken the time to understand them. You argue against a modified version of them. One that you seem to have made up in your mind but not what the actual arguments state. So I changed my talk from pushing those arguments to trying to convince you to go back and study them again with (I'm sorry to say it this way but I don't know how else to put it) less bias.

And yet you would believe it without being shown if someone read that "scientist discover snake with mutated vocal cords." It's not magic. Magic has the connotation of being something suddenly happening without explanation. If I turned myself into a frog it would be magic, but if I told you I was going to do it because God gave me the power then it becomes a miracle. Why? Semantics. But you know exactly why you choose to use the word magic. Because it is belittling and flippant instead of the more respectable way of calling it an "act of God." Again, I'm sure mockery will push plenty of people away from religion for fear of being mocked. I'm not one of them and in a civil argument please don't resort to it.

And no one is ignoring any scientific advances. In fact, apologists expressly look at those advances and study them to help see if any proof for or against God can be made. I don't know how much work from Christian apologists you have studied but when I read their work I was impressed with the unbiased look at science they had. Often citing the counter arguments to what they say and making sure that anything that prevents their argument from being air tight is known. You seem to have gotten the opposite impression that apologists ignore all facts and reason and just blather about emotionally driven faith. I really have no idea what apologists you have been studying.

Of course not. None of science touches on if a deity is making these things happen or not. Why would you? Science is simple observation of phenomena around us, it doesn't and can't touch on what causes these things to happen. That was my intended point, that it can't touch on the existence of God and is in no way contradictory to God.

And that's just historically false. Religion made science and made academicia. There's a reason the bible calls men to seek knowledge. I'm not going to argue this because it really is just a fact that you can find with simple reading into the eras described. If you don't care to and would rather have your world view helping but wrong ideas that religion was just there while modern learning happened beside it then I'm afraid I'm going to have to call it as bias again.

Again you speculate and profile. Christians do indeed follow the golden rule and you assume that it was around before Christianity. But before Christianity there was Judaism that spanned all the way back to the first man and woman.

And it was a Roman that took down the Romans, Not the barbarians, they simply came in and pillaged once it was weak and helpless. And their lifestyles did change. Did you notice how they began with Olympic games of running and wrestling, then slowly changed to violent chariot races where men would die and then went further to men fighting each other and animals to the death for sport? Over time the power corrupted their morals. To say otherwise isn't arguing against me, it's arguing against well established history.

While the Catholics do have some big differences, an idol is something you worship. They do not worship their statues or finery though I agree they would be better off taking it out of their museums and selling it for charity. And Mormons are not Christian at all.

The bible is flawless. You refuse to read those words so it's all I'll say.
User avatar
#3572 - platinumaltaria (09/22/2016) [-]
No I wouldn't, because that's impossible. Science is about the evidence, not the answer.
I'm not belittling your beliefs, I'm pointing out how ridiculous they are. God is magic, the fact that you think he's real doesn't change the fact that he isn't, and he's just another supernatural explanation like santa.
A lot of theists try and use the "please be nice or I won't discuss it", which boils down to "agree with everything I say or I'll have to hide from reality". Don't resort to it.

There's your problem; you start with "god exists" and move on to "how can I prove it". That's not scientific, that's crazy. You always start with a hypothesis, not a statement of certainty.
I'll cite Eric Hovind as an excellent example of not viewing science unbiasedly, or reality itself for that matter. Your entire argument is predicated on the presumption of a god, which you then use to prove there's a god. That's circular reasoning.

No, science is a study of the material world; what can be shown to exist. If there is a god, then said god is not interacting with this universe in any measurable way, otherwise the deity would be material. If you can't detect something, what reason do you have to believe that it exists?

No. Just no.
Here's the church denying heliocentrism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Religious_attitudes_to_Heliocentrism

The catholic church didn't even accept evolution until this decade, and most Christians still haven't. Religion cannot accept science, because science contradicts it at every turn. But totally this stuff never happened, it's "historically false".

No, Christians follow the ten commandments and the laws in deuteronomy. None of these are the golden rule.
The golden rule is inherent to our biological programming, so yes, it was around before christianity. And before humans.
No dear, you aren't descended from one man and one woman, you're descended from one replicating molecule.

I know that your religion has a narrative of "Sodom and Gomorrah" where everything has to go to shit before the end, but that's factually inaccurate, ask any historian.
The Olympic Games were greek, not roman... The greeks had a culture of artists and philosophers, the romans were more interested in shows of physical strength and skill, pertaining to their more military lifestyle. Neither of these is inherently superior to the other; both had a huge impact on the world after them. Open a book please.

If you actually listened to what you think jesus said, you'd sell everything you own and wander the earth preaching god's word. But you won't, because that would be too hard.
Mormons are Christians, they believe that Christ is the son of god... the fact that they believe more crazy shit than you is irrelevant.

The bible isn't even true, let alone flawless...

>>3571
I have some advice for you, consider the EVIDENCE that you have for your god, and whether or not you believe because you want to, or because the evidence indicates it.

www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
And that's just what people call themselves, how many of those people are religious in name only? And what about the people who follow a different god to you?

There are no moral absolutes, I am more than content living my life by my own moral code, rather than someone else's.
That's because philosophy and religion have nothing to do with science.

Do you have evidence of this conspiracy?
Yes, we're in a society where people can choose to live how they want, not how you dictate. That's a good thing.

You have a very poor understanding of how evolution works.
No, if humans descended from two people they would have NO genetic diversity, this is called a genetic bottleneck, and it is extremely harmful.
User avatar
#3575 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
While I do feel that a certain politeness is necessary when having a talk like this, I wouldn't try to threaten not to talk with you over it. Though if it were to come to cursing and anger then I would end the argument simply because I'm clearly provoking rather than discussing.

But you really can't say that it's a fact that God doesn't exist, especially when so much evidence points to the contrary. In fact, it make no logical sense that there isn't a creator and a first causeless cause as no other explanation has been proposed. If you study the arguments of the prominent atheists they simply don't address this. It can be argued if God is perhaps evil or what an all powerful being thinks and feels, there's just no argument presented that God doesn't exist besides deferring to refusing to believe he could exist and saying that something else yet unknown or unable to be understood was the cause, that's just illogical in all ways, scientific or otherwise.

And no, I did not start with "God exists" in fact I started with the opposite. No reason to believe in him and an expectation that it would turn out there was no reason to think a god existed. But through years of study the opposite has become apparent. You seem to assume a lot about how I think. But that tends to be how atheists I argue with go. They want to tell me what my argument is without realizing they are creating a straw man.

And I'm not using circular logic, that can be seen with how I begin with the arguments for the existence of God without ever deferring to his nature or anything to do with Christianity.

As for the church denying heliocentrism, did you even read that? How it was a Bishop that encouraged him to publish that theory and how he was given an audience before the Pope and clergy who listened with great interest? Do you know why? It was because academia, including astronomy, was controlled by the church. Of course the new idea met with some skepticism but so do scientific ideas of today.

And of course it didn't accept evolution. Evolution is a half theory with explanations that fit well but leave tons of room for doubt. Now if it had been more solid sure, but with the dubious nature of carbon dating and the less than important idea that God could have either made everything in a flash or does it slowly over time through natural process as he does everything else mattered little. Are you not aware of how politically wrapped up evolution was? Why would the church jump right on board without clear evidence?

Christians do not follow the ten commandments. They are part of the old covenant and no longer valid. They are simply kept as a history of the law and a hint at what to do now. But they are old. I'm afraid you don't understand biblical law very well if you think anything from the old covenant is still valid.

And there's no reason to think that single replicating cell(a molecule is a group of bonded atoms) couldn't have slowly evolved into the proto-humans that gave birth to Adam and Eve.

Do you think all Christians reject evolution? You know it doesn't contradict anything but maybe fundamental creationism but even that one accepts it in some sects.

The first Roman Olympics were in 776 BC, copying the Greeks as they did often.

But Mormons don't believe that Jesus is the only way into heaven which is the definition of Christianity, they are not a Christian sect.

And yes, if I listened to Jesus I would sell everything and preach. I try to do that online as much as possible but I'm not a saint. I'm still learning and growing and maybe someday I will get there but certainly not now. Please do not look at me as a model Christian, I fall very short.

(More below)
User avatar
#3577 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
Oh that's nice, at least you're civil.

Yes there has, in fact there are several I can think of off the top of my head:
1) The universe has a divine creator
2) The universe has a material creator
3) The universe was born spontaneously
4) The universe has always existed in some state

I'll say what countless atheists have before me; God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, there is nothing that I can say that will disprove it. What I can do is debunk the evidence you present, which is what I am doing.
I don't refuse to believe god exists, in fact like most atheists I'd be delighted to discover some divine afterlife post-mortem. But I can't just believe because I want to, I need evidence.

I'm not creating a strawman, I'm directly responding to what you say. If I misinterpret what you said then that's on me, but it's not a strawman, it's a mistake.

Yes, however what we can assess is that your thought process went thusly:
1) I think there is a god
2) I will find evidence for god
3) I believe there is a god
4) Which god is right
5) This god is right
You went seeking god and you found him... that's not surprising.

Please read this, especially the first line. It shows how accepting the church was.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Scepticism doesn't mean disbelief. Scepticism is to question the evidence, not to deny it.

No evolution is the most stable theory in biology... The only reason anyone questions it is, like the heliocentrism argument, they want an alternative model.
Carbon dating isn't used anymore, we use radiometric dating, which is extremely accurate.
There is clear evidence, in fact wikipedia outlines it very well:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

If you had read the bible you would know that the commandments were specifically exempt from this new ruling.

Yes there is, the fact that animals do not give birth to animals of other species. It just doesn't happen.
The first life form on earth was not a cell, it was a replicating molecule. Cells are incredibly complex, and could never form naturally without the intervention of a creator, material or otherwise.

No.
Yes I know, this is called cognitive dissonance.

Actually that's not a required belief, that's just specific to your brand of christianity. Some sects believe that good deeds are all that is required, and knowledge of the faith is unimportant.

Maybe stop trying to be a good christian and be a good person?
User avatar
#3574 - Vandeekree (09/24/2016) [-]
(Continued, ran out of room again.)
The bible is true and flawless but just saying that means little. As I said, point out some flaws, I will clear them up for you. I can show the bible is flawless if you will take the time.

I do my best to only believe because of the evidence. But I will admit I often find myself believing just because it feels good and right and brings me contentment. Those feelings are fine but should I find proof that the bible is wrong I would stop believing and even strong evidence would make me pause to do some deep study and research. I know you think all Christians are dumb emotionally driven and illogical but I can assure you this isn't true of me at the least.

And yes, I have read about what that article is talking about. It's sad that someone has to worry about their career being at risk just because they are religious. Being questioned if they are fit for the job just because they believe. The odd culture that smart people aren't religious driving the educated to strive to appear smart and thus not believe in things that might cause them to be mocked. Don't fear being mocked. Often it is from the insecurities of those who mock that the mockery comes.

But surely you have researched into absolute verses relative morality and know that your moral code is relative and thus made up and can change at the drop of a hat? You are aware that most educate atheist will submit that without God there can be more real morality and thus no morality at all. That such things are only there to keep social structure and thus there is nothing wrong with murder or rape. But there in lies the self defeating nature of such a belief. Without absolute morality, then it can't be said there is anything wrong with believing in a God or absolute morality. So someone who follows an absolute moral system is either right or at the least, not wrong.

Are you calling the Roman comment a conspiracy? Because that's just history, you can read it anywhere really.

And of course we have a society where we can live however we want. We always have. Men can dominate who they please, hurt who they want, do anything they please and try to stop one another from doing anything they please. The question is what actions are right or wrong. You seem to have an idea that freedom is what is right. But Christianity isn't calling for us to restrict the freedoms of each other. It calls for us to restrict our own freedoms. To restrain ourselves from doing bad things. From hurting each other, from lusting for flesh or wealth, from gluttony and self serving. You seem to think religion is oppressing you and yet what is the worst you have experienced? Being condescendingly talked to? Being made to feel uncomfortable about something you were doing that might be a sin?

And the lack of genetic diversity is only a theory, contested by other scientific genetic theories such as the genetic clock and mitochondrial DNA. But you will likely say that anything supporting the Adam and Eve pairing is simply silly Christians skewing science to try and prove something so it doesn't matter how much evidence is brought to you. You will continue to deny it is evidence at all and simply say I lack understanding on the subject.

I honestly don't feel like you are being very open to this discussion when you don't give any more of a explanation or evidence than "No. Just no." and "The bible isn't true, let along flawless..." They are statements for sure, but don't really add much of anything to the discussion.

Your cutting remarks and jabs make it very tedious to argue with you and while I am happy to explain things, I would request we keep things civil. Saying I am wrong is one thing. But calling me "dear" really comes off as provocative. So again, just a request.
User avatar
#3576 - platinumaltaria (09/24/2016) [-]
The entire first and second book.

I don't think christians are stupid; some are taught from a young age to believe, some are sent that way by bad circumstances. Religion is a coping mechanism for some when reality becomes to difficult; there's no shame in that.

Science is the opposite of dogma, so it's not surprising that religious people are less interested in science and more interested in dogma.
I'm not mocking you, I'm informing you.

No, morality is derived from evolution. No god is required.
There is everything wrong with murder and rape; it's very harmful to our species to go around killing and hurting each other. That's what morality is.
The premise that without absolute morality nothing can be right or wrong is nonsense. Just because right and wrong are subjective doesn't mean they don't exist.

I studied the roman empire for a year or so, and I can assure you that it did not go the way you think it did.

Yeah except for those laws...
No they can't, because laws.
I am a liberal, I believe individual freedom should be preserved where it can.
Christianity also calls for you to kill the gays, so I'm going to say no to that one. You can have rules without them coming out of a fairy tale.
Religion has done nothing to me specifically, it's what it's done to other people that concerns me. People who might otherwise be great thinkers have been tied down to ancient superstitions. Children have been pressured by their parents into faith. It's not right.
Sins don't exist.

No it isn't, we observe it directly in the cheetah, who has severe issues due to it.
I've no idea how the genetic clock relates to the topic at hand.
I assume you're referring to the fact that we all have a common mitochondrial ancestor, nicknamed Mitochondrial Eve, however she lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in east africa, rather than 6000 years ago in the middle east. However, this is only our most recent common ancestor, it's not the first human.
No, I will present the evidence which explains why you are wrong.

Do you see the paragraphs here explaining the evidence? I do.

I apologise, that is merely how I converse. If terms of endearment insult you I can start calling you impolite names instead.
#63 - No no. That's not what I was asking. I understand th…  [+] (8 replies) 09/20/2016 on /pol/ shit 0
User avatar
#64 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
none.

my moral code stands not in question you baboon.

YOURS is in question. Don´t change the fuckign subject, matter of fact, there is no actuell obejctive true answer to my rigged question, the question was just to exploid while your moral of " i shall sacrefice noone " does not work, if put into a situation in which you will sacrefice a binary amount of humans for other human/s.

Any answer to the question can be seen as moral or not, point is though you broke yours be answering my question in the first place.

Don´t try bullshiting me here.
User avatar
#66 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
But you are telling me that it is wrong to not kill the girl and yet you base that it is wrong on....no moral code whatsoever?

Does that make any logical sense to you? You can't tell me something is wrong but give no reason for it.

And that's not a rigged question. We are talking about morals and which moral system is right. You can't rig and question like that because you are only going by your moral system as to which action or lack of action is right or wrong. That's the very nature of our argument.

And I didn't. I told you my moral basis. To love others as you love yourself. And the most loving thing to do is to not hurt the girl and to try your best to save the other millions. But if you can't save them then it's sad but simply a fact of life. Nothing about my moral system is broken there.
User avatar
#72 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
God damn it is it so hard to wrap around your head? I JUST TOLD YOU THAT OBJECTIVLY NONE OF THE ANSWERS CAN BE WRONG OR RIGHT! It is not even important HOW many people are on stack:

Your moral objective is : " i shall sacrefice no one for anything or anyone " This is as from you described absolut moral.

REGARDLESS if you do now something or nothing, YOU WILL sacrefice out of the consequences of your actions or lack off, certain amount of humans, for other humans, out of your own free fucking will!

If you answer my rigged question, you are always in the moral wrong (atleast from your standpoint, thats why the question is rigged against your absolut bullshit) , as your moral was broken by yourself. you sacreficed. That´s why its rigged! You can´t make a from your position moral good, just moral bad.

So yes, the question is rigged, regardless what you do, from your bibli founded and understood "objective and absolut morals " you just did regardless what you do a bad thing, still while trying to excuse it.

Why are you excusing your actions with bullshit if after your OWN rules you just broke you did something wrong? Shouldn´t you just accept instead your fuckign decision instead of trying to push the consequences of with " god will forgive me " even though you broke a absolut constante?

You have no choice but doing something wrong in this scenario, no fucking objective moral would be able to put into such a situation!

I PROOFED That YOUR moral code is not absolut! It can be broken! It can be put into a laughing stock and into absolut question if it makes even sense.

ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU CAN NOT SAFE THIS MILLIONS, THE INSTANT YOU CHOSE THE GIRL THEY ARE DEAD! You literally decide with your very single action, their maybe painful death ABSOLUT! AND YOU KNOW THIS! This is the entire situation at fucking hand! Stop putting circumstances into a situation that where not given you question avoider!

So to put it into summary: You broke your absolut moral rule of not sacreficing anyone, while being unable to not even NOT break your moral rule. What absolut rule can put into a situation that can JUST be broken?! If something absolut would exist it would come out ALWAYS as the good moral choice! In this one there exists NO moral good! Just FROM YOUR STANDPOINT MORAL BAD!

And if you don´t understand this yet, then im sorry but i will not keep discussing with someone unable to understand such simple position stacking.
User avatar
#75 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I haven't sacrificed anyone. I have failed to save those people and do a good deed. But failing to do a good thing isn't bad so long as you honestly did your best to do good.

So nothing wrong was done on my part with that choice.

But I think I see your confusion. The absolute moral code isn't to not sacrifice anyone. It's to TRY and no sacrifice anyone. Like I said. All you have to do is try your best.

Where did you get that my moral code was "sacrifice nothing?" I told you my moral code could be summed up in "Treat others as you would yourself"
User avatar
#78 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
You fucking moron failed to safe them by not sacreficing!

Is that so fucking hard?! Is it so difficult to just take responsebility that you are eithet the death angel for this millions or the girl?!

Tjere is no TRYING in this scenario! IF you want you will kill the girl absolutly for sure and not fail killing her, saving for sure anyone! If you decide not to kill jer you will not somehow magicly fail to not kill her!

You have no " chance " of failure, no way of helping this people but this one, absolut safe action!

This discussion is also now done as you dont even reply to your shit answer. Any person unable to love himself could after your idea do whatever he wants to people as long as it is not loving them.

Objectivr absolutes exist just on the base of physicle laws! NOT ON FROM HIGHER DEVOLPED APES WHO CAN FAIL IN THEIR SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

Because this is what morals are! SOCIAL COBSTRUCTS!

If tomorrow all humans die so will the human deffinition of morals! That simple! Light is always at a constant speed! Moral applycation that have PROVEN to change even in your fucking toilet paper book ( which made me btw atheistic alone from being unable to belief a perfect being creating imperfection, just to build them a fate of missery and pain that they will never be able to dodge from the very moment they are forced to chose between knowleadge and innocence! ) which was written by thousend upom thousend of people who all put their biased bullshit into it!

Also btw any fucking retard can make prophecys ' spookly ' accurate! I predict tomorroe will the sun rise! Also in 10 years will a war break out near 2 mountains and a continent will be on the edge on dying from a sickness!

After youe retarded idea of absolut moral choice i would be wrong to put someone out of his missery while he is dieng and unable to be safed while he begs me to, when i lovr myself to much to beg anyone to kill me!

I would be in moral wrong if i killed a serial killer while he plans to kill people, because i love myself to much as to allow people to kill me!

Your shit literally says that i am the asshole for doing things that many people would feel split in half and you take thr fucking arroganta to belief some omnipotent shitface, that had since 1000 years not shown his fucking face, came personely to your fucking ear and whispered you absolut wisdome into your ear!

THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER!
User avatar
#82 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Alright, we're going around in circles and you seem to be becoming increasingly upset so I'm going to stop. I really hope you will reread this conversation at a later date and try to understand what you are missing here. I'm not trying to insult at all but you really don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm truly sorry I upset you
User avatar
#76 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
No you failed safing this people be sacreficing the girl.

Same as you failed to safe the girl by sacreficing millions.

Willingly or not, you decide right now over millions of peoples life, regardless what you do, your action is paying ones life with the other.

We could also just take a single human life to a other single human life. You would still either sacrefice him or the other the each others life.

Also now youe horseshouing, you said clear and strictly that you will sacrefice NO ONE for anyones life!

Also if this is now your absolut moral bullshit you goal mover then we take a person that loves himself 0. Any human being theirfore can be of no importance for him nd he could ignore anyone in dire help and not be considered evil! Which is bullshit and you know it.
User avatar
#77 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand what absolute morality means. It has nothing to do with if a person fails or succeeds at it. And nothing was done wrong here. Sometimes you try your best and still fail. It happens. It doesn't mean you were morally wrong.

And yes. I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for anyone. But I'm not sacrificing those millions. I'm not killing them. They do not die by my hand. I might fail to save them. But no one would call me a murderer for not being able to save a life even with my best effort.

And again. You seem to be putting a ton of words in my mouth. I never said I would ignore the people in peril. Not once. I said I would try to save them. I would try to save everyone. That's perfectly in line with not sacrificing anyone. Doing your best to save everyone means you are willing to sacrifice none. Even if you fail to save them that doesn't change.
#58 - So let me ask you this. By what moral code are you responsible…  [+] (10 replies) 09/20/2016 on /pol/ shit 0
User avatar
#61 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
By chosing.

Whatever you chose, you have to live with the consequences, you chose the girl, all this people will die.

You chose the people you gotta kill the girl.

It´s about accepthing the FUCKING consequences your actions have.

you chosed not to act, theirfore the consequence is the girl may life but everyone of this million people will die for sure, with you unable to do anything.

Actions have consequences, just as much as not chosing to do anything has consequences. Afterall am i innocent if i decide not to pull someone out off a wrack of a destroyed car when i am the only one around to help? Am i suddenly somehow not in charge of his life be simply either go help or ignoring?

Either i do something and have to accept the consequences that he might die while i help him.

Or i do nothing and accept the consequence that he will die with me seemingless after your logic not in fault.

The entire FUCKING scenario is about You knowing that if you don´t kill the fucking child that millions of people will die. Yoru action or lack off will have consequences, moral and physicle consequences.

I could as well just turn the scenario around if the fuckign point of you doing something passive causes you to be at fault confuses the fuck out of you.

The girl is in a machine which will rescue millions of people but in pay for kill her, you can do nothing but press a buttom that will release her.

So now here we go: Are you now innocent if you decide not to rescue the girl? You could have saved her but for that millions will die. If you chose to do nothing you will passivly kill her and rescue instead millions be being passive and not involve yourself in it.

Is that so fucking hard to wrap around ones head?!

It´s literally the fucking trolly moral question!
User avatar
#63 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
No no. That's not what I was asking.

I understand that it's the action that is causing it. I'm asking you personally what moral code or moral system is it that tells you that it was wrong to not sacrifice the many instead of not killing the girl?

For instance. My moral code is the bible. Where does your morality come from?

But you also misunderstand what I'm saying about the decision. If there is someone in trouble, you help them of course. But you do not hurt someone else to help that person in trouble. So of course you would help the man in the burning car scenario. All you sacrifice there is your own safety and you should always sacrifice yourself for others.

User avatar
#64 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
none.

my moral code stands not in question you baboon.

YOURS is in question. Don´t change the fuckign subject, matter of fact, there is no actuell obejctive true answer to my rigged question, the question was just to exploid while your moral of " i shall sacrefice noone " does not work, if put into a situation in which you will sacrefice a binary amount of humans for other human/s.

Any answer to the question can be seen as moral or not, point is though you broke yours be answering my question in the first place.

Don´t try bullshiting me here.
User avatar
#66 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
But you are telling me that it is wrong to not kill the girl and yet you base that it is wrong on....no moral code whatsoever?

Does that make any logical sense to you? You can't tell me something is wrong but give no reason for it.

And that's not a rigged question. We are talking about morals and which moral system is right. You can't rig and question like that because you are only going by your moral system as to which action or lack of action is right or wrong. That's the very nature of our argument.

And I didn't. I told you my moral basis. To love others as you love yourself. And the most loving thing to do is to not hurt the girl and to try your best to save the other millions. But if you can't save them then it's sad but simply a fact of life. Nothing about my moral system is broken there.
User avatar
#72 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
God damn it is it so hard to wrap around your head? I JUST TOLD YOU THAT OBJECTIVLY NONE OF THE ANSWERS CAN BE WRONG OR RIGHT! It is not even important HOW many people are on stack:

Your moral objective is : " i shall sacrefice no one for anything or anyone " This is as from you described absolut moral.

REGARDLESS if you do now something or nothing, YOU WILL sacrefice out of the consequences of your actions or lack off, certain amount of humans, for other humans, out of your own free fucking will!

If you answer my rigged question, you are always in the moral wrong (atleast from your standpoint, thats why the question is rigged against your absolut bullshit) , as your moral was broken by yourself. you sacreficed. That´s why its rigged! You can´t make a from your position moral good, just moral bad.

So yes, the question is rigged, regardless what you do, from your bibli founded and understood "objective and absolut morals " you just did regardless what you do a bad thing, still while trying to excuse it.

Why are you excusing your actions with bullshit if after your OWN rules you just broke you did something wrong? Shouldn´t you just accept instead your fuckign decision instead of trying to push the consequences of with " god will forgive me " even though you broke a absolut constante?

You have no choice but doing something wrong in this scenario, no fucking objective moral would be able to put into such a situation!

I PROOFED That YOUR moral code is not absolut! It can be broken! It can be put into a laughing stock and into absolut question if it makes even sense.

ALSO FOR THE LAST TIME, YOU CAN NOT SAFE THIS MILLIONS, THE INSTANT YOU CHOSE THE GIRL THEY ARE DEAD! You literally decide with your very single action, their maybe painful death ABSOLUT! AND YOU KNOW THIS! This is the entire situation at fucking hand! Stop putting circumstances into a situation that where not given you question avoider!

So to put it into summary: You broke your absolut moral rule of not sacreficing anyone, while being unable to not even NOT break your moral rule. What absolut rule can put into a situation that can JUST be broken?! If something absolut would exist it would come out ALWAYS as the good moral choice! In this one there exists NO moral good! Just FROM YOUR STANDPOINT MORAL BAD!

And if you don´t understand this yet, then im sorry but i will not keep discussing with someone unable to understand such simple position stacking.
User avatar
#75 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I haven't sacrificed anyone. I have failed to save those people and do a good deed. But failing to do a good thing isn't bad so long as you honestly did your best to do good.

So nothing wrong was done on my part with that choice.

But I think I see your confusion. The absolute moral code isn't to not sacrifice anyone. It's to TRY and no sacrifice anyone. Like I said. All you have to do is try your best.

Where did you get that my moral code was "sacrifice nothing?" I told you my moral code could be summed up in "Treat others as you would yourself"
User avatar
#78 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
You fucking moron failed to safe them by not sacreficing!

Is that so fucking hard?! Is it so difficult to just take responsebility that you are eithet the death angel for this millions or the girl?!

Tjere is no TRYING in this scenario! IF you want you will kill the girl absolutly for sure and not fail killing her, saving for sure anyone! If you decide not to kill jer you will not somehow magicly fail to not kill her!

You have no " chance " of failure, no way of helping this people but this one, absolut safe action!

This discussion is also now done as you dont even reply to your shit answer. Any person unable to love himself could after your idea do whatever he wants to people as long as it is not loving them.

Objectivr absolutes exist just on the base of physicle laws! NOT ON FROM HIGHER DEVOLPED APES WHO CAN FAIL IN THEIR SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

Because this is what morals are! SOCIAL COBSTRUCTS!

If tomorrow all humans die so will the human deffinition of morals! That simple! Light is always at a constant speed! Moral applycation that have PROVEN to change even in your fucking toilet paper book ( which made me btw atheistic alone from being unable to belief a perfect being creating imperfection, just to build them a fate of missery and pain that they will never be able to dodge from the very moment they are forced to chose between knowleadge and innocence! ) which was written by thousend upom thousend of people who all put their biased bullshit into it!

Also btw any fucking retard can make prophecys ' spookly ' accurate! I predict tomorroe will the sun rise! Also in 10 years will a war break out near 2 mountains and a continent will be on the edge on dying from a sickness!

After youe retarded idea of absolut moral choice i would be wrong to put someone out of his missery while he is dieng and unable to be safed while he begs me to, when i lovr myself to much to beg anyone to kill me!

I would be in moral wrong if i killed a serial killer while he plans to kill people, because i love myself to much as to allow people to kill me!

Your shit literally says that i am the asshole for doing things that many people would feel split in half and you take thr fucking arroganta to belief some omnipotent shitface, that had since 1000 years not shown his fucking face, came personely to your fucking ear and whispered you absolut wisdome into your ear!

THIS DISCUSSION IS OVER!
User avatar
#82 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
Alright, we're going around in circles and you seem to be becoming increasingly upset so I'm going to stop. I really hope you will reread this conversation at a later date and try to understand what you are missing here. I'm not trying to insult at all but you really don't seem to understand this concept.

I'm truly sorry I upset you
User avatar
#76 - blackmageewizardt (09/20/2016) [-]
No you failed safing this people be sacreficing the girl.

Same as you failed to safe the girl by sacreficing millions.

Willingly or not, you decide right now over millions of peoples life, regardless what you do, your action is paying ones life with the other.

We could also just take a single human life to a other single human life. You would still either sacrefice him or the other the each others life.

Also now youe horseshouing, you said clear and strictly that you will sacrefice NO ONE for anyones life!

Also if this is now your absolut moral bullshit you goal mover then we take a person that loves himself 0. Any human being theirfore can be of no importance for him nd he could ignore anyone in dire help and not be considered evil! Which is bullshit and you know it.
User avatar
#77 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
I don't think you understand what absolute morality means. It has nothing to do with if a person fails or succeeds at it. And nothing was done wrong here. Sometimes you try your best and still fail. It happens. It doesn't mean you were morally wrong.

And yes. I wouldn't sacrifice anyone for anyone. But I'm not sacrificing those millions. I'm not killing them. They do not die by my hand. I might fail to save them. But no one would call me a murderer for not being able to save a life even with my best effort.

And again. You seem to be putting a ton of words in my mouth. I never said I would ignore the people in peril. Not once. I said I would try to save them. I would try to save everyone. That's perfectly in line with not sacrificing anyone. Doing your best to save everyone means you are willing to sacrifice none. Even if you fail to save them that doesn't change.
#51 - You assert these things. "Gods are only in your mind"…  [+] (4 replies) 09/20/2016 on /pol/ shit +1
#55 - anon (09/20/2016) [-]
Just ignore platinum, it has the autism.
User avatar
#57 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
That's not nice. We're trying to have a serious intellectual discussion. Please be respectful even if you disagree.
User avatar
#52 - platinumaltaria (09/20/2016) [-]
I didn't realise I needed proof, it's fairly obvious. Do you not notice how EVERY person who believes in god just so happens to have a morality that aligns with said god? They always agree with their god on every issue... odd.

Scripture is just the opinion of the person who wrote it... so it's just a third person's god.

Could you perhaps cite these prophecies?
You realise that Israel was created by people who read the bible... it was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Alexander the Great is not mentioned in the bible... and even if he was he was born in 356 BC, whereas the hebrew bible is speculated to have been canonised after 300 BC, 20 years after his death >_>

Really? You're going with the classic SJW "Educate yourself" thing? Surely you could, I don't know, tell me? But no, I have to seek out your magic fairy on my own, because reasons.
User avatar
#59 - Vandeekree (09/20/2016) [-]
You need proof or at least an argument if you are going to discount the existence of absolute morality.

It's a well known term and you'll need a very new and thoughtful argument to debunk it. You'll also going to need to show proof of the inability to prove which morality is right. I gave you a list of things that show Christianity to be the right religion. I gave you the philosophy that shows there is certainly a God of some sort. But you did not argue against them. You simply said "No. That's not right." thus I request proof in the form of a counter argument.

And again you misunderstand what objective morality is. It doesn't matter that you or I or any human is right or wrong about which moral system we think is objective. The point is that there is one. Now we can move on to arguing which moral system is the true objective one if you like, but that's not our current topic.

David 8:1-22 is where the Alexander prophesy is. Written 300 years before Alexander's birth.

There is nothing self fulfilling about the Israel prophesy. It would either happen or it wouldn't. And it wasn't them just tooting their own horn, they also prophesied that Israel would fall long before it did. And who's to say that it was the small nation of Israel's bible that would become the biggest religion? There were many other religions of the time that were far larger and wanted to see every Jew killed. The race even survived through the holocaust, the best attempt yet to wipe them out. It was by no means certain back then.

But I'm not trying to be disrespectful when I tell you to study into this. I'm simply trying to gently tell you that I really don't think you understand enough. I can only say this because I have studied as much as I have and I very much invite you to read into these topics more and then come back to me and perhaps teach me something sense I will tell you right now I'm far from an expert just yet. Please don't take it as an insult or anything. But yes, I do have confidence that if you were to study into this you would realize the truth.