Upload
Login or register

captainfuckitall

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:4/12/2010
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1582
Highest Content Rank:#8779
Highest Comment Rank:#49
Content Thumbs: 42 total,  99 ,  57
Comment Thumbs: 80381 total,  98574 ,  18193
Content Level Progress: 77.96% (46/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 33.2% (332/1000)
Level 369 Comments: FJ Noble → Level 370 Comments: Immortal
Subscribers:22
Content Views:10934
Total Comments Made:21173
FJ Points:41149

latest user's comments

#57 - The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingl…  [+] (5 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) 0
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
#51 - You were saying that, since I acknowledge God's status, I must…  [+] (7 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) 0
User avatar
#54 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
-thats not what i was saying...i was saying that in reference to the exact context of what we were talking about (i can explain this if need be).

-how can you be sure that there isnt? take for example 4th dimensional beings, we would never be able to even comprehend their existance, another existance is colors unpercievable to us. God in its self is a concept and entity is something beyond our limitations.

-and just like how you can be wrong there isnt one.

-actually no, religion is by definition natural..not biologically mind you. but, religion has popped up in every civilization on our planet, it is impossible to find a civilization that has NOT developed a concept of god, this idea of god is prevelant despite the obvious lack of inter-communication between all ancient civilizations. the reason they develoepd different gods is because of human error, that is, their interpretation is wrong.

-thats a good point, i slightly referred to it in my previous (-)...but again, the definition is still unknown.

-lets throw the dog thing out, we obviously went off track

-never said i had a firm belief, hell ;)

-no...you know what it is? we both lack common ground, it is impossible to debate this if we have different common ground.
User avatar
#57 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingly stated you never had a firm belief.

So all this has just been you yanking everyone else in some idiotic display.

Why even post such a stupid comment of "God created dogs, even if we tamed them" if you don't even take it completely seriously?

I'm Canadian and not even sorry, you're fucking stupid.
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
#42 - 1. Not at all. You can allow someone a status without acknowle…  [+] (10 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) -2
User avatar
#44 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
1. I need you to clarify this, it makes sense but i dont know what point you are referring to here in this one.

2. That doesnt matter, im not saying you believe or dont as your life decision, i am saying it in reference to the quote.

3. yes a human author, humans have flaws and cannot fully comprehend a God. likewise, the books was rewritten over and over...this is akin to a game of telephone, also accounting for human error. that is not what i am saying, a being does not have to declare themselves as god, but rather take actions that a god would take. for instance, a cop will dress, act, and follow the rules of a cop...so it makes logical sense to assume hes a cop. ------this point you are rteferring to is a logical problem, but there are different routes to conlcusion that can be taken.

4. thats not what i am saying at all, humans can also wrongfully declare a god...again, human error.

5.are you not getting what i am saying??? i repreatedly said the book was written by man, and has flaws...therefore it wouldnt take anything above a monkey to deduce that i believe in the book....like i even admitted, the book is not factyually correct. let me spell it out for you one more time if its not clear, YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE/FOLLOW THE BOOK TO BELEIVE IN GOD.

-there is only one god, i never said which was the correct one...for even i do not know, neither does anyone else.
-how is this a logciall problem? seriously i am trying to wrap my head how this is a logical problem...it is stating that just because something says something doesnt mean its true...but it still leaves open the possibility that it is.
-no...again, i never said i believed in a book, and it was painfully obvious from the context of my comments that i believed hte books had flaws.

your last comment doesnt have any weight, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
You were saying that, since I acknowledge God's status, I must agree with your train of thought.

But if imperfect beings cannot properly interpret who/what/how God is, how can you even be sure? No human has met God and come back to tell of it, we only know of him through his own word (which, if he is perfect, were not interpreted correctly), the words of men (which are supposedly incorrect), or actions (which themselves cannot be judged or perceived).

Just like you can wrongfully believe your god is the only god, or even a god at all.

But you do have to hear of it through word of mouth or experience, which must be incorrect as you and your ears and their words are imperfect.

Then how can you know there is only one? There are many more pantheistic religions than there are monotheistic religions, likewise, the nature of a god does not demand there can be only one. First, we would have to define exactly what a god is and what it means to be a god. Traditionally, that means perfection, but it does not mean only one can be perfect, or in which field they must be perfect in. Apep is a god because he has perfect control over darkness and serpents, while Typhon is a god because he has perfect control over chaos and destruction. So on, so fourth.

Then it's possible that there is more than one god, and that he did not even create dogs.

I just don't know where else you would get such information where you would hold so firmly to such beliefs as you have.

Yes it does, you just don't want to see it.
User avatar
#54 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
-thats not what i was saying...i was saying that in reference to the exact context of what we were talking about (i can explain this if need be).

-how can you be sure that there isnt? take for example 4th dimensional beings, we would never be able to even comprehend their existance, another existance is colors unpercievable to us. God in its self is a concept and entity is something beyond our limitations.

-and just like how you can be wrong there isnt one.

-actually no, religion is by definition natural..not biologically mind you. but, religion has popped up in every civilization on our planet, it is impossible to find a civilization that has NOT developed a concept of god, this idea of god is prevelant despite the obvious lack of inter-communication between all ancient civilizations. the reason they develoepd different gods is because of human error, that is, their interpretation is wrong.

-thats a good point, i slightly referred to it in my previous (-)...but again, the definition is still unknown.

-lets throw the dog thing out, we obviously went off track

-never said i had a firm belief, hell ;)

-no...you know what it is? we both lack common ground, it is impossible to debate this if we have different common ground.
User avatar
#57 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingly stated you never had a firm belief.

So all this has just been you yanking everyone else in some idiotic display.

Why even post such a stupid comment of "God created dogs, even if we tamed them" if you don't even take it completely seriously?

I'm Canadian and not even sorry, you're fucking stupid.
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
User avatar
#45 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
don't believe* typo
#150 - I don't know, man. I've never seen a fight and suddenly starte…  [+] (5 replies) 10/19/2015 on lol noob +5
User avatar
#152 - jamesisawesome (10/19/2015) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_shooting

It happens. Not always, but it happens.
User avatar
#174 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Still, which would you rather have? Someone firing off a weapon by accident or in confusion, or someone deliberately trying to kill you?
#157 - shuttletree (10/19/2015) [-]
This fucking website man.
Someone has a Un-Popular Opinion or something nobody thinks is true/believes in
They get pinkied

Even after they provide legitimate proof that their side of the argument is correct.
People just fucking hive-mind and down vote him because someone else did it, so it makes them cool right?
#178 - sirlorge (10/19/2015) [-]
I think the problem with his argument is that he brings up a point within his own argument that nullifies it. Also, the article he links to states:

"While commonly accepted in popular culture and police jargon, there has been yet no scientific evidence "to prove the existence of a contagious shooting dynamic," which O'Donnell said was a "debatable notion.""

Also, a lot of the 15 examples are really non specific 2006: Five officers fired 50 shots at Sean Bell in Queens, New York, including 31 by one detective - who reloaded his weapon during the incident... That's it. No context. Many shots were fired and someone reloaded. What were they shooting? Not important apparently. Also the citations don't match the incidents either, there articles linked are from 2010 and 1999 for this "2006 incident" , with only a few arguably being cases of "contagious shooting". For fucks sake, some of these examples say "[Citation Needed]"

Besides that, he kinda nullifies his argument with the phrase:

"It might be different if everybody was highly trained"

We probably wouldn't hand out guns like candy to any idiot above a certain age. If the staff is armed as part of their "safety regulations" or precautions or whatever you wanna call it , you can bet your ass they are gonna be trained and constantly examined to ensure they are disciplined ie. not leaving their weapon unsupervised, trigger discipline, not showing it off or using it unless specific criteria is met or a certain alarm is sounded, etc. .

Schools that have teachers that refuse training would likely have to rearrange some class' room to ensure that the unarmed staff are surrounded by armed and trained staff, or meet some kind of ratio of armed to unarmed per number of rooms or something of the sort.

So not only is this guy wielding an unpopular opinion, his proof is about as far from legit as one can scrape together (because it contradicts itself).

Also, keep in mind that wikipedia is not 100% a good source. even if it did get you through high school
www.buzzfeed.com/alanwhite/spectacular-acts-of-wikipedia-vandalism#.fgr2NE7oM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia%3F just read the first sentence

Plus, this is funnyjunk. If you have ANY expectations, prepare to be disappointed.
#160 - jamesisawesome (10/19/2015) [-]
That's the internet for you. If we were speaking in real life, we could probably discuss this without being angry or butthurt. But if you put a screen between people, we act like dicks. We're all guilty of this sometimes, even me.
#31 - That's not an excuse, though. He quite clearly listed himself …  [+] (46 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) +2
User avatar
#34 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
how is that an excuse? If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real. However, we both know the Bible was written by man, therefore its contents are susceptible of not being true, therefore the phrase "i am god", was written by a human author.

You do not need to declare yourself as a God, you are a God because the people deem them as one. You are not following my logic at all, my original statement that you are reffering to "one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only on" is saying that one can call himself what he wishes, that doesnt mean its true...for instance, i can say im a dog, but im not.
#65 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
There's so much wrong with your logic

First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic.

Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit.
User avatar
#96 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
You are one dumb motherfucker..learn treading comprehension mate.
User avatar
#97 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
Treading comprehension, what's that?
User avatar
#99 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Reading* I'm on mobile and autocorrect got me. Either way, it's not impossible to see I meant "reading comprehension". Looks like you are also lacking basic heuristics lel.
User avatar
#100 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine, I understood what you were trying to say and it's fucking stupid.
User avatar
#101 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ok...then in your own words repeat what i was saying, and tell me where my logic was wrong.
User avatar
#102 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
>If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real.

"First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic. "

>God made dogs/God still made them./there is only one god/one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only one.

"Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit."
User avatar
#103 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thank you for clarifying that (+1 thumb for you)

I know he didnt, i presented two options...to either agree that God said that (which i know he wont) or accept my argument that it was written by man (go back and see that in all my comments i strongly assert that the bible was written by man). So i dont see how that makes my logic flawed, if it is flawed however, then the only alternate is for god to have written the bible.

you are quoting me on different things yet commenting on one, so ill just reply to that. that doesnt imply that at all, what i mean by "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" is the logic that just because somebody can declare themselves as something, doesnt mean they are. for instance, i can say im a dog..but im not a dog. I never argued that there is a God.
User avatar
#42 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
1. Not at all. You can allow someone a status without acknowledging it. What you said is the equivalent of "If you recognize someone as a King or Queen, you have to obey them", but such is not the case. There are plenty of people who recognize the Queen of England's authority, they just don't care or aren't loyalists.

2. I never said I didn't believe in a god or was not religious.

3. A human author that was interpreting the words of your respective deity. Look: You recognize the christian god as 'THE' only god. Yet you would not do so if you had never heard of them or their status as 'god', or even the ONLY god, if such a status was not made BY the same being. If it was not made BY the same being, you are effectively saying "Yeah, so some guy told me to worship something as a god, so I totally am, even if nothing ever confirmed this".

4. Then if all that matters is people declaring a god, you are still wrong. Humans have declared many beings as a god or deity throughout history, and indeed, the majority of the world isn't even Christian.

5. I am, you're just backtracking and contradicting yourself. One can call themselves what they wish and have it not be true, but God DECLARED THEMSELVES AS A GOD AND THE ONE AND ONLY GOD. What about this are you not getting? Have you not even read your own holy book?

As to your other comment, pointing out flaws in your logic, we will do so right now:

A. You state there is only one god.
B. You state that just because something calls themselves a god (or any status), doesn't mean it is true.
C. You believe the christian God is the only god because it was stated in a book and/or told to you at some point in life.

All three of those statements clash. Following B and C, there is no reason to believe the christian god is the only god just because they say so, and that directly conflicts with A.
User avatar
#44 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
1. I need you to clarify this, it makes sense but i dont know what point you are referring to here in this one.

2. That doesnt matter, im not saying you believe or dont as your life decision, i am saying it in reference to the quote.

3. yes a human author, humans have flaws and cannot fully comprehend a God. likewise, the books was rewritten over and over...this is akin to a game of telephone, also accounting for human error. that is not what i am saying, a being does not have to declare themselves as god, but rather take actions that a god would take. for instance, a cop will dress, act, and follow the rules of a cop...so it makes logical sense to assume hes a cop. ------this point you are rteferring to is a logical problem, but there are different routes to conlcusion that can be taken.

4. thats not what i am saying at all, humans can also wrongfully declare a god...again, human error.

5.are you not getting what i am saying??? i repreatedly said the book was written by man, and has flaws...therefore it wouldnt take anything above a monkey to deduce that i believe in the book....like i even admitted, the book is not factyually correct. let me spell it out for you one more time if its not clear, YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE/FOLLOW THE BOOK TO BELEIVE IN GOD.

-there is only one god, i never said which was the correct one...for even i do not know, neither does anyone else.
-how is this a logciall problem? seriously i am trying to wrap my head how this is a logical problem...it is stating that just because something says something doesnt mean its true...but it still leaves open the possibility that it is.
-no...again, i never said i believed in a book, and it was painfully obvious from the context of my comments that i believed hte books had flaws.

your last comment doesnt have any weight, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
You were saying that, since I acknowledge God's status, I must agree with your train of thought.

But if imperfect beings cannot properly interpret who/what/how God is, how can you even be sure? No human has met God and come back to tell of it, we only know of him through his own word (which, if he is perfect, were not interpreted correctly), the words of men (which are supposedly incorrect), or actions (which themselves cannot be judged or perceived).

Just like you can wrongfully believe your god is the only god, or even a god at all.

But you do have to hear of it through word of mouth or experience, which must be incorrect as you and your ears and their words are imperfect.

Then how can you know there is only one? There are many more pantheistic religions than there are monotheistic religions, likewise, the nature of a god does not demand there can be only one. First, we would have to define exactly what a god is and what it means to be a god. Traditionally, that means perfection, but it does not mean only one can be perfect, or in which field they must be perfect in. Apep is a god because he has perfect control over darkness and serpents, while Typhon is a god because he has perfect control over chaos and destruction. So on, so fourth.

Then it's possible that there is more than one god, and that he did not even create dogs.

I just don't know where else you would get such information where you would hold so firmly to such beliefs as you have.

Yes it does, you just don't want to see it.
User avatar
#54 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
-thats not what i was saying...i was saying that in reference to the exact context of what we were talking about (i can explain this if need be).

-how can you be sure that there isnt? take for example 4th dimensional beings, we would never be able to even comprehend their existance, another existance is colors unpercievable to us. God in its self is a concept and entity is something beyond our limitations.

-and just like how you can be wrong there isnt one.

-actually no, religion is by definition natural..not biologically mind you. but, religion has popped up in every civilization on our planet, it is impossible to find a civilization that has NOT developed a concept of god, this idea of god is prevelant despite the obvious lack of inter-communication between all ancient civilizations. the reason they develoepd different gods is because of human error, that is, their interpretation is wrong.

-thats a good point, i slightly referred to it in my previous (-)...but again, the definition is still unknown.

-lets throw the dog thing out, we obviously went off track

-never said i had a firm belief, hell ;)

-no...you know what it is? we both lack common ground, it is impossible to debate this if we have different common ground.
User avatar
#57 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingly stated you never had a firm belief.

So all this has just been you yanking everyone else in some idiotic display.

Why even post such a stupid comment of "God created dogs, even if we tamed them" if you don't even take it completely seriously?

I'm Canadian and not even sorry, you're fucking stupid.
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
User avatar
#45 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
don't believe* typo
#37 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
Congratulations you are officially stupid enough to have made it onto my HIDE ALL list.

Just to be clear it's not because of your belief in god, but because of your unwavering belief that only you could possibly be correct.
#78 - anon (10/19/2015) [-]
You probably shouldn't feed an obvious troll. I'm a christian and even I think his behavior and logic is absurd.
User avatar
#38 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
point to where my logic is flawed..
#43 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I shouldn't engage with you however I feel a little sorry for you so I will just point out a small thing.

To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.

If you would kindly refer back to the comic in my previous post you will see that you are presenting yourself to be as ignorant as the small children in the comic. I would have to guess that it is likely that you are young enough to only see the world in the black and white of your belief and tend to think in absolutes. A long life will hopefully cure you of your inability to see the shades of grey that make up real life.

Just because YOU believe something does not make it true for everyone else in the world and believing it does is ignorance defined.
User avatar
#46 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god..if there were more, this would be contradictory since one cannot be God unless if he was the creator.

That comic is irrelevant, one does not have to go to church or read/follow the bible in order to believe in god. the fact that you think that is a problem that you have in terms of inferring based on the little information of myself that you have. Likewise, i do not believe i think in absolutes, again..you are assuming.

when did i say that others should believe in what i believe? again..you are putting words in my mouth.

you have alot of logical problems yourself.
User avatar
#119 - YllekNayr (10/19/2015) [-]
People like you are the reason there are atheists that fucking can't stand religious people
User avatar
#123 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Whatever you say mate.
User avatar
#104 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
"If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god"
Do elaborate on that logic.
User avatar
#105 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
i litterally elaborated right after the ".."read it again. But if you cant , then i can clarify my dear chap.
User avatar
#106 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Right, I misread your initial premise.
I woke up 5 minutes ago.


So you call yourself an atheist, yet your first comment is "God made dogs."
User avatar
#113 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
(reached the comment cap)

I get how that cold be dishonest, but to be completely honest..im not the atheist who thinks in absolute (there is not chance of god) im more of the kind who thinks its unlikely that there is, although how could i know for certain. so in a sense i was not completely dishonest, especially considering i didnt base my arguments on the biblical god, but rather a hypothetical probability. my only shit post was "god made dogs", but that was to bait the fedoras.
#114 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
itsdangeroustogoalonetakethis.png

"but rather a hypothetical probability"
Also I'd stick to calling it a hypothetical, as you neither know the probability nor if it's even possible.

Weeeeell, you did start with a monotheistic approach, instead of going for a general "a creator created them"
User avatar
#109 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
yep, like i said..i just like to bait fedoras, although i try to use sound logic. the reason i do so is because often atheists have just as weak logic as the religious folk they try to bash.

i mean no harm though.
User avatar
#110 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Indeed, but I only go after them if they display that logic. I find it a bit dishonest to pose as something you're not.

#47 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I believe in multiple god are you saying I am incorrect?
User avatar
#48 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
should i even reply? you are trying to isolate one of your points, meanwhile not replying/refuting my other arguments.

i dont think i want to argue with someone so close minded.
User avatar
#93 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
What? You actually completely ignored his argument in #43
User avatar
#130 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
The comment capped.

But no, it's a statement of logic..not of fact or belief. It in its self is simply of logical flow based on the hypothetical common ground that there is a god. Google for literary help if that didn't make sense due to lack of reading comp.
User avatar
#98 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
No I didn't. Point out the part I "ignored".
User avatar
#125 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
"To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical. "
#49 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.
User avatar
#56 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
we are obvously debating the concept of god.

but anyway, im an atheist i just like debating with fedoras..goodnight retard.
User avatar
#50 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
no..its a statement of logic. God as a definition, whether you believe in it or not, is that of a creator of all. if there were more than one God, it would contradict the definition of God since it brings about a dilemma of who created who.
User avatar
#64 - StewieGGriffin (10/19/2015) [-]
Hey cuntface, dont make us all look stupid.
#53 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I actually feel sorry for myself for interacting with you instead of just HIDE ALL which I will rectify now to avoid your circular arguments.

Your argument is predicated on the belief that a god exists at all. The definition of the word god is as irrelevant as the definition of the word unicorn.

The definition of unicorn is a horse with a horn but that doesn't mean it ever existed or that any argument about a unicorn would ever be based in fact or logic.
User avatar
#52 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Actually, there is nothing that states a god must create. In many religions since the dawn of the first civilization, which itself had a pantheistic religion, they had multiple gods dealing with different things.
#28 - Does the god you are referring to not classify themselves as a…  [+] (51 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) +1
User avatar
#82 - blastifaya (10/19/2015) [-]
<implying that the 3 religions don't worship the same god
User avatar
#30 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
The bible is a book used to facilitate the learning of god, but it is well known knowledge that it was written by man. The phrase " i am God" in reference to himself being the only god, was written in the bible for the intention to persuade readers to accept him only as god.
User avatar
#32 - drunkasaurus (10/19/2015) [-]
go back to church faggot
User avatar
#36 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
going this afternoon thank you very much
User avatar
#31 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
That's not an excuse, though. He quite clearly listed himself as THE god, which you just said cannot be done.

That's why I'm rather confused, because it's a self-defeating point. How else would a god come into the open without declaring themselves as a god (and in doing so, invalidating their status as a god, if your logic is to be followed).
User avatar
#34 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
how is that an excuse? If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real. However, we both know the Bible was written by man, therefore its contents are susceptible of not being true, therefore the phrase "i am god", was written by a human author.

You do not need to declare yourself as a God, you are a God because the people deem them as one. You are not following my logic at all, my original statement that you are reffering to "one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only on" is saying that one can call himself what he wishes, that doesnt mean its true...for instance, i can say im a dog, but im not.
#65 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
There's so much wrong with your logic

First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic.

Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit.
User avatar
#96 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
You are one dumb motherfucker..learn treading comprehension mate.
User avatar
#97 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
Treading comprehension, what's that?
User avatar
#99 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Reading* I'm on mobile and autocorrect got me. Either way, it's not impossible to see I meant "reading comprehension". Looks like you are also lacking basic heuristics lel.
User avatar
#100 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine, I understood what you were trying to say and it's fucking stupid.
User avatar
#101 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ok...then in your own words repeat what i was saying, and tell me where my logic was wrong.
User avatar
#102 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
>If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real.

"First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic. "

>God made dogs/God still made them./there is only one god/one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only one.

"Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit."
User avatar
#103 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thank you for clarifying that (+1 thumb for you)

I know he didnt, i presented two options...to either agree that God said that (which i know he wont) or accept my argument that it was written by man (go back and see that in all my comments i strongly assert that the bible was written by man). So i dont see how that makes my logic flawed, if it is flawed however, then the only alternate is for god to have written the bible.

you are quoting me on different things yet commenting on one, so ill just reply to that. that doesnt imply that at all, what i mean by "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" is the logic that just because somebody can declare themselves as something, doesnt mean they are. for instance, i can say im a dog..but im not a dog. I never argued that there is a God.
User avatar
#42 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
1. Not at all. You can allow someone a status without acknowledging it. What you said is the equivalent of "If you recognize someone as a King or Queen, you have to obey them", but such is not the case. There are plenty of people who recognize the Queen of England's authority, they just don't care or aren't loyalists.

2. I never said I didn't believe in a god or was not religious.

3. A human author that was interpreting the words of your respective deity. Look: You recognize the christian god as 'THE' only god. Yet you would not do so if you had never heard of them or their status as 'god', or even the ONLY god, if such a status was not made BY the same being. If it was not made BY the same being, you are effectively saying "Yeah, so some guy told me to worship something as a god, so I totally am, even if nothing ever confirmed this".

4. Then if all that matters is people declaring a god, you are still wrong. Humans have declared many beings as a god or deity throughout history, and indeed, the majority of the world isn't even Christian.

5. I am, you're just backtracking and contradicting yourself. One can call themselves what they wish and have it not be true, but God DECLARED THEMSELVES AS A GOD AND THE ONE AND ONLY GOD. What about this are you not getting? Have you not even read your own holy book?

As to your other comment, pointing out flaws in your logic, we will do so right now:

A. You state there is only one god.
B. You state that just because something calls themselves a god (or any status), doesn't mean it is true.
C. You believe the christian God is the only god because it was stated in a book and/or told to you at some point in life.

All three of those statements clash. Following B and C, there is no reason to believe the christian god is the only god just because they say so, and that directly conflicts with A.
User avatar
#44 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
1. I need you to clarify this, it makes sense but i dont know what point you are referring to here in this one.

2. That doesnt matter, im not saying you believe or dont as your life decision, i am saying it in reference to the quote.

3. yes a human author, humans have flaws and cannot fully comprehend a God. likewise, the books was rewritten over and over...this is akin to a game of telephone, also accounting for human error. that is not what i am saying, a being does not have to declare themselves as god, but rather take actions that a god would take. for instance, a cop will dress, act, and follow the rules of a cop...so it makes logical sense to assume hes a cop. ------this point you are rteferring to is a logical problem, but there are different routes to conlcusion that can be taken.

4. thats not what i am saying at all, humans can also wrongfully declare a god...again, human error.

5.are you not getting what i am saying??? i repreatedly said the book was written by man, and has flaws...therefore it wouldnt take anything above a monkey to deduce that i believe in the book....like i even admitted, the book is not factyually correct. let me spell it out for you one more time if its not clear, YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE/FOLLOW THE BOOK TO BELEIVE IN GOD.

-there is only one god, i never said which was the correct one...for even i do not know, neither does anyone else.
-how is this a logciall problem? seriously i am trying to wrap my head how this is a logical problem...it is stating that just because something says something doesnt mean its true...but it still leaves open the possibility that it is.
-no...again, i never said i believed in a book, and it was painfully obvious from the context of my comments that i believed hte books had flaws.

your last comment doesnt have any weight, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
You were saying that, since I acknowledge God's status, I must agree with your train of thought.

But if imperfect beings cannot properly interpret who/what/how God is, how can you even be sure? No human has met God and come back to tell of it, we only know of him through his own word (which, if he is perfect, were not interpreted correctly), the words of men (which are supposedly incorrect), or actions (which themselves cannot be judged or perceived).

Just like you can wrongfully believe your god is the only god, or even a god at all.

But you do have to hear of it through word of mouth or experience, which must be incorrect as you and your ears and their words are imperfect.

Then how can you know there is only one? There are many more pantheistic religions than there are monotheistic religions, likewise, the nature of a god does not demand there can be only one. First, we would have to define exactly what a god is and what it means to be a god. Traditionally, that means perfection, but it does not mean only one can be perfect, or in which field they must be perfect in. Apep is a god because he has perfect control over darkness and serpents, while Typhon is a god because he has perfect control over chaos and destruction. So on, so fourth.

Then it's possible that there is more than one god, and that he did not even create dogs.

I just don't know where else you would get such information where you would hold so firmly to such beliefs as you have.

Yes it does, you just don't want to see it.
User avatar
#54 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
-thats not what i was saying...i was saying that in reference to the exact context of what we were talking about (i can explain this if need be).

-how can you be sure that there isnt? take for example 4th dimensional beings, we would never be able to even comprehend their existance, another existance is colors unpercievable to us. God in its self is a concept and entity is something beyond our limitations.

-and just like how you can be wrong there isnt one.

-actually no, religion is by definition natural..not biologically mind you. but, religion has popped up in every civilization on our planet, it is impossible to find a civilization that has NOT developed a concept of god, this idea of god is prevelant despite the obvious lack of inter-communication between all ancient civilizations. the reason they develoepd different gods is because of human error, that is, their interpretation is wrong.

-thats a good point, i slightly referred to it in my previous (-)...but again, the definition is still unknown.

-lets throw the dog thing out, we obviously went off track

-never said i had a firm belief, hell ;)

-no...you know what it is? we both lack common ground, it is impossible to debate this if we have different common ground.
User avatar
#57 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingly stated you never had a firm belief.

So all this has just been you yanking everyone else in some idiotic display.

Why even post such a stupid comment of "God created dogs, even if we tamed them" if you don't even take it completely seriously?

I'm Canadian and not even sorry, you're fucking stupid.
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
User avatar
#45 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
don't believe* typo
#37 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
Congratulations you are officially stupid enough to have made it onto my HIDE ALL list.

Just to be clear it's not because of your belief in god, but because of your unwavering belief that only you could possibly be correct.
#78 - anon (10/19/2015) [-]
You probably shouldn't feed an obvious troll. I'm a christian and even I think his behavior and logic is absurd.
User avatar
#38 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
point to where my logic is flawed..
#43 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I shouldn't engage with you however I feel a little sorry for you so I will just point out a small thing.

To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.

If you would kindly refer back to the comic in my previous post you will see that you are presenting yourself to be as ignorant as the small children in the comic. I would have to guess that it is likely that you are young enough to only see the world in the black and white of your belief and tend to think in absolutes. A long life will hopefully cure you of your inability to see the shades of grey that make up real life.

Just because YOU believe something does not make it true for everyone else in the world and believing it does is ignorance defined.
User avatar
#46 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god..if there were more, this would be contradictory since one cannot be God unless if he was the creator.

That comic is irrelevant, one does not have to go to church or read/follow the bible in order to believe in god. the fact that you think that is a problem that you have in terms of inferring based on the little information of myself that you have. Likewise, i do not believe i think in absolutes, again..you are assuming.

when did i say that others should believe in what i believe? again..you are putting words in my mouth.

you have alot of logical problems yourself.
User avatar
#119 - YllekNayr (10/19/2015) [-]
People like you are the reason there are atheists that fucking can't stand religious people
User avatar
#123 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Whatever you say mate.
User avatar
#104 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
"If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god"
Do elaborate on that logic.
User avatar
#105 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
i litterally elaborated right after the ".."read it again. But if you cant , then i can clarify my dear chap.
User avatar
#106 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Right, I misread your initial premise.
I woke up 5 minutes ago.


So you call yourself an atheist, yet your first comment is "God made dogs."
User avatar
#113 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
(reached the comment cap)

I get how that cold be dishonest, but to be completely honest..im not the atheist who thinks in absolute (there is not chance of god) im more of the kind who thinks its unlikely that there is, although how could i know for certain. so in a sense i was not completely dishonest, especially considering i didnt base my arguments on the biblical god, but rather a hypothetical probability. my only shit post was "god made dogs", but that was to bait the fedoras.
#114 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
itsdangeroustogoalonetakethis.png

"but rather a hypothetical probability"
Also I'd stick to calling it a hypothetical, as you neither know the probability nor if it's even possible.

Weeeeell, you did start with a monotheistic approach, instead of going for a general "a creator created them"
User avatar
#109 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
yep, like i said..i just like to bait fedoras, although i try to use sound logic. the reason i do so is because often atheists have just as weak logic as the religious folk they try to bash.

i mean no harm though.
User avatar
#110 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Indeed, but I only go after them if they display that logic. I find it a bit dishonest to pose as something you're not.

#47 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I believe in multiple god are you saying I am incorrect?
User avatar
#48 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
should i even reply? you are trying to isolate one of your points, meanwhile not replying/refuting my other arguments.

i dont think i want to argue with someone so close minded.
User avatar
#93 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
What? You actually completely ignored his argument in #43
User avatar
#130 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
The comment capped.

But no, it's a statement of logic..not of fact or belief. It in its self is simply of logical flow based on the hypothetical common ground that there is a god. Google for literary help if that didn't make sense due to lack of reading comp.
User avatar
#98 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
No I didn't. Point out the part I "ignored".
User avatar
#125 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
"To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical. "
#49 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.
User avatar
#56 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
we are obvously debating the concept of god.

but anyway, im an atheist i just like debating with fedoras..goodnight retard.
User avatar
#50 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
no..its a statement of logic. God as a definition, whether you believe in it or not, is that of a creator of all. if there were more than one God, it would contradict the definition of God since it brings about a dilemma of who created who.
User avatar
#64 - StewieGGriffin (10/19/2015) [-]
Hey cuntface, dont make us all look stupid.
#53 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I actually feel sorry for myself for interacting with you instead of just HIDE ALL which I will rectify now to avoid your circular arguments.

Your argument is predicated on the belief that a god exists at all. The definition of the word god is as irrelevant as the definition of the word unicorn.

The definition of unicorn is a horse with a horn but that doesn't mean it ever existed or that any argument about a unicorn would ever be based in fact or logic.
User avatar
#52 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Actually, there is nothing that states a god must create. In many religions since the dawn of the first civilization, which itself had a pantheistic religion, they had multiple gods dealing with different things.
#26 - Hades classifies himself as a god, so does Vishnu, so that kin…  [+] (53 replies) 10/19/2015 on puppo :) +5
User avatar
#27 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
"classifies himself"

one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only one.
User avatar
#28 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Does the god you are referring to not classify themselves as a god?

In all the modern monotheistic religions I have studied, that is, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, in each of them is a statement how their respective 'god' is the only god and calls himself the one god.
User avatar
#82 - blastifaya (10/19/2015) [-]
<implying that the 3 religions don't worship the same god
User avatar
#30 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
The bible is a book used to facilitate the learning of god, but it is well known knowledge that it was written by man. The phrase " i am God" in reference to himself being the only god, was written in the bible for the intention to persuade readers to accept him only as god.
User avatar
#32 - drunkasaurus (10/19/2015) [-]
go back to church faggot
User avatar
#36 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
going this afternoon thank you very much
User avatar
#31 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
That's not an excuse, though. He quite clearly listed himself as THE god, which you just said cannot be done.

That's why I'm rather confused, because it's a self-defeating point. How else would a god come into the open without declaring themselves as a god (and in doing so, invalidating their status as a god, if your logic is to be followed).
User avatar
#34 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
how is that an excuse? If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real. However, we both know the Bible was written by man, therefore its contents are susceptible of not being true, therefore the phrase "i am god", was written by a human author.

You do not need to declare yourself as a God, you are a God because the people deem them as one. You are not following my logic at all, my original statement that you are reffering to "one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only on" is saying that one can call himself what he wishes, that doesnt mean its true...for instance, i can say im a dog, but im not.
#65 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
There's so much wrong with your logic

First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic.

Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit.
User avatar
#96 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
You are one dumb motherfucker..learn treading comprehension mate.
User avatar
#97 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
Treading comprehension, what's that?
User avatar
#99 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Reading* I'm on mobile and autocorrect got me. Either way, it's not impossible to see I meant "reading comprehension". Looks like you are also lacking basic heuristics lel.
User avatar
#100 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
I'd say my reading comprehension is just fine, I understood what you were trying to say and it's fucking stupid.
User avatar
#101 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ok...then in your own words repeat what i was saying, and tell me where my logic was wrong.
User avatar
#102 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
>If you admit that it was god who said that, then you already accept that God is real.

"First off, he wasn't admitting "that it was god who said that", he was trying to humor your logic to point out the inconsistencies in it's logic. "

>God made dogs/God still made them./there is only one god/one can call himself a god,but that they are not considering there is only one.

"Secondly, your entire "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" argument all boils down to "there is a god because I really think so" which doesn't mean jack shit."
User avatar
#103 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thank you for clarifying that (+1 thumb for you)

I know he didnt, i presented two options...to either agree that God said that (which i know he wont) or accept my argument that it was written by man (go back and see that in all my comments i strongly assert that the bible was written by man). So i dont see how that makes my logic flawed, if it is flawed however, then the only alternate is for god to have written the bible.

you are quoting me on different things yet commenting on one, so ill just reply to that. that doesnt imply that at all, what i mean by "entities can declare themselves god but aren't actually god" is the logic that just because somebody can declare themselves as something, doesnt mean they are. for instance, i can say im a dog..but im not a dog. I never argued that there is a God.
User avatar
#42 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
1. Not at all. You can allow someone a status without acknowledging it. What you said is the equivalent of "If you recognize someone as a King or Queen, you have to obey them", but such is not the case. There are plenty of people who recognize the Queen of England's authority, they just don't care or aren't loyalists.

2. I never said I didn't believe in a god or was not religious.

3. A human author that was interpreting the words of your respective deity. Look: You recognize the christian god as 'THE' only god. Yet you would not do so if you had never heard of them or their status as 'god', or even the ONLY god, if such a status was not made BY the same being. If it was not made BY the same being, you are effectively saying "Yeah, so some guy told me to worship something as a god, so I totally am, even if nothing ever confirmed this".

4. Then if all that matters is people declaring a god, you are still wrong. Humans have declared many beings as a god or deity throughout history, and indeed, the majority of the world isn't even Christian.

5. I am, you're just backtracking and contradicting yourself. One can call themselves what they wish and have it not be true, but God DECLARED THEMSELVES AS A GOD AND THE ONE AND ONLY GOD. What about this are you not getting? Have you not even read your own holy book?

As to your other comment, pointing out flaws in your logic, we will do so right now:

A. You state there is only one god.
B. You state that just because something calls themselves a god (or any status), doesn't mean it is true.
C. You believe the christian God is the only god because it was stated in a book and/or told to you at some point in life.

All three of those statements clash. Following B and C, there is no reason to believe the christian god is the only god just because they say so, and that directly conflicts with A.
User avatar
#44 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
1. I need you to clarify this, it makes sense but i dont know what point you are referring to here in this one.

2. That doesnt matter, im not saying you believe or dont as your life decision, i am saying it in reference to the quote.

3. yes a human author, humans have flaws and cannot fully comprehend a God. likewise, the books was rewritten over and over...this is akin to a game of telephone, also accounting for human error. that is not what i am saying, a being does not have to declare themselves as god, but rather take actions that a god would take. for instance, a cop will dress, act, and follow the rules of a cop...so it makes logical sense to assume hes a cop. ------this point you are rteferring to is a logical problem, but there are different routes to conlcusion that can be taken.

4. thats not what i am saying at all, humans can also wrongfully declare a god...again, human error.

5.are you not getting what i am saying??? i repreatedly said the book was written by man, and has flaws...therefore it wouldnt take anything above a monkey to deduce that i believe in the book....like i even admitted, the book is not factyually correct. let me spell it out for you one more time if its not clear, YOU DONT HAVE TO BELIEVE/FOLLOW THE BOOK TO BELEIVE IN GOD.

-there is only one god, i never said which was the correct one...for even i do not know, neither does anyone else.
-how is this a logciall problem? seriously i am trying to wrap my head how this is a logical problem...it is stating that just because something says something doesnt mean its true...but it still leaves open the possibility that it is.
-no...again, i never said i believed in a book, and it was painfully obvious from the context of my comments that i believed hte books had flaws.

your last comment doesnt have any weight, you are trying to put words in my mouth.
User avatar
#51 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
You were saying that, since I acknowledge God's status, I must agree with your train of thought.

But if imperfect beings cannot properly interpret who/what/how God is, how can you even be sure? No human has met God and come back to tell of it, we only know of him through his own word (which, if he is perfect, were not interpreted correctly), the words of men (which are supposedly incorrect), or actions (which themselves cannot be judged or perceived).

Just like you can wrongfully believe your god is the only god, or even a god at all.

But you do have to hear of it through word of mouth or experience, which must be incorrect as you and your ears and their words are imperfect.

Then how can you know there is only one? There are many more pantheistic religions than there are monotheistic religions, likewise, the nature of a god does not demand there can be only one. First, we would have to define exactly what a god is and what it means to be a god. Traditionally, that means perfection, but it does not mean only one can be perfect, or in which field they must be perfect in. Apep is a god because he has perfect control over darkness and serpents, while Typhon is a god because he has perfect control over chaos and destruction. So on, so fourth.

Then it's possible that there is more than one god, and that he did not even create dogs.

I just don't know where else you would get such information where you would hold so firmly to such beliefs as you have.

Yes it does, you just don't want to see it.
User avatar
#54 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
-thats not what i was saying...i was saying that in reference to the exact context of what we were talking about (i can explain this if need be).

-how can you be sure that there isnt? take for example 4th dimensional beings, we would never be able to even comprehend their existance, another existance is colors unpercievable to us. God in its self is a concept and entity is something beyond our limitations.

-and just like how you can be wrong there isnt one.

-actually no, religion is by definition natural..not biologically mind you. but, religion has popped up in every civilization on our planet, it is impossible to find a civilization that has NOT developed a concept of god, this idea of god is prevelant despite the obvious lack of inter-communication between all ancient civilizations. the reason they develoepd different gods is because of human error, that is, their interpretation is wrong.

-thats a good point, i slightly referred to it in my previous (-)...but again, the definition is still unknown.

-lets throw the dog thing out, we obviously went off track

-never said i had a firm belief, hell ;)

-no...you know what it is? we both lack common ground, it is impossible to debate this if we have different common ground.
User avatar
#57 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
The only thing I'm going to focus on here is that you mockingly stated you never had a firm belief.

So all this has just been you yanking everyone else in some idiotic display.

Why even post such a stupid comment of "God created dogs, even if we tamed them" if you don't even take it completely seriously?

I'm Canadian and not even sorry, you're fucking stupid.
User avatar
#58 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
im actually an atheist..i just like to debate the easily angered users. Alot of athiests have shit logic...therefore it amuses me, goodnight m'lad...*tips*.
User avatar
#60 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Nobody's angered, and even if there were, the statement doesn't even hold because I wasn't 'angry' until right now. You're just trying to look cool. It's not working.

Goodbye.
User avatar
#63 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
thanks, for letting me have it ;)
#61 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
ill take that as another point on my wall.
User avatar
#62 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Do you need to have the last comment or something? Alright, I'll let you have it; I'm not replying anymore.
User avatar
#45 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
don't believe* typo
#37 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
Congratulations you are officially stupid enough to have made it onto my HIDE ALL list.

Just to be clear it's not because of your belief in god, but because of your unwavering belief that only you could possibly be correct.
#78 - anon (10/19/2015) [-]
You probably shouldn't feed an obvious troll. I'm a christian and even I think his behavior and logic is absurd.
User avatar
#38 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
point to where my logic is flawed..
#43 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I shouldn't engage with you however I feel a little sorry for you so I will just point out a small thing.

To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.

If you would kindly refer back to the comic in my previous post you will see that you are presenting yourself to be as ignorant as the small children in the comic. I would have to guess that it is likely that you are young enough to only see the world in the black and white of your belief and tend to think in absolutes. A long life will hopefully cure you of your inability to see the shades of grey that make up real life.

Just because YOU believe something does not make it true for everyone else in the world and believing it does is ignorance defined.
User avatar
#46 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god..if there were more, this would be contradictory since one cannot be God unless if he was the creator.

That comic is irrelevant, one does not have to go to church or read/follow the bible in order to believe in god. the fact that you think that is a problem that you have in terms of inferring based on the little information of myself that you have. Likewise, i do not believe i think in absolutes, again..you are assuming.

when did i say that others should believe in what i believe? again..you are putting words in my mouth.

you have alot of logical problems yourself.
User avatar
#119 - YllekNayr (10/19/2015) [-]
People like you are the reason there are atheists that fucking can't stand religious people
User avatar
#123 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
Whatever you say mate.
User avatar
#104 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
"If God is defined as the creator of all, then it is logical to deduce that there is only one god"
Do elaborate on that logic.
User avatar
#105 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
i litterally elaborated right after the ".."read it again. But if you cant , then i can clarify my dear chap.
User avatar
#106 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Right, I misread your initial premise.
I woke up 5 minutes ago.


So you call yourself an atheist, yet your first comment is "God made dogs."
User avatar
#113 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
(reached the comment cap)

I get how that cold be dishonest, but to be completely honest..im not the atheist who thinks in absolute (there is not chance of god) im more of the kind who thinks its unlikely that there is, although how could i know for certain. so in a sense i was not completely dishonest, especially considering i didnt base my arguments on the biblical god, but rather a hypothetical probability. my only shit post was "god made dogs", but that was to bait the fedoras.
#114 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
itsdangeroustogoalonetakethis.png

"but rather a hypothetical probability"
Also I'd stick to calling it a hypothetical, as you neither know the probability nor if it's even possible.

Weeeeell, you did start with a monotheistic approach, instead of going for a general "a creator created them"
User avatar
#109 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
yep, like i said..i just like to bait fedoras, although i try to use sound logic. the reason i do so is because often atheists have just as weak logic as the religious folk they try to bash.

i mean no harm though.
User avatar
#110 - testaburger (10/19/2015) [-]
Indeed, but I only go after them if they display that logic. I find it a bit dishonest to pose as something you're not.

#47 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I believe in multiple god are you saying I am incorrect?
User avatar
#48 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
should i even reply? you are trying to isolate one of your points, meanwhile not replying/refuting my other arguments.

i dont think i want to argue with someone so close minded.
User avatar
#93 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
What? You actually completely ignored his argument in #43
User avatar
#130 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
The comment capped.

But no, it's a statement of logic..not of fact or belief. It in its self is simply of logical flow based on the hypothetical common ground that there is a god. Google for literary help if that didn't make sense due to lack of reading comp.
User avatar
#98 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
No I didn't. Point out the part I "ignored".
User avatar
#125 - unikornking (10/19/2015) [-]
"To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical. "
#49 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
To say "there is only one god." is not a statement of FACT but of BELIEF. Any argument after that point is predicated on a pretense that is itself absolutely illogical.
User avatar
#56 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
we are obvously debating the concept of god.

but anyway, im an atheist i just like debating with fedoras..goodnight retard.
User avatar
#50 - donatelo (10/19/2015) [-]
no..its a statement of logic. God as a definition, whether you believe in it or not, is that of a creator of all. if there were more than one God, it would contradict the definition of God since it brings about a dilemma of who created who.
User avatar
#64 - StewieGGriffin (10/19/2015) [-]
Hey cuntface, dont make us all look stupid.
#53 - apologies (10/19/2015) [-]
I actually feel sorry for myself for interacting with you instead of just HIDE ALL which I will rectify now to avoid your circular arguments.

Your argument is predicated on the belief that a god exists at all. The definition of the word god is as irrelevant as the definition of the word unicorn.

The definition of unicorn is a horse with a horn but that doesn't mean it ever existed or that any argument about a unicorn would ever be based in fact or logic.
User avatar
#52 - captainfuckitall (10/19/2015) [-]
Actually, there is nothing that states a god must create. In many religions since the dawn of the first civilization, which itself had a pantheistic religion, they had multiple gods dealing with different things.
#36 - Oh jeez, now I feel bad. I'm sorry, man.  [+] (3 replies) 10/19/2015 on (untitled) -3
#37 - stalini (10/19/2015) [-]
I.. I'm sorry too
#62 - anon (10/19/2015) [-]
your a fucking negro
#58 - Visual (10/19/2015) [-]
What the actual fuck is wrong with you?