The God Debate v3

[Tenebrous]

this post is arrogant. /s

What are you even talking about?

 

[MrExtrodinaryMr]

What are you even talking about?

Mooclan mentioned that your style of writing is extremely arrogant (found it kinda ironic), so I just felt like replying to your comment with that.

 

[Tenebrous]

oh you were expecting detailed responses? bro i was giving brief summaries...







I was trying to imply that I'm too lazy to give a $#17 about arguing with you, but you always go and make it personal...


Haven't I explained sufficiently that you're looking at the wrong aspect of things?

You're trying to enter into a debate that is NOT about science that the other person NEEDS to use science in order to be "correct" or "accurate" or whatever you're looking for in a conclusive end.


Although the word "excuse" is often somewhat synonymous with "reason" and "explanation," in this case they have different meanings.

When it comes to religion, it's about faith. If you're going to fairly debate about miracles, spirituality, and the likes, then you need to have what's called an "open mind". As polite as it would be of me to say "fortunately for us, you do have an open mind", I simply can't say that without lying to myself - Seriously, dude, do you play football or any other contact sport? I get the impression that you might have had a few too many concussions.




oh whoa i'm actually getting a headache from reading through your post
that takes impressive amounts of absurdity.


yeah so do i, but we all know that science is incomplete and not advanced enough to definitively explain the creation of the universe, nor the existence of everything that is in the universe.


yeah..no..



trinity is wrong. LMAO.
almost everyone except the catholics know that..
i've met plenty of people who were catholic and totally awesome - heck, i've flirted with catholic girls. my best friend in grade 4-7 was catholic. the nicest butt i've ever seen belonged to a catholic girl. (too far?)
but that doesn't change the fact that the Pope is sometimes hypocritical, is definitely imperfect, and that certain catholic practices directly violate the Bible and it's contents.

please don't use trinity.
i'm going to veto/invalidate the entire above quote... without reading it. because seriously dude, you're trying waaaay too hard. and it's still irrelevant (not in an offensive way - it's just not applicable).


okay, so I went through about half the video, and then I glanced at what you said again..

"They use believers"
wtf?

getting someone who believes in God to pray =/= making a prayer that is:
from a perspective of belief (i feel like that's a grammatically incorrect way of describing it, but w/e)
for a purpose that does align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept)

that's just flawed logic, tene



my dearest tene....

we're not supposed to freakin' understand it.
-_-
???
even if we were to put a less extreme physical comparison on the scale, it still wouldn't line up:
Ant V.S. Human. Let's see who wins!

ant: follow pheromones or whatever and stab whatever moves
human: hmm let's flick this tiny ant before it gets into my coffee, and then i can continue the other 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 55 seconds of my day.

When dealing with the topic of whether or not a god exists, logic gets thrown out the window, because it simply isn't capable of handling that subject.

like, can you think of a new color?
probably not lmao
if you can, then i think we might have reached a new step in human evolution. LOL.
(oh, and by the way, i do personally partially believe in evolution, but not quite in the usual sense.)


it's a concept that attempts to come somewhat close to explaining how God "moves".
it's not supposed to be absolute or 100% accurate.


I was referring to the sources that you provided in our last debate, which I did prove to be false.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


- does the word "fiction" ring a bell?
- public deception, influence, and distraction. "Bread and circuses"
- flat-out mistaken and incorrect, which does happen.
you'd have to go case-by-case


not ranting, reminding.


like I said a month ago: READ ABOUT IT BEFORE YOU COME TO ME. IT'S NOT MY JOB, YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS ENTIRE $#17SHOW, BRO.


┻━┻︵ \(°□°)/ ︵ ┻━┻

"Living Word":
Ever heard of "situational interpretations"?
Well, basically, you can come to one passage and read it and go "okay, so I learned ___ this lesson."
The next day, you can run into an annoying person/stressful situation, and then you can go back to that same passage, and re-read it, and go "okay, so now I learned another lesson from this passage."
Same passage, but it can be interpreted differently.
The way that people read it changes based on what's happening in their lives - thus, "living word". It's something that happens throughout the entire Bible, whereas other advanced-level books have difficulty achieving that effect in more than a single paragraph.
It's one of the reasons that the Bible is so critically acclaimed and widely-studied.

And, of course, it goes deeper than that - remember, I'm barely 17 years old. I FALL ASLEEP in church every time. A well-read theologian could easily cover this topic better than I can.



hold up, why are you trying to imply that I've been the one personally arguing pro-Christianity for hundreds/thousands of years? it wasn't me bro, go blame the other people.


thanks for the high expectations, but I never planned on taking this too seriously. You were the one that sought out a debate - like I said at the beginning of this post, I was originally here just to do some casual/light writing.



dude just stop trying to pick fights with me, it's annoying af. i don't know what you're trying to do. your writing style is also exceptionally arrogant, which is somewhat acceptable on a non-personal topic, but on a subject like religion, it would get you locked up in some countries.

this was not how i planned on spending half an hour of my 3-day weekend..


bless yo' soul for some comedic relief.

You're trying to enter into a debate that is NOT about science that the other person NEEDS to use science in order to be "correct" or "accurate" or whatever you're looking for in a conclusive end.
All claims are subject to scientific method. It doesn't matter what they are. You need to understand this.

When it comes to religion, it's about faith. If you're going to fairly debate about miracles, spirituality, and the likes, then you need to have what's called an "open mind". As polite as it would be of me to say "fortunately for us, you do have an open mind", I simply can't say that without lying to myself - Seriously, dude, do you play football or any other contact sport? I get the impression that you might have had a few too many concussions.
You are literally conflating being open minded and believing anything you hear. I have an open mind, but I also have something that you seem to lack; which happens to be critical thinking. Your entire faith rests on the lack of skepticism. This is the essence of the scientific method, skepticism. I don't know why ANY claim would be exempt from the scientific method. You can go ahead and claim that "hey, god x is exempt from the scientific method" but there would be absolutely no reason that would be the case. Someone could just go out and claim that unicorns exist and are by definition exempt from the scientific method. Does that make them exist? No.

getting someone who believes in God to pray =/= making a prayer that is:
from a perspective of belief (i feel like that's a grammatically incorrect way of describing it, but w/e)
for a purpose that does align with "God's Will" (a biblical concept)
What? What are you talking about? What is God's Will? If he already has a "will" then what's the purpose in praying? There are no restrictions on prayer in the NT that say that it must be the "will of god".

i'm going to veto/invalidate the entire above quote... without reading it. because seriously dude, you're trying waaaay too hard. and it's still irrelevant (not in an offensive way - it's just not applicable).
> Can't win argument
> Claims opponent is trying too hard
This is just another case of you being illogical.

like, can you think of a new color?
probably not lmao
if you can, then i think we might have reached a new step in human evolution. LOL.
(oh, and by the way, i do personally partially believe in evolution, but not quite in the usual sense.)
You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm asking you to define god in a way that is coherent. Just saying that he is "so beyond us" is NOT a definition. If you want to go the route to say that there is no definition because god is so beyond us, then fine; you've just admitted that such a thing isn't even a coherent concept. Please define your terms and THEN we will have a discussion on what it means for such a thing to exist. Otherwise, saying "god exists" is the same thing as saying that "maximally great square circle" exists. To illustrate the ridiculousness of your response, here is a defense of the maximally great square circle being coherent. "THE SQUARE CIRCLE IS SO GREAT AND BEYOND US THAT IT DEFIES LOGIC AND THEREFORE CAN EXIST!!!11". It's obvious that such a thing isn't coherent, it doesn't matter how "great" it is. You are literally illogical. You are positing a being that is beyond logic and therefore is illogical. There is no way to get around that unless you can define god coherently.

it's a concept that attempts to come somewhat close to explaining how God "moves".
it's not supposed to be absolute or 100% accurate.
Once again, if you can't define what you're trying to argue for it's simply incoherent and thus meaningless.

- does the word "fiction" ring a bell?
- public deception, influence, and distraction. "Bread and circuses"
- flat-out mistaken and incorrect, which does happen.
you'd have to go case-by-case
Unfortunately for you, most of the gospels / old testament would fall in the category of myth. Not going to go into the details but they share 100% of the characteristics you would expect from a mythical story.

"Living Word":
Ever heard of "situational interpretations"?
Well, basically, you can come to one passage and read it and go "okay, so I learned ___ this lesson."
The next day, you can run into an annoying person/stressful situation, and then you can go back to that same passage, and re-read it, and go "okay, so now I learned anotherlesson from this passage."
Same passage, but it can be interpreted differently.
The way that people read it changes based on what's happening in their lives - thus, "living word". It's something that happens throughout the entire Bible, whereas other advanced-level books have difficulty achieving that effect in more than a single paragraph.
It's one of the reasons that the Bible is so critically acclaimed and widely-studied.
Isn't that the most subjective thing ever?

hold up, why are you trying to imply that I've been the one personally arguing pro-Christianity for hundreds/thousands of years? it wasn't me bro, go blame the other people.
I wasn't blaming you? It's obvious that your interpretations cannot making meaningful predictions about the world and are thus practically useless.

pick fights with me, it's annoying af
Dude. I was responding and you're taking it as a direct insult.

 

[Tenebrous]

Mooclan mentioned that your style of writing is extremely arrogant (found it kinda ironic), so I just felt like replying to your comment with that.

Oh haha

 

[Tenebrous]

/thread

- http://casualentropy.blogspot.com/2014/10/proof-that-god-does-not-exist.html

I'm tempted to not even respond to people here anymore...

 

[Mooclan]

Mooclan mentioned that your style of writing is extremely arrogant (found it kinda ironic), so I just felt like replying to your comment with that.

mine is too, btw, i just filter myself very heavily.
and i literally earned bragging rights - seriously, I was given them by MCGamer. When it comes to arrogance, i sort of have a degree of immunity from the MCGamer Awards. Part of the prize was "bragging rights".

Why do you keep responding and then complaining about the effort it takes for you to write out your posts?

I don't even see what you're trying to achieve; are you trying to defend religion or impose it onto others? Either way it's a pointless effort; irreligious people aren't going to suddenly start believing in some deity. It's not going to 'click' and make sense because there's nothing to make sense of.

once i get into writing, that's another story. i don't stop till i find a place where i'm comfortable breaking it off. my issue lies with being challenged into actually making a post in the first place, since any forumer from 2013/2014 knows that i don't typically back down from challenges.

and although i suppose i can see why you'd call it complaining, it's more like expressing dissatisfaction - but that's pretty much the same thing, in a fancier way.

the original reason i was on this thread was because I was tagged - the reason I actually made a post was because i was laughing at some of the things people were saying and wanted to make a few casual remarks.

then, tene came up and wanted to start a "conversation" which he took way beyond a conversation. (which i normally dont mind, but perhaps i wasnt clear when i tried to imply that i wasn't looking for a debate, just something on the side.)

seriously, take another look - i made an off-hand remark that was actually somewhere along the same wing as tene, and then he asked about starting up the old debate.



and for the record, i don't think i'm trying to achieve anything.
i clearly stated (somewhere in at least one of my posts on this thread) that i'm not trying to convert anyone.

this post is arrogant. /s

lol what a memer

critical thinking.

mm i always did despise my grade 4 teacher

What? What are you talking about? What is God's Will? If he already has a "will" then what's the purpose in praying? There are no restrictions on prayer in the NT that say that it must be the "will of god".

there's an OT, too...

Just saying that he is "so beyond us" is NOT a definition.

that was my way of saying that you're asking for the impossible. you're literally asking me to define what IS defined (in a slightly different sense of the word) as "indefinable".

"THE SQUARE CIRCLE IS SO GREAT AND BEYOND US THAT IT DEFIES LOGIC AND THEREFORE CAN EXIST!!!11"

oh, but can we disprove the square circle?

;]

jk yeah we can but the same type of question applies

You are literally illogical. You are positing a being that is beyond logic and therefore is illogical.

didn't i just agree with that?

the crux of this particular matter of confusion is that, in this case, being illogical is what it's supposed to be.

"logic gets thrown out the window"

Once again, if you can't define what you're trying to argue for it's simply incoherent and thus meaningless.

refer to "indefinable"

("undefinable"? google is confused on this matter.)

Unfortunately for you, most of the gospels / old testament would fall in the category of myth. Not going to go into the details but they share 100% of the characteristics you would expect from a mythical story.

except we can trace a bunch of these people back through the events of history
so yeah, that's a thing..

Isn't that the most subjective thing ever?

isn't that what i just said?



OH WHOA THIS SONG IS FRKKN INTENSE

okay back on track
(sorry [notsrry] im not really taking this too seriously..)

It's obvious that your interpretations cannot making meaningful predictions about the world and are thus practically useless.

fun prediction facts:

i was able to predict the exact number of days before a couple broke up. (9 days)
i was able to predict that i'd sleep with a girl (no, not sexually) - who, when, and where.
i was able to predict 6 completely different girls that would develop crushes on me in the past 14 months, most of them at least a month ahead. i'm currently in the process of the 7th and 8th, and so far it's looking like i'm going to be right again - this time, my predictions were 6 and 4 months ago

coincidence.
#f***boy


but yeah those are pretty meaningless predictions if we're being brutally honest
still funny, though


oh and one of my friends' league of legends smurf name is "Predictionary"
so that's (ir)relevant

why don't we go talk about the pope or something, that's easier to laugh about.











why am i even still typing im so off-topic

 

[namespace]

fun prediction facts:

i was able to predict the exact number of days before a couple broke up. (9 days)
i was able to predict that i'd sleep with a girl (no, not sexually) - who, when, and where.
i was able to predict 6 completely different girls that would develop crushes on me in the past 14 months, most of them at least a month ahead. i'm currently in the process of the 7th and 8th, and so far it's looking like i'm going to be right again - this time, my predictions were 6 and 4 months ago

coincidence.
#f***boy

/r/iamverysmart

 

[Mooclan]

/r/iamverysmart

i am also very cocky.

but with a voice as sexy as mine it's sort of ok

i found a turkish fanpage for me on Facebook

TURKISH.
FANPAGE.
ON FACEBOOK.

so, to make this post somewhat relevant:


"god" "debate"

 

[Tenebrous]

i am also very cocky.

but with a voice as sexy as mine it's sort of ok

i found a turkish fanpage for me on Facebook

TURKISH.
FANPAGE.
ON FACEBOOK.

so, to make this post somewhat relevant:


"god" "debate"

LOL
I literally just deleted the response I was writing because that post was too amazing.

 

[Mooclan]

LOL
I literally just deleted the response I was writing because that post was too amazing.

:^) at the end of the day, we're all memers. #ultimatereligion

 

[Tenebrous]

:^) at the end of the day, we're all memers. #ultimatereligion

praise the meme gods

 

[feminist]

:^) at the end of the day, we're all memers. #ultimatereligion

the mcgamer awards also say i'm good at pvp so lets not jump to conclusions