Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why say its a faith claim? so you get a way out? so you get your little anti-religious socialist sect something?
We compare his faith claim to your faith claim and you come up short. get over it or get a more valid claim.
there is nature and every trait mystic's god has is nature's traits also. Mystic doesn't add one thing to his claim that isn't nature. They are identical.
we have to compare his claim, "nature defines our reality" to your claim "deny everything because some of us feel religion is so dangerous it must be stopped by any means necessary."
well, that was easy ... yours is debunked and spanked with a clearly less valid noodle.
keep changing trans, your almost there. keep applying apologetic notions (thinking) and adjust your claims accordingly.
I say it is a Faith -claim because it is. If there is any decent evidence for it, let them present it, rather than trying to fiddle with who has the burden of proof. And you are being as obtuse as he is if you haven't worked out that 'nature' has to at least be intelligent to be God, otherwise - it's just 'nature'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
This is a bit harsh but a fairly accurate summation of the status quo, IMO.
I'm not at all concerned with how 'harsh' it is. I'm only concerned with it being wrong - as you are for agreeing with it.
Yeah, it's Mystic's seeming need to include the crucifixion into his paradigm that I take issue with.
Jesus's execution was not an example of agape love. Jesus voluntarily crawled up on that cross and let himself be sacrificed - because Jesus was God and God knew exactly what he was doing.
At least according to standard Christian belief.
But even if you threw all that aside, it still comes down to this: If the God of the Bible doesn't exist, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Forbidden Fruit, and thus no Original Sin.
And, without Original Sin, there was no Fall of Man - in which case humanity has absolutely nothing to be forgiven for. The *only* reason why the crucifixion can be seen as anything more than an exceedingly cruel form of executon is if Jesus allowed himself to be sacrificed so that humanity could be forgiven by God.
Otherwise - it's just one of untold millions upon millions of executions that have been carried out over the centuries.
Moreover, IF God should exist and all of this Bible malarchy turns out to be true, then there's the inescapable fact that the crucifixion wasn't even for we humans. It was for God's own benefit and nothing more. As we all know, God could have simply forgiven humanity without all of the pomp and ceremony - but God needed his blood sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus died to sate God's lust for blood. It had very little to do with forgiveness.
In any event, I fail to see how a run-of-the-mill if horrific execution or a blood sacrifice is any indication of agape love.
Now, that was not at all harsh but a fairly accurate summation of the status quo, IMO.
I say it is a Faith -claim because it is. If there is any decent evidence for it, let them present it, rather than trying to fiddle with who has the burden of proof. And you are being as obtuse as he is if you haven't worked out that 'nature' has to at least be intelligent to be God, otherwise - it's just 'nature'.
Unlike Arach, you still have trouble seeing our Reality as a single living entity which is why your stumbling block is the composition fallacy. There is nothing separate from God (Reality) so all existing attributes are attributes of God.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 03-08-2019 at 04:31 PM..
Yeah, it's Mystic's seeming need to include the crucifixion into his paradigm that I take issue with.
Jesus's execution was not an example of agape love. Jesus voluntarily crawled up on that cross and let himself be sacrificed - because Jesus was God and God knew exactly what he was doing.
At least according to standard Christian belief.
But even if you threw all that aside, it still comes down to this: If the God of the Bible doesn't exist, then there was no Garden of Eden, no Forbidden Fruit, and thus no Original Sin.
And, without Original Sin, there was no Fall of Man - in which case humanity has absolutely nothing to be forgiven for. The *only* reason why the crucifixion can be seen as anything more than an exceedingly cruel form of execution is if Jesus allowed himself to be sacrificed so that humanity could be forgiven by God.
Otherwise - it's just one of untold millions upon millions of executions that have been carried out over the centuries.
Moreover, IF God should exist and all of this Bible malarchy turns out to be true, then there's the inescapable fact that the crucifixion wasn't even for we humans. It was for God's own benefit and nothing more. As we all know, God could have simply forgiven humanity without all of the pomp and ceremony - but God needed his blood sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus died to sate God's lust for blood. It had very little to do with forgiveness.
In any event, I fail to see how a run-of-the-mill if horrific execution or a blood sacrifice is any indication of agape love.
You have correctly pointed out the entire erroneous rationale that dominates the Christian narrative but that does not invalidate the Savior meme as the way we are to evolve our understanding of our reason for existing. We are storytellers and the way we evolve our understanding of things is by telling stories. As our brains' evolved and our knowledge of Reality grew, we developed more and more sophisticated interpretations of the stories we are influenced to tell about our understanding of our purpose for existing.
The Bible is just one of many such chronicles of our spiritual evolution. Genesis describes how the stages of our consciousness evolve as we learn about reality from our experiences. I know there is an overarching consciousness that influences that spiritual evolution, but you and Arq, et al. do not. You use the typical unwarranted attributes of God in the extant mistaken beliefs to reason why there is not (eg. Omni's, Theodicy, etc.) I do not. I attribute to God only those attributes that we know about from science, not the ones most people have decided God MUST have.
About the only statement of belief that is clearly less valid is tran's claim that its best we deny everything in order to market atheism better. By trans own admission the only diference is semantics. that means, trans faith statement needs him to use certain words so that he can remain in his flock.
so we have mystic using observations in science and trans using "semantics"?
mystic using QED and trans using "It doesn't matter to me and won't change my life so don't give anything that theist can use to them ... it doesn't matter anyway."
mystics uses the scientific method check his claims against and trans uses tran's personal opinion about god/religion to check claims against.
Just based on that, who the heck is somebody like me supposed to support? when we apply science who has a better chance to self correct to match observations and help people along the way?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 03-08-2019 at 04:38 PM..
Unlike Arach, you still have trouble seeing our Reality as a single living entity which is why your stumbling block is the composition fallacy. There is nothing separate from God (Reality) so all existing attributes are attributes of God.
Yes Arach is well on the way to inventing a god that he can believe in. And I can certainly 'see' Reality as a 'living' entity (though whether you understand the implications of that is not so certain). The 'composition' fallacy is nothing to do with not being able to see it.
What you cannot see is that you need to substantiate this 'living entity'. If not, the default is not to accept the claim. I remain astonished that you cannot 'see' this very simple logic.
Yes Arach is well on the way to inventing a god that he can believe in. And I can certainly 'see' Reality as a 'living' entity (though whether you understand the implications of that is not so certain). The 'composition' fallacy is nothing to do with not being able to see it.
What you cannot see is that you need to substantiate this 'living entity'. If not, the default is not to accept the claim. I remain astonished that you cannot 'see' this very simple logic.
lmao. You do understand that when you say "thats sort-a-god" it isn't actually evidence to support your claim right?
I mean when you call a claim "yellow", its just an adjective that you made up and doesn't effect the validity of the claim, right?
But I get it. You are defending a claim. You only have to sell your sect to the 100iq-er or person seeking revenge on religion, and not actually having to state anything that matches observation, do you?
In a way i should be happy. You are the single biggest reason that my type of atheist will always out number your type of atheist.
of course, we will need a standing army to protect ourselves and others from you.
Yes Arach is well on the way to inventing a god that he can believe in. And I can certainly 'see' Reality as a 'living' entity (though whether you understand the implications of that is not so certain). The 'composition' fallacy is nothing to do with not being able to see it.
What you cannot see is that you need to substantiate this 'living entity'. If not, the default is not to accept the claim. I remain astonished that you cannot 'see' this very simple logic.
we are surrounded by life. You can't see that trans, thats your problem. also, there are plenty of scientist talking about the biosphere as an organism to help solve some of the problems we are causing. There are many of them. .
You denying it because you hate religion and are a foreign anti-religious socialist freedom fighter doesn't mean we have to close our eyes.
Unlike Arach, you still have trouble seeing our Reality as a single living entity which is why your stumbling block is the composition fallacy. There is nothing separate from God (Reality) so all existing attributes are attributes of God.
what really funny, he that he doesn't really know what we are talking about. and he thinks "I don't believe that" is a valid counter claim. just like a Fundy theist.
I must say, I don't think that. I 1/2 think, because he told me as such, that he is denying everything because he feels religion is so dangerous. It has nothing to do with wht you are saying.
I mean look at his counter statements to you. Not one is fact based. he is all about his personal opinion deciding what is right and wrong for the rest of us. he is using only "samatics" to argue argue is case. i swear, its so blatantly off the mark he must be paid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
