What is your god like? (14 Viewers)

[Martin]

a supernatural cause is necessary, call it what you will.

This is not logic. This is fantasy.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[rounder]

You didn't say the word "equation", but that's what you implied. "There is a balance". "No one without the other." An equation is simply a precise way of saying the same thing. You also said the two things don't have to be balanced. Yet more knowledge you have of this equation.

If you say "there is no water without hydrogen" (which happens to be true) we can write than as an equation:

1*Water = 2*Hydrogen

So from what you have said we have:

x*Good = y*Evil

Now we just need to know what x and y are.

Incorrect again. I did not imply there must be a balance, I suggested there could be a balance, possibly. I implied that one cannot exist without the other, I made no other assertions of any kind.

 

[Martin]

I'm sure that's a rather obnoxious statement. Surprising coming from you.

There are obnoxious things to say and unobnoxious ones. There are obnoxious ways of saying things and unobnoxious ones.

Religion specializes in saying the obnoxious unobnoxiously. "You are nothing." "You cannot be good without god." "Without god your life has no meaning."

It's hard to get more obnoxious than that.

 

[rounder]

This is not logic. This is fantasy.

Only if you deny the very possibility of a supernatural force. Such a statement will undoubtedly prove to be extremely unintelligible. Even if you you think that there is a 0.0000000000000001 % chance of there being a supernatural creator, my statement is not fantasy at all.

 

[Martin]

Incorrect again. I did not imply there must be a balance, I suggested there could be a balance, possibly. I implied that one cannot exist without the other, I made no other assertions of any kind.

Yes you did. You said "if it wasn't swine flu it would have been something else". Which implies that there had to be something to balance the equation.

Otherwise, why can't we have a tiny bit of suffering and lots and lots of happiness? Who wouldn't trade that world for this one?

 

[Bjerknes]

There are obnoxious things to say and unobnoxious ones. There are obnoxious ways of saying things and unobnoxious ones.

Religion specializes in saying the obnoxious unobnoxiously. "You are nothing." "You cannot be good without god." "Without god your life has no meaning."

It's hard to get more obnoxious than that.

Exactly, and when one makes a stink about that, they say you're disrespecting God and your religion.

Religion is the world's greatest Ponzi Scheme known to man.

 

[Dinsdale]

Still at it huh, Martin.

 

[Martin]

And Seven? He says obnoxious things in an obnoxious way. But at least he's being honest with you. I wish people wouldn't bash him for that

 

[Martin]

Still at it huh, Martin.

Goddamn it Tom, I get dragged into these conversation like a moth to a flame

 

[rounder]

There are obnoxious things to say and unobnoxious ones. There are obnoxious ways of saying things and unobnoxious ones.

Religion specializes in saying the obnoxious unobnoxiously. "You are nothing." "You cannot be good without god." "Without god your life has no meaning."

It's hard to get more obnoxious than that.

Religion conveys the word of God, and God's message must be obnoxious to say the very least.

Imagine the Bible stating, " If you believe in me, that's cool, but if not, I suppose that's cool also. Have a nice day dude."

Humans don't have to be obnoxious.

 

[Martin]

Only if you deny the very possibility of a supernatural force. Such a statement will undoubtedly prove to be extremely unintelligible. Even if you you think that there is a 0.0000000000000001 % chance of there being a supernatural creator, my statement is not fantasy at all.

"If you assume that something illogical and impossible is possible then it becomes logical."

Not the most convincing argument you have there.

 

[Martin]

Religion conveys the word of God, and God's message must be obnoxious to say the very least.

Imagine the Bible stating, " If you believe in me, that's cool, but if not, I suppose that's cool also. Have a nice day dude."

Humans don't have to be obnoxious.

But humans are the ones saying these words, not god. Of course they are saying that they only repeat what god told them. But then every criminal says that someone else did it.

In any case humans are not excused from their words and actions by saying god told them to say it/do it. No court of law accepts that excuse.

 

[rounder]

Yes you did. You said "if it wasn't swine flu it would have been something else". Which implies that there had to be something to balance the equation.

Otherwise, why can't we have a tiny bit of suffering and lots and lots of happiness? Who wouldn't trade that world for this one?

I'd love that, but that would devalue joy and happiness wouldn't you say? I would not be as happy if I did not have so many torturous events in my life after I won the lottery.

The balance I am talking about is not the balance you are suggesting, it is not a scientific balance but rather a sentimental one.

And Seven? He says obnoxious things in an obnoxious way. But at least he's being honest with you. I wish people wouldn't bash him for that

Ah, so you favour something or someone that is obnoxious as long as it is not contradicting your beliefs? Interesting.

 

[rounder]

"If you assume that something illogical and impossible is possible then it becomes logical."

Not the most convincing argument you have there.

I did no such thing. God is plausible and logical. You believe he isn't. But since He is possible, my statement is not illogial.

But humans are the ones saying these words, not god. Of course they are saying that they only repeat what god told them. But then every criminal says that someone else did it.

In any case humans are not excused from their words and actions by saying god told them to say it/do it. No court of law accepts that excuse.

We're talking about Jesus jere with multiple eyewitnesses to identical accounts. Historians think they have hit a gold mine when they find two identical accounts by different people of the same story. The Bible includes four. And what more reliable references do you need than Jesus' disciples?

 

[Martin]

I'd love that, but that would devalue joy and happiness wouldn't you say? I would not be as happy if I did not have so many torturous events in my life after I won the lottery.

The balance I am talking about is not the balance you are suggesting, it is not a scientific balance but rather a sentimental one.

So now it's the wrong kind of balance? You are funny sometimes. Fine, this new type of balance. You are clearly implying that there is an equation that determines how happy you can be based on how much you have suffered.

So that would mean if you want to maximize your happiness you should first try to suffer as much as you possibly can. Correct?

Ah, so you favour something or someone that is obnoxious as long as it is not contradicting your beliefs? Interesting.

I favor diversity over uniformity. If I were a moderator I would not encourage Seven to be mean. In fact I don't do that now. But I don't support persecuting him either. Basically, people should learn to tolerate people who push their buttons. And most of all understand why they are reacting this way. That way they become stronger and less dependent on other authorities to always protect them.

 

[Martin]

We're talking about Jesus jere with multiple eyewitnesses to identical accounts. Historians think they have hit a gold mine when they find two identical accounts by different people of the same story. The Bible includes four. And what more reliable references do you need than Jesus' disciples?

Changing the subject, are we? I thought we were talking about how bad it is when people are obnoxious? Religious people very much included. Regardless of what evidence they have.

 

[Dinsdale]

Goddamn it Tom, I get dragged into these conversation like a moth to a flame

You have a vocation.

 

[rounder]

So now it's the wrong kind of balance? You are funny sometimes. Fine, this new type of balance. You are clearly implying that there is an equation that determines how happy you can be based on how much you have suffered.

So that would mean if you want to maximize your happiness you should first try to suffer as much as you possibly can. Correct?

Definitely. If you have two people 2000 dollars each, the first is the son of a very wealthy senator and has never had any financial woes, while the second is a troubled orphan who has had to work his entire life just to get by, who do you think will be happier?

I favor diversity over uniformity. If I were a moderator I would not encourage Seven to be mean. In fact I don't do that now. But I don't support persecuting him either. Basically, people should learn to tolerate people who push their buttons. And most of all understand why they are reacting this way. That way they become stronger and less dependent on other authorities to always protect them.

I agree, I don't have any problem when Seven throws insults at me. It's understandable that people tend to attack the person instead of the idea, this is mainly due to the fact that Seven may lack the intellectual capabilities of attacking my opinion as well as he would have liked

However, I don't accept people who have had genuine experiences with God be called names. This is childish and ignorant to say the least. Perhaps one day you may be one of these people, who knows. And as the golden rule goes, treat others as you yourself want to be treated.

 

[rounder]

Changing the subject, are we? I thought we were talking about how bad it is when people are obnoxious? Religious people very much included. Regardless of what evidence they have.

Im not defending certain religious people nor will I do so. I was defending religion. That's what your quote read, " Religion is the most obnoxious of them all". I didn't think you'd be attacking religious people. I disagree with most religious people, hell, I even think that creationists are more delusional than you atheists.

 

[Martin]

Im not defending certain religious people nor will I do so. I was defending religion. That's what your quote read, " Religion is the most obnoxious of them all". I didn't think you'd be attacking religious people. I disagree with most religious people, hell, I even think that creationists are more delusional than you atheists.

Religion comes from religious people. If Jesus had lived and noone took him seriously there would no Christianity. So "religion" is basically the sum product of what religious people do.