{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por Elden Lord Archon:
9/24/2018 3:45:21 AM
54
Schizophrenia. I’m sorry, but if you actually believe a magic man walked on water and flew into the sky, you might wanna get some help.
English
-
[quote]Schizophrenia. I’m sorry, but if you actually believe a magic man walked on water and flew into the sky, you might wanna get some help.[/quote] *Supernatural *Entered another plane Forgot to mention his benevolent code of ethics
-
[quote]Schizophrenia.[/quote] Believing in something that some consider to be fake is not schizophrenic. There is a lot more to that topic.
-
I might say the same thing about atheism. If you think that our complex, orderly universe (complete with life) just formed randomly from the debris of an enormous cosmic explosion, you're in no position to judge the mental state of others.
-
Frankly, I’m not trying to assert that something came from nothing. For all I know, the universe could’ve been created by a god of some sort. But to claim that just because the universe exists, it’s automatically an extremely specific god from an ancient book of fairytales is absolutely ridiculous. And there’s no historical evidence outside of the Bible that any of those Biblical events actually happened. If there is, I’d like you to show me.
-
So... the Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Roman empires never existed? Because much of Biblical history is rooted and intermingled in the history of those nations.
-
How complex would a being capable of creating universes with life be? Complex enough that it would have been designed and created? 🤔
-
That's the old "if God made us, who made Him?" argument. It doesn't resolve anything I raised, but just distracts. It's also what is known as "putting God in a box", because it subjects the Almighty to human limitations. If God is physically omnipresent, He's likely temporily omnipresent as well. Ergo, He has (and needs) no originator.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/26/2018 12:01:51 PMIt’s more than that though. Omniscience and omnipotence seem to be paradoxes, or one has to arbitrarily make their god the one convenient special exception to any standard of logic. And omnipresence makes such a being indifferent at best. Either way, by invoking god in this way, one is claiming something that they can’t actually know. And not only that, they are intentionally describing it in such a way. They are placing it beyond their reach. In which case, there’s no reason to assume that anything anyone has claimed about any god could possible know what they’re talking about. Not exactly convincing in my opinion.
-
The difference between deism (belief in God, not necessarily adherence to a faith) and atheism is that the former acknowledges a power beyond human understanding. The latter tries to use mundane things like physics, chemistry, and biology to explain the universe. Problem is, the concept of the self-created universe and abiogenesis ("accidental" life) are refuted by those very sciences. Atheism is torpedoed by the very concepts it's based upon. And that is why I wholeheartedly reject it.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/26/2018 1:38:46 PMI just prefer to leave things as unknown when that is the case. I’m fully comfortable with admitting that I don’t know, but I’m also not willing to replace that unknown with an idea for which there is zero evidence or good reason to assume. Especially when it is, and has continually, been invoked in a way that makes it perpetually beyond our understanding. Not once in the history of humanity has a supernatural explanation ever been demonstrated to be the correct one. On the other hand, the amount of supernatural explanations that have been replaced with natural ones is countless. Atheism is more of a conclusion as far as I can tell. And it’s not necessarily a knowledge claim. Just the rejection of a specific idea that no iteration of has ever had any evidence or demonstration. I think the most reasonable position is to acknowledge what can be collectively observed and repeatedly verified, as long as one remains willing to alter their view based on new discoveries that require doing so.
-
Interesting. One of my favorite ways of irritating atheists is to remind them that they're as reliant on faith as any fundamentalist, their faith is simply in science: that it will one day refute the principle of entropy, and affirm spontaneous generation (which Louis Pasteur debunked in the 1800's). Alas, since you freely admit that that you're acting on faith, that tactic doesn't work here. Still, the beginning of wisdom is admitting that you don't know everything, and that you don't have to.
-
I wouldn’t call it faith, and I consider myself what I most commonly see referred to as an “agnostic atheist” because of my willingness to admit that I don’t know. Though I do think that asking for proof of nonexistence is unreasonable and makes no sense. I’m just willing to alter my view when new discoveries require it. I think reducing everything to a matter of faith is absurd. It’s always amusing to me when those that pride themselves on it try to put everyone on their level with it. There’s no way to establish truth or reality with that mentality. It opens the door to considering every absurdity anyone can think of. Certain ideas can and should be dismissed unless something occurs that suggests otherwise. I do think that’s unreasonable. How else can we separate fantasy from reality?
-
I understand what you're trying to say. My view is that if I read a book, I know that a human intelligence generated it. If I see a clock, I know that a human intelligence assembled it. And if I see a universe, brimming with order and life and mysteries, I know that a vast intelligence brought it into existence. Like you, I require evidence. Unlike you, I feel that I have found it.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/27/2018 10:59:56 PMThe problem is that the answer you speak of has been claimed in thousands of iterations and none of them have ever had anything produced that can demonstrate their validity. In fact, the opposite has happened all throughout human history. That idea has been constantly altered, updated if you will, to match our current level of understanding of our this universe we find ourselves in. The god idea has done nothing but change to match our discoveries. We’ve done nothing but continually push it back further and further as a result of our discoveries. Again though, this comes back to imposing an idea that is arbitrarily an conveniently the one special exception to any standard of logic. Which in my opinion, makes it a bad idea. Regardless of whether it’s true or not, our inability to understand and codify it into something coherent makes it a dangerous idea, and our own history shows us this. At best, you have a god that does terrible things in its name and that uses it as an idea to harm others, while it sits back and watches with indifference. Let me ask you this. If I were to ask this conveniently eternal creator being where it came from, what do you think it would reply with?
-
I am not Him, and therefore do not have the answer. We are plainly at an impasse. You're unwilling to reach beyond the world of the seen and known, and I'm unwilling to ignore basic scientific principles. It's probably best that we agree to disagree.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/28/2018 5:15:20 PMFair enough. I’m willing and always have been. I’ve just never once had any kind of experience or even remotely felt like there was anything like that. It has never once felt like there was anything “out there” as it pertains to the notion of a higher power. I think our time and effort are better spent on ourselves and improving the overall quality of life for all, than it is hoping that there’s something out there that is responsible for us or that is watching out for us. I don’t think there’s enough love and goodness in the world to warrant spending any of it on notions of a higher power.
-
Editado por Superpug: 9/25/2018 4:31:20 PMThis is an interesting turn this argument always makes. It insists that if god made the universe then therefore somebody made god because everything needs a creator. But it completely abandons the idea of something just existing which is the cornerstone of the big band theory, as believing in something that wasn’t created is the problem.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/25/2018 5:56:19 PMInfinite regress. Which isn’t really an answer. I don’t find it to be a satisfying one anyway. The Big Bang is referring to an observable process, but it doesn’t impose any reason as to why or necessarily even how it’s happening. Which, not knowing why or how something is happening doesn’t negate the fact that it is happening. The usual place all this goes to is that the supposed universe creating being is eternal. In which case, if one can assert an eternal creator being with no evidence or explanation, one can assert an eternal universe with no evidence or explanation. Just like one can also dismiss any idea that has no evidence or explanation. I’ve noticed that people seem to like to make their gods the convenient special exception to any standard of logic or question that anyone could ever ask.
-
Well both stances believe in something before. Either god, who created everything, or a singular point from which everything expanded. That isn’t even to say that perhaps that point is where God began creating the universe, and our timing is just wrong.
-
Not necessarily. It is completely possible to acknowledge something that is happening, while not assuming anything about how or why it is happening. There’s no belief required in that. Like I said, not knowing why or even how something is happening doesn’t negate the fact that it is happening. It’s just acknowledging an observation, in this case one that is collectively observable and repeatedly so by everyone, and then stopping there.
-
It all just comes down to your worldview, as with many things. If you’re humanistic you’ll say that the universe happened, because I can see that it happened. If you’re Christian you’ll say the universe happened, because I can see that it happened (and God did it).
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/26/2018 12:02:17 PMI prefer to leave things as unknown when the truth IS that we don’t know. I think having no answer is better than imposing an answer that completely lacks any demonstration or verification. I don’t see how we can expect to improve our situation if we can’t fully accept it in the first place. And when it comes to specific ideas, concerning god, it’s an idea from the infancy of human discovery from the minds of humans that didn’t yet know where the sun went at night or that we shared this planet with countless microorganisms, and they used it to explain disease and thunder and lightning. God, as an idea, has gone from the mountains to the clouds to the stars to beyond the stars to outside the universe. Not once has anyone ever produced anything even remotely close to significant concerning any of the thousands of gods that have been claimed. This speaks volumes for how serious to take it.
-
Editado por Superpug: 9/26/2018 2:32:14 PMThere are a lot of things we don’t know, and out of all knowledge existing how much do you think you know? Perhaps god is just outside your realm of knowledge. You’re also making a claim that the idea of some higher being is irrelevant because it was due to explain the unexplained. People weren’t as dumb as you may perceive. Look into Christianity a bit, pick up a Bible if you haven’t. You don’t see stories about why berries are round, or why trees grow, or why it rains. You see a clear: God made all things. Then for the most part it’s left up to us to figure it out. The primary focus of the Bible is spiritual, how to attain spiritual salvation.
-
Editado por Ogma: Destroyer of Worlds: 9/26/2018 2:48:43 PMI’m not saying they were dumb. Just ignorant. In the same way that we, the humans if today are ignorant of much of what is beyond this solar system, and especially beyond this galaxy. There’s only fault in ignorance if one chooses to remain so. We know what we know today because of the ones that questioned those ideas and looked beyond them. I have read the Bible. That’s a very large reason for why I dismiss it. Whether that god is real or not is irrelevant because I find it to be a malevolent psychopath. Sorry not sorry. There are things that that god is said to have done that if a human subjected another human to, said human would be seen as deplorable. Why should a god get a pass? Even if I felt like I had good reason to assume a higher power(I have yet to encounter a good reason), I certainly would not assume that one.
-
It isn’t like Christianity is stopping any form of scientific advancement. There’s the theory of the universe forming, which people are speculating on, and there’s the evolutionary theory which has plenty of its own flaws. The “how we got here” is the only place humanists and Christians clash. We can get into the theology of your thoughts on God, but that would be a different subject so I won’t tangent off on it.
