By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - This is why I don't like debating religion

dsgrue3 on 17 December 2012

Alright, this is getting really stupid.

Existence is predicated upon observation, and observation is predicated upon evidence. As there is no such observation of a supernatural being "God", none such entity exists.

Until evidence surfaces supporting your claim that a supernatural being exists, one does not exist. The same logic may be applied to unicorns or leprechauns.



Around the Network
happydolphin on 17 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Alright, this is getting really stupid.

Existence is predicated upon observation, and observation is predicated upon evidence. As there is no such observation of a supernatural being "God", none such entity exists.

Until evidence surfaces supporting your claim that a supernatural being exists, one does not exist. The same logic may be applied to unicorns or leprechauns.

Or to atoms in a less technologically advanced era. The lack of evidence doesn't negate the existence.



Jay520 on 17 December 2012
happydolphin said:
dsgrue3 said:
Alright, this is getting really stupid.

Existence is predicated upon observation, and observation is predicated upon evidence. As there is no such observation of a supernatural being "God", none such entity exists.

Until evidence surfaces supporting your claim that a supernatural being exists, one does not exist. The same logic may be applied to unicorns or leprechauns.

Or to atoms in a less technologically advanced era. The lack of evidence doesn't negate the existence.


Are you agreeing that there's no evidence for God?



happydolphin on 17 December 2012
Jay520 said:
happydolphin said:

Or to atoms in a less technologically advanced era. The lack of evidence doesn't negate the existence.

Are you agreeing that there's no evidence for God?

Never said that, just following his logic.

I personally believe there is tons of evidence or at least there is a slew of verifiable biblical claims, but I have no more energy to demonstrate that.



Jay520 on 17 December 2012
happydolphin said:

Never said that, just following his logic.

I personally believe there is tons of evidence or at least there is a slew of verifiable biblical claims, but I have no more energy to demonstrate that.


hmmm...no energy or no evidence? I wonder....



Around the Network
happydolphin on 17 December 2012
Jay520 said:

hmmm...no energy or no evidence? I wonder....

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

If I were to produce the number of threads I've worked out

  • Creationism
  • The historicity of Christ
  • General discussion over the verifiability of biblical claims

You would be in for a run for your money.

But just so you realize it's not good to suspect, but to ask first, here is a bone:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4220840



Jay520 on 17 December 2012
happydolphin said:
Jay520 said:

hmmm...no energy or no evidence? I wonder....

Assumptions assumptions assumptions.

If I were to produce the number of threads I've worked out

 

  • Creationism
  • The historicity of Christ
  • General discussion over the verifiability of biblical claims

 

You would be in for a run for your money.

But just so you realize it's not good to suspect, but to ask first, here is a bone:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4220840


Fair enough.



Runa216 on 17 December 2012
DaRev said:
Runa216 said:
DaRev said:


Really what point is that? That non-religious people always make claims about religion that they themselves ultimately can't support?

As for putting my money where my mouth is I wouldn't waste my time, seriously. Because you claim on one hand that religious people should quit but now you want me to convince you? Lol - Go read my many other posts on this religion if you want proof, it was already discussed.

how is it a waste of time?  you're just unable to support your theory, so like all religious people you're backing down to the "I have my rights" argument.  Which is true, you do, but I did read your posts and nothing was in any way conclusive or even all that compelling.  

so, when are you bringing the real points to the table? 

It's a waste of time because the Bible (according to Christianity) is God's revelation to man that he exists. Therefore I, DaREv, need to do nothing in the way of providing any proof, as its all in the Bible. So go read the source, and come back and tell me what part of the proof/eveidence of God that the Bible puts forward that you have a rebuttal against

You still fail to see that just becuase a book says something (especially one so old and so contested), it doesn't mean it's true. In the words of house, everybody lies, and without substantial evidence there's no way to prove it.  You don't 'get' science, do you? 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Runa216 on 17 December 2012
Majora said:

I don't think you understand what exactly it is that you are posing. Alexander the Great is an historical figure who apart from leaving behind many buildings has also left archaeologists with a wealth of artifacts as evidence to his existence.

The knowledge of the existence of Alexander the Great is different to the written "proof" of God in that (lack of archaeological evidence aside) Alexander the Great is now presented as an omnipotent being who's word is law over all men. The existence of Alexander the Great does not require you to suspend belief for it to appear perfectly reasonable that he did exist.

Another point you are missing in this debate is that whether God exists or not is really not important. As there is no evidence or any logical reason to believe he exists, why worry about whether he exists or not? Using your logic, there is no proof that unicorns, fairies and other pantheons of Gods and Goddesses do not exist, however the difference there is that most people these days aren't worrying, stressing or fighting over their potential existence. If they exist, that's wonderful but as they are not present or tangible it really isn't important. It is important however that we acknowledge what is real and what does exist.

FYI - I am not suggesting that Jesus didn't exist - I think it entirely reasonable to believe that he did. I just know that if he did exist, he was potentially mentally unstable as he claimed to be the son of an invisible deity. If I suggested to you that I was the son of god and truly believed it, would I be worthy of your time and adoration or would you dismiss me as crazy or mistaken? There is so much evidence to suggest that a god is not only unlikely but entirely unncessary that I don't see how anyone who believes in such a being isn't entirely ignorant to the world around them.

L. Ron Hubbard was a real person who really existed, that doesn't mean Scientology is real or that he really was the catalyst behind Xenu's army. 

By that logic, Scientology is more credible than christianity. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Bong Lover on 17 December 2012
Dodece said:

The dichotomy at play in my post was purely intentional. If I have to explain it to you. Then you will never get it.


Don't worry, it's not the 'dichotomy' at play in your post I found amusing. As too not fall into the 'If I have to explain it to you, you'll never get it' pattern I will explain to you why I found your initial post delightfully entertaining.

Let me quote one of your opening statements:

"If you don't oppose a line of thought that dehumanizes others. Then the person putting forth that line of thought. Will take your silence as consent, or a confirmation that their ideas are right. Which in the end might lead that person to kill that person that they have dehumanized."

A questinable statement in itself to say the least, but who are we kidding; This is a gaming discussion board on the internet, further leaps in reasoning happens every minute of the day.

Anyhow, later in the very same post you explain how to use 'cheap, underhanded, and needlessly brutal' methods to induce emotional discomfort and errode someones faith. Later brag about planting 'a false profit' (I am assuming you meant prophet?). In other words, your doing a bang up job of dehumanizing your opponents yourself.

That's ironic, and that's also hilarious.