I don't understand being attached to your religion

[theman93]

The standard where raping a child has a negative impact on the child's life. So it's similar to religion I suppose. Good point mate.

Why would he care if it has a negative impact on the child's life? It had a positive impact on his. So what?

[Off the Court]

Why would he care if it has a negative impact on the child's life? It had a positive impact on his. So what?

Good point, that's like if someone stabbed you to death and then pissed on your body maybe it's a good thing if he got enjoyment from that. You know.

OH, but what if he killed you, pissed on you AND he shit on you? And then spit on you? and then jerked off all over you? Then is that negative or still no?

[theman93]

Good point, that's like if someone stabbed you to death and then pissed on your body maybe it's a good thing if he got enjoyment from that. You know.

OH, but what if he killed you, pissed on you AND he shit on you? And then spit on you? and then jerked off all over you? Then is that negative or still no?

What makes something negative? Again I’ll ask: By what standard are you calling anything moral or immoral? Feelings aren’t a standard.

[Patrick Chewing]

i wouldn't call either side of the argument of "god's" existence delusional, but if you HAD to pick a delusional (there must be a better word) side, it would be the believers, imo.

having faith isn't in the least bit delusional, but believing without evidence arguably is. without evidence, have faith. with evidence, begin to believe.

There isn't a better word because there doesn't have to be one. If one believes in God through religion and personal faith, then they are no different, no better or no worse, than someone who doesn't believe in God because he cannot see evidence.


And the evidence to God that the over 4 billion people who are part of the Abrahamic religions believe in is in the scriptures.

[Off the Court]

What makes something negative? Again I’ll ask: By what standard are you calling anything moral or immoral? Feelings aren’t a standard.

True true.

Also what makes something real? Maybe everything is fake like that one Keanu Reeves movie where he knew he was in a simulated world so he could do magic shit. What about that?

[theman93]

True true.

Also what makes something real? Maybe everything is fake like that one Keanu Reeves movie where he knew he was in a simulated world so he could do magic shit. What about that?

So there is no morality in your world view. Moving on.

What evidence is there that our reality is dictated by robots?

[Off the Court]

So there is no morality in your world view. Moving on.

What evidence is there that our reality is dictated by robots?

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. And how do you know you aren't a robot? Have you seen your own brain? Maybe it's all computery shit inside your skull. What evidence do you have?

[theman93]

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. And how do you know you aren't a robot? Have you seen your own brain? Maybe it's all computery shit inside your skull. What evidence do you have?

No, ask a brain surgeon and he will tell you the anatomy of your brain, how it functions, and what needs to happen to perform a successful surgery. Not that it’s “computery shit”. Sounds like a weird fairy tale your making up here.

Your world view has led you to a place of absurdity where you don’t even know if child molestation is immoral or if a brain is a computer.

[Off the Court]

No, ask a brain surgeon and he will tell you the anatomy of your brain, how it functions, and what needs to happen to perform a successful surgery. Not that it’s “computery shit”. Sounds like a weird fairy tale your making up here.

Your world view has led you to a place of absurdity where you don’t even know if child molestation is immoral or if a brain is a computer.

By what standard does the world even have a view? I think you have to ask yourself that. And what if a child molested a brain surgeon using his computer? If you think that question is absurd you better think again buddy. It's real. I mean it might be real, it could happen.

[diamenz]

I would challenge that notion.

By what standard can a non-believer (atheist) justify his moral position? By what standard?

How can an atheist account for science? Where does uniformity in nature come from in a world that he believes at it's foundation is time and chance acting on matter?

There isn't a better word because there doesn't have to be one. If one believes in God through religion and personal faith, then they are no different, no better or no worse, than someone who doesn't believe in God because he cannot see evidence.


And the evidence to God that the over 4 billion people who are part of the Abrahamic religions believe in is in the scriptures.

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

[theman93]

By what standard does the world even have a view? I think you have to ask yourself that. And what if a child molested a brain surgeon using his computer? If you think that question is absurd you better think again buddy. It's real. I mean it might be real, it could happen.

The world doesn’t have a view. Individuals hold world views.

Given that you have no certainty about anything I see why you might think that’s a possibility. You could magically turn in to a velociraptor after reading this for all you know. You don’t even have a basis for conducting simple science.

[theman93]

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

I just gave you the compelling evidence. Atheists cannot even do the science they base their world view on without God. Time and chance acting on matter does not bring about order, which makes it impossible to have uniformity in nature, which makes it impossible to have the principle of induction which the foundation of science is built upon.

Atheists must borrow from the Christians world view to make sense of their own.

[SATAN]

It's funny how these retards start dancing around the topic and start asking questions like "what is real?", "what is nuts?" etc. distracting from what OP is actually saying and turning it back on him.

Typical right wing nutjob behavior. Pathetic.

[Off the Court]

The world doesn’t have a view. Individuals hold world views.

Given that you have no certainty about anything I see why you might think that’s a possibility. You could magically turn in to a velociraptor after reading this for all you know. You don’t even have a basis for conducting simple science.

The world has no view? That is deep af dawg.

Okay let's wipe the slate clean here. I have a new moral dilemma for you to ponder. You really have to open your mind here. What if.....what if.....you were freezing to death in Alaska. Out in the snow, no clothes on, freezing cold, in severe pain. Are you visualizing that? Okay now imagine me driving up to you and I see you alone in the snow freezing so I stop my car to help you. And at this moment I REALLY have to use the bathroom really bad. So I think hey I can kill two birds with one stone here and defrost your freezing body with my urine. So then I do that, I urinate all over your freezing body. Imagine that for while. Imagine how good my warm urine feels all over you. Seriously imagine that for the next hour or so. Still with me? good. Okay so the question is.....wait a sec. I completely forgot where I was going with that. Damn it. Never mind man I'm sorry.

[Patrick Chewing]

because again, there's just no evidence.

like i said, there's nothing at all wrong with having faith, and no one can knock anybody for that. it's when you start believing without evidence is when it becomes... not quite 'delusional', but i would instead say simply a mistake. withhold belief until there's compelling evidence, is what i would say.

IF the shoe were on the other foot, and there WAS compelling evidence, then it's the atheists that would be the ones making the mistake. btw... i'm no athiest. i like to think i have faith, and i WANT to believe, but for the aforementioned reaons, i can't bring myself to do so.

i'll just leave it at that, that's my take. because you can argue this topic six ways from sunday from defining god as an outsized white-bearded man in the sky to simply being the sum total of the laws of the universe. you'd have to get that argument out of the way first before diving any deeper, lol.

If you're implying that believers are making a mistake in believing, then that's also a mistake. The non-believer doesn't know one way or the other as well. You can't tell someone of faith, "Well, because I can't see God, then the perception or concept of God is not real".

And again, evidence to the believer is through scriptures and through actual historical record as archaeologists begin to uncover more and more every day. And I know that is not proof to the non-believer. I'm happy leaving it with one doesn't know for sure, but one can have "FAITH" and through Faith and through scriptures, one can become a believer. To each his own though as well.