Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Number37]

How do you know the FSM is made of atoms?

Are you claiming as a truth that the FSM is made of atoms?

Does the FSM have to be made of something to exist?

Define spaghetti?

I just assumed spaghetti was spaghetti, but not surprising that you would say spaghetti isn't spaghetti.

 

[Roylion]

Define spaghetti?

I just assumed spaghetti was spaghetti, but not surprising that you would say spaghetti isn't spaghetti.

Spaghetti is a noun assigned to a phenomena that is believed by some to be beyond time and space. In the "realm of the unknown". You know? Like "God".

Can you answer the question.

Does the FSM have to be made of something to exist?”

 

[Boston tiger]

Unexplained doesn't mean goddidit. God is a crutch for dishonest people who refuse to admit that they don't know the answers. Fortunately the gaps in which god can hide are getting smaller as knowledge grows.

Have any scientific or archaelogical discoveries pointed to the existence of biblegod? If not, what possible reason is there to think biblegod is a valid explanation for anything?

It's all there in a nutshell. An atheist concept of God... "something that can hide in the unknown.... No scientific or archaeological that point to a Biblical God "
It's interesting to see the struggles and limits if an atheist brain but good on you for having the guts to put it out there on display time and time again .

It screams of no idea but I you had any idea you wouldn't be an atheist.
Is that a catch 22 or something?
Not having a go at an atheist intelligence just when it comes to some kind of God concept it’s just not there at all.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

My scenario doesn't have anything to do with what religious people say. I never mentioned religious people, or what religious people say.
You are only capable of thinking it about it in terms of what other people say so that you can sh*t can what other people say....at the same time as having zero substance to your own view. Your view is no more than God doesn't exist because religious people say God does exist.

Yeah mate, I've seen where this goes with you. Once bitten twice shy. Not buyin'.

 

[carltonchelsea]

No need to get narky.
It is extraordinary, but not surprising, how Atheists get all defensive about nothing.
Don't even have to mention relgion and the Atheists start going off their nut because that's what rational people do, apparently.
I'm rational but I'll present only emotive arguments. LOL



Cosmic Background Radiation together with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis provide the formulas to explain everything that we know about the universe.

String theory is an attempt to explain things before Big Bang, but it is entirely speculative.
There is no randomness in anything in the universe. Everything happened just the way it was meant to, which is also consistent with scientific principles/theory. It if wasn't then we wouldn't have been able to reverse engineer it to figure out it all started with Big Bang.

I asked this question before and it was overrun by the usual array of Atheist claptrap.
Unexplained events, as opposed to explained events.
Repeat, UNEXPLAINED.
On what basis can you say that God, not God as defined by religion, just God, is not an explanation for those unexplained events?

Not narky 37, just the mere mention of rails gets me all jittery and excited, I’ll drop the needle on the 1200, perhaps an old funk track to calm me down.
I’m not an atheist, it’s a pointless word with zero meaning, if need be, you could refer to me as an anti-theist, I’m much more comfortable under that moniker.
The science you are quoting is close enough to accuracy, but you still need to define this “god” character you keep mentioning, what characteristics does it exhibit, otherwise the debate is locked down, define it in your own terms or terms by another that meets your standards!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It's all there in a nutshell. An atheist concept of God... "something that can hide in the unknown.... No scientific or archaeological that point to a Biblical God "
It's interesting to see the struggles and limits if an atheist brain but good on you for having the guts to put it out there on display time and time again .

It screams of no idea but I you had any idea you wouldn't be an atheist.
Is that a catch 22 or something?
Not having a go at an atheist intelligence just when it comes to some kind of God concept it’s just no there at all.

How do you regard us fence-sitters, the agnostics? There might be a Deity OR Deities. There might not. We can't prove things either way but the conviction that lives on a kernel of faith just isn't there within us. And we won't know for sure until we're dead.

And even then...

 

[Boston tiger]

How do you regard us fence-sitters, the agnostics? There might be a Deity OR Deities. There might not. We can't prove things either way but the conviction that lives on a kernel of faith just isn't there within us. And we won't know for sure until we're dead.

And even then...

Agnostics have a concept of God they just haven’t experienced or connected yet.

 

[Roylion]

Agnostics have a concept of God they just haven’t experienced or connected yet.

And what concept would that be?

 

[Total Power]

It's all there in a nutshell. An atheist concept of God... "something that can hide in the unknown.... No scientific or archaeological that point to a Biblical God "
It's interesting to see the struggles and limits if an atheist brain but good on you for having the guts to put it out there on display time and time again .

It screams of no idea but I you had any idea you wouldn't be an atheist.
Is that a catch 22 or something?
Not having a go at an atheist intelligence just when it comes to some kind of God concept it’s just not there at all.

However when it's copied from other sources (which i have demonstrated here), you can certainly rule that version out.

You aren't getting any joy from that regardless, cause the version you worship, doesn't exist.

You think a personal god is looking at you, seeing every move you make, loving you and following you. You stupid do you need to be to believe in that?

 

[Evolved1]

I am not looking to be satisfied.
I was just trying to get a read on how rational the people who profess their rationality actually are.
Turns out, not very rational at all.

At the same time as lecturing about the scientific method they miraculously can absolutely rule out something in relation to something we have no idea about. Could be bloody anything, even Lizard people but we know fo-sho it isn't that God thing because reasons.

Your belief that it isn't that God thing is EXACTLY the same as the belief that it is that God thing.

No, they're not the same thing. That's false equivalence.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume naturalistic causes for natural phenomena. It's the basis of the scientific method. There's no evidence to suggest that goddidit.

You can peddle just about any idea and an honest person will concede it's a possibility. It's a possibility that lizard people are real, that gravity pixies are stopping us from floating away, and that the concrete you next step on will magically fly away. Rational people don't believe in these things because there's no evidence to suggest they're real.

The point I'm making is that belief in wild supernatural theories is not on an equal footing with disbelief.

Do you understand probability?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

This is the 2nd time I have posed such a question, both times it has been answered with the same array of anti-religion twaddle.
I specifically did not mention religion. In response to people banging on about religion, I specifically said it was not about religion.
Still the but religion but religion but religion.

It is a very simple question that has been turned into something really complicated because it suits the 'but religion' narrative, I guess.

Yes, I guess the English language is flexible enough to allow a theoretical situation in which a god exists that no-one follows, so there is no religion based around that theoretical god.

Whoopy-doo.

 

[Evolved1]

It's all there in a nutshell. An atheist concept of God... "something that can hide in the unknown.... No scientific or archaeological that point to a Biblical God "
It's interesting to see the struggles and limits if an atheist brain but good on you for having the guts to put it out there on display time and time again .

It screams of no idea but I you had any idea you wouldn't be an atheist.
Is that a catch 22 or something?
Not having a go at an atheist intelligence just when it comes to some kind of God concept it’s just not there at all.

An interventionist god leaves evidence. The bible makes specific claims about god's work on Earth that can be evaluated through the scientific method and archaeology.

A deity that leaves no evidence for its existence is indistinguishable from a non-existent deity. Feelings of love or belonging or being saved do not qualify as objective evidence either.

Does your god intervene on Earth by way of miracles, answered prayer, or other? If so, do you have objective evidence for those claims.

 

[Number37]

Spaghetti is a noun assigned to a phenomena that is believed by some to be beyond time and space. In the "realm of the unknown". You know? Like "God".

Can you answer the question.

Does the FSM have to be made of something to exist?”

Cool.
God can be called the spaghetti monster.
And that changes it how?

It doesn't change it at all.

But you calling it the spaghetti monster is just you admitting that you can't use logic, reason and science but you have to say something that makes it less than because of your insecurities.
Took you how long just to accept just a basic fact. A single basic fact.

 

[Number37]

No, they're not the same thing. That's false equivalence.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume naturalistic causes for natural phenomena. It's the basis of the scientific method. There's no evidence to suggest that goddidit.

You can peddle just about any idea and an honest person will concede it's a possibility. It's a possibility that lizard people are real, that gravity pixies are stopping us from floating away, and that the concrete you next step on will magically fly away. Rational people don't believe in these things because there's no evidence to suggest they're real.

The point I'm making is that belief in wild supernatural theories is not on an equal footing with disbelief.

Do you understand probability?

There is no evidence that anything 'didit'.
I thought we already past that point?

I didn't peddle any idea.
I never said anything about what you or me or anyone could or should or might believe.
That just AGAIN you Atheists showing just how insecure you are.
So insecure are you that you're trying to argue against basic science.
The only reason you are trying to argue against basic science is because you are simply incapable of having a simple discussion about this area of science without getting yourselves all fizzed up about religion.
Over and over but religion but religion but the spaghetti monster but but but but...

Probability.
Holy moly.

You are not seriously trying to use the proof of one thing to explain some other thing?
It doesn't work like that.

Just as an example:
Einstein himself said he doesn't think his theories explain the unexplained. He said they might, but there is absolutely no way of knowing if it does or doesn't based on the knowledge we have.
Maybe you and Roylion know more than Einstein?
What's the probability of you and Roylion knowing more than Einstein?




'

 

[Number37]

Not narky 37, just the mere mention of rails gets me all jittery and excited, I’ll drop the needle on the 1200, perhaps an old funk track to calm me down.
I’m not an atheist, it’s a pointless word with zero meaning, if need be, you could refer to me as an anti-theist, I’m much more comfortable under that moniker.
The science you are quoting is close enough to accuracy, but you still need to define this “god” character you keep mentioning, what characteristics does it exhibit, otherwise the debate is locked down, define it in your own terms or terms by another that meets your standards!

100% agree with what you said except for one thing...It's not for me to define.
I ask the question so that people could explain their take on the unexplained and we could at least know where they are coming from.
Or is that unreasonable?

Any sensible person, particularly someone that claims that they are logical and rational, could simply say that there view doesn't include God however way anyone wants to define it.

We are discussing the unexplained...there is no right or wrong....because there is no proof for anything.
For reasons that are quite clear, some just want to drag the discussion back to someone else's definition of God, for no reason other than to shit-can religion.
Shit-canning has been done to the death.
Let's move on from that.

My view on this 'god character' is 95-5 more likely than not for one very basic reason. There is no randomness.
If you've read Einstein or Jung you will get a fair understanding of my view
I personally have no issue with people extending the god character out to the various religious beliefs. I do not believe that that is as profoundly ridiculous as some people want to make out.
The usual method of debunking religion is by referencing religious texts. IMO that doesn't work, doesn't prove anything, doesn't debunk religious beliefs.
IMO people confuse or conflate bad religious people with religion, for many different reasons, only some of it justified.
IMO there is a clear difference between bad religious people and religion.
IMO bad religious people aren't actually religious. You only need to look at Scomo, as an example. Spruiks religion but his behaviour is the opposite of what his religion supposedly teaches him.

 

[Number37]

Yeah mate, I've seen where this goes with you. Once bitten twice shy. Not buyin'.

It is a discussion SBD.
I cannot make it any clearer that it is clearly supposed to be separate from the religion angle.
No probs with anyone that doesn't want to discuss in that context.
I do have a problem with the constant attempts to portray what I am saying to suit their anti-religion ranting.

 

[Number37]

Yes, I guess the English language is flexible enough to allow a theoretical situation in which a god exists that no-one follows, so there is no religion based around that theoretical god.

Whoopy-doo.

It's not about religion.
It's about how people view or contemplate or rationalise the unexplained.
Clearly lots of people go down the God path, but not everybody.
And even the people that go down the God path commit to it in varying degrees.

It is quite sad that some people can only think about this in the context of shit-canning religion.
If religion is not your thing why does it so preoccupy your thoughts?

It sounds to me like a lot of people do so only to continue to convince themselves.
ie insecurity.

 

[carltonchelsea]

100% agree with what you said except for one thing...It's not for me to define.
I ask the question so that people could explain their take on the unexplained and we could at least know where they are coming from.
Or is that unreasonable?

Any sensible person, particularly someone that claims that they are logical and rational, could simply say that there view doesn't include God however way anyone wants to define it.

We are discussing the unexplained...there is no right or wrong....because there is no proof for anything.
For reasons that are quite clear, some just want to drag the discussion back to someone else's definition of God, for no reason other than to sh*t-can religion.
sh*t-canning has been done to the death.
Let's move on from that.

My view on this 'god character' is 95-5 more likely than not for one very basic reason. There is no randomness.
If you've read Einstein or Jung you will get a fair understanding of my view
I personally have no issue with people extending the god character out to the various religious beliefs. I do not believe that that is as profoundly ridiculous as some people want to make out.
The usual method of debunking religion is by referencing religious texts. IMO that doesn't work, doesn't prove anything, doesn't debunk religious beliefs.
IMO people confuse or conflate bad religious people with religion, for many different reasons, only some of it justified.
IMO there is a clear difference between bad religious people and religion.
IMO bad religious people aren't actually religious. You only need to look at Scomo, as an example. Spruiks religion but his behaviour is the opposite of what his religion supposedly teaches him.

I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, however, the universe behaves the way it does without the need for anything other than that’s the way it behaves, like an antelope or a mollusc.
The universe is an entirely natural occurrence, there’s zero reason to include a supernatural force behind any of it.
We only have this universe to observe, there could be an infinite number of them, all behaving differently according to their own rules, forces etc.
I guess growing up with an electrical engineer father that saw zero need for any gods guided my path to what and how I view the universe.
His motto was “trust the math, trust the science and you most likely won’t die”.

 

[Evolved1]

100% agree with what you said except for one thing...It's not for me to define.
I ask the question so that people could explain their take on the unexplained and we could at least know where they are coming from.
Or is that unreasonable?

The unexplained is simply the unexplained. No other explanation is possible or necessary.

Any sensible person, particularly someone that claims that they are logical and rational, could simply say that there view doesn't include God however way anyone wants to define it.

Some people define god as the Universe. In that case, god is real.

We are discussing the unexplained...there is no right or wrong....because there is no proof for anything.

Yes there is. Acknowledging our ignorance of the unknown is a starting point to an objective search for the truth. You'll just have to accept that some of us prefer methodology other than faith.

For reasons that are quite clear, some just want to drag the discussion back to someone else's definition of God, for no reason other than to sh*t-can religion.
sh*t-canning has been done to the death.
Let's move on from that.

We asked for YOUR definition of god. After all, it was your topic of discussion. You could have provided an answer rather than ranting for several pages.

My view on this 'god character' is 95-5 more likely than not for one very basic reason. There is no randomness.
If you've read Einstein or Jung you will get a fair understanding of my view

There's plenty of randomness. Our evolution depends on it.

I personally have no issue with people extending the god character out to the various religious beliefs. I do not believe that that is as profoundly ridiculous as some people want to make out.

Why is organised religion less ridiculous than any other conspiracy theory?

The usual method of debunking religion is by referencing religious texts. IMO that doesn't work, doesn't prove anything, doesn't debunk religious beliefs.

Religious texts form the basis for many religions. No text, no god.

IMO people confuse or conflate bad religious people with religion, for many different reasons, only some of it justified.
IMO there is a clear difference between bad religious people and religion.
IMO bad religious people aren't actually religious. You only need to look at Scomo, as an example. Spruiks religion but his behaviour is the opposite of what his religion supposedly teaches him.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Meh.

 

[Evolved1]

It's not about religion.
It's about how people view or contemplate or rationalise the unexplained.
Clearly lots of people go down the God path, but not everybody.
And even the people that go down the God path commit to it in varying degrees.

It is quite sad that some people can only think about this in the context of sh*t-canning religion.
If religion is not your thing why does it so preoccupy your thoughts?

It sounds to me like a lot of people do so only to continue to convince themselves.
ie insecurity.

Your amateur psychology is shite.

Why do you spend so much time ranting about RWNJ's? Gotta be insecurity, right.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I was born in a country with a church in the piazza of every province and town. On top of community indoctrinations even the value of learning was communicated to me using image of the liberal arts depicted on western portal of every cathedral. I'm comfortably open to the notion of a possible deity along side objective science.

Do you also believe in unicorns?

I mean, you're at least open to the possible they exist, right?

Complete lack of evidence should be no barrier.

 

[Number37]

The unexplained is simply the unexplained. No other explanation is possible or necessary.

So we can't/shouldn't discuss it?

I find it interesting the many different views that come with that discussion.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Your amateur psychology is sh*te.

Why do you spend so much time ranting about RWNJ's? Gotta be insecurity, right.

Ask Number37 to explain how the Australian government is worse than the Taliban.

Apparently the Australian government armed and funded the mujahideen but he can't say how or substantiate that at all.

He'll fit right in among the religious believers. No evidence, no problem.

 

[Number37]

Your amateur psychology is sh*te.

Why do you spend so much time ranting about RWNJ's? Gotta be insecurity, right.

Do I?
I just comment on the various RWNJ-obbery that happens everyday of the week.
I don't usually start threads ranting about RWNJs.
Most of the time I just mock them.

Could be insecurity??
Maybe I secretly want to be a RWNJ?
Could be quite fun just making sh*t up, complaining about the most mundane insignificant things, or being as dumb as a fence plank.

 

[Number37]

Ask Number37 to explain how the Australian government is worse than the Taliban.

Apparently the Australian government armed and funded the mujahideen but he can't say how or substantiate that at all.

He'll fit right in among the religious believers. No evidence, no problem.

I'm just calling it my "ethical hypocrisy".

What's yours?
Tell us again that cool-story-bro about how you oppose animal cruelty in no substantive way, at all, ever.