Why I Was Wrong...

[Fweethawt]

Hope you didn't hold your breath to check, and turned blue in panic... hihi

 

So which pill? ... red or blue? ...

 

Just think about this for a minute.

 

We all know how gullible humans are.

For the most part anyway.

 

People read the bible and they start thinking, wow, what if this is really true? And here, we have someone who watched the Matrix (Reality), and even a movie has him wondering if he is really breathing air.

 

Is this not pathetic?

 

Isn't this how religion really works, by the exploitation of the human mind?

 

This is fucked up...

 

My brain is getting scrambled just trying to show you the point that I'm trying to make.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

[Ouroboros]

Just think about this for a minute.

 

We all know how gullible humans are.

For the most part anyway. 

Which is actually one of my issues with the Bible. If we in present times, are so incredible gullible, with technology, philosophy and skepticism, how easily would it not be to have fooled people 2000 years ago! It must have been a piece of strawberry-cake!

 

People read the bible and they start thinking, wow, what if this is really true? And here, we have someone who watched the Matrix (Reality), and even a movie has him wondering if he is really breathing air.

 

Is this not pathetic?       

 

Isn't this how religion really works, by the exploitation of the human mind?

A meme virus, I tell you. It works just like a computer virus. Embedded in altruistic and nice words, but beneath the surface lurks the little trojan horse that will snatch your CPU (Brain) and make it completely 100% busy doing nothing important.

 

This is fucked up...

 

My brain is getting scrambled just trying to show you the point that I'm trying to make.

I know what you mean.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

Hmmm.... Okay... just because it's you...

[Fweethawt]

It must have been a piece of strawberry-cake!

See what I mean? It's got you all screwed up too!

 

Han, they didn't even have strawberry cake back then.

 

 

[Ouroboros]

See what I mean? It's got you all screwed up too!

 

Han, they didn't even have strawberry cake back then.

NOOOO!! They didn't??? Poor chaps. Especially Jebus. He did all that dying and stuff and never had a strawberry-cake? Pretty lousy b-day parties then...

 

 

And, nah, he didn't get me screwed up... it was too late anyhoo... The cruxus and other discussion threads have me... uurrghh... pretty messed up... already... xxnxnnxnxniiiiiih!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vigile]

Just think about this for a minute.

 

We all know how gullible humans are.

For the most part anyway. 

 

People read the bible and they start thinking, wow, what if this is really true? And here, we have someone who watched the Matrix (Reality), and even a movie has him wondering if he is really breathing air.

 

Is this not pathetic?       

 

Isn't this how religion really works, by the exploitation of the human mind?

 

This is fucked up...

 

My brain is getting scrambled just trying to show you the point that I'm trying to make.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

 

What I find fascinating is guys like him never bother to learn anything about science, then go and get indoctrinated with a pseudo christian version of science that builds and knocks down strawmen when representing real science. Then they scratch their heads when why we aren't bowled over by their "profound" arguments. Then this guy comes along, just as ignorant about science as his predecessors, but add to that, learned what he knows about philosophical thought from the Matrix?

 

Ignorance may be bliss in a vacuum but it must be quite shocking when it bumps into those who do in fact know a little something about a few things.

[Fweethawt]

C'mon Vigle...

 

This dude really thinks that we should wonder if we're really breathing air.

 

Then, even if we do realize that we are in fact breathing air, we don't really know for sure because, after all, we could be wrong.

 

Is this the kind of shit the future has to look forward to?

 

 

 

 

I say, if you can't know that you're breathing air, and you really believe that you can't know that you're breathing air, stay in your house - lock the doors - and please, don't ever come out...

 

Either that or, there's these neat little things called asylums that have lots of people that would be more than happy to hear your "air" story.

[narcissist]

Reality, if you continue with these posts of this sort on this site, then you really are wasting your time.

[Onyx]

Reality's post must be the MOST rebutted post ever...

[Java]

tl;dr

 

and normally I can read ANYTHING...

[Dhampir]

we percieve things, we guess things, then as our understanding progresses, we create things that enhance the modes by which we percieve: telescope, carbon dating, etc. so that we can be more certain of what we percieve.

 

In the end however, all these things we create through the scientific method, are just tools to enhance the inborn tools of our 5 senses, therefore, no matter what, all our perception is done through these senses.

 

True indeed, we believe that these tools give us greater certainty of what our world is in relation to what we perecieve and believe, but even with consensual corroboration, we could be collectively mistaken.

 

Why then should god be any more reliable as a guide than our own tools? In the end, we still have to take stock of what we see and otherwise percieve, even with the almighty.

 

According to your logic, you're just using (or rather trying to use) one set of tools over another. See what I mean? It all comes back to our senses, telling us everything we know, and if we can't know for certain, how is god supposed to be anymore real to us?

[Ouroboros]

Reality,

 

Okay, where's your answer?

 

You started as the skeptic Pyrrho and ended as the religious Philo, but where are you now?

[Guest reality]

Hello everybody - good to be back.

 

I'm afraid many of you might be missing the point.

 

I am also at least partially to blame for that, though. I wrote this 24,000 character MONSTER and didn't really put the whole gist of it together up at the top.

 

So, I'm basically hearing a lot of: "if we can't know anything then...

 

1. How do YOU know, you arrogant [random_expletive]?"

 

2. Why are you trying to convert me, you arrogant [random_expletive]?"

 

 

If I wasn't clear enough in the beginning, I will reiterate just to make SURE that we're not missing each other here:

 

1. I don't. That's the whole point. It's faith.

 

2. I'm not. In fact, I'm telling you why I believe but cannot expect you to.

 

I'm trying to raise awareness about the core issues beneath the discussions that happen on this board. The more people are aware of the situation we're all in, then the more constructive our discussions can be. That's why this does NOT all have to be a waste of time.

 

With that said, I think nobody who has posted on this new thread has REALLY taken time to think about and understand what I was saying. In many posts, it was actually obvious that people were commenting AS THEY WENT ALONG READING - taking no time whatsoever to process.

 

To make a short story boring, I see nothing on this thread that has not already been addressed in my initial post.

 

If you're serious about this, then please go back and read again - especially the part about definitional knowledge. If not, then that's okay. I understand you all have schedules and lives just like I do.

 

On the other hand, I personally don't think this stuff should EVER be taken lightly...

 

 

I will have a few replies to older comments with my next (and last) post.

[Checkmate]

I will have a few replies to older comments with my next (and last) post.

And there was great rejoicing!

[Ouroboros]

With that said, I think nobody who has posted on this new thread has REALLY taken time to think about and understand what I was saying.  In many posts, it was actually obvious that people were commenting AS THEY WENT ALONG READING - taking no time whatsoever to process.

That's an assumption that you're making, and by your own skeptical claim can't really know and should claim to know either. You asked us not to be presumptious, while here, yet YOU are.

 

To make a short story boring, I see nothing on this thread that has not already been addressed in my initial post.

Not true. You start with a skeptics approach, closely near to solipsism, and then take a cheap-shot argument "that we must know something", to be able to bring us over to a neoplatonic reasoning of "the perfect that must exist" because we can think of it.

 

Your argument is based on mediveal philosophies, and we could take the step further and claim that we don't know about the truth in the Bible and the perfection can be explained or told with words, hence the Bible should only be interpreted as an allegory of the perfect thoughts "Logos".

 

But I don't agree to Philos or St. Augstine. I don't think something perfect must exist because we can think of it. You can not recreate a "perfect circle", even if it exists in the mathematical thought.

 

Sorry... have to go. Even if I think I had more to say...

 

[Amethyst]

I think nobody who has posted on this new thread has REALLY taken time to think about and understand what I was saying.

 

Maybe because you haven't said anything new that we haven't all heard before. Gee, did you ever think about that? How come no Christians can ever come up with any new arguments?

[Ouroboros]

Okay, Mr Reality, your argument can be formalized just little bit different (just removed your extreme skeptic proposition):

 

If something is perfect, it must exist, since nonexistence is a sign of imperfection.

God is perfect, therefore he must exist.

It's called the Ontological Proof, and was invented by St. Anselm.

 

So, yes, we have heard it before.

 

But the perfect circle does not physically exist, so something is wrong with his argument.

[Guest reality]

HanSolo - very good points! (Thanks for the posts man.)

 

You're right - I agree completely. The Ontological Argument fails miserably. (At least in my opinion.)

 

There's a big difference between the idea of perfection in one's mind and the existance of perfection both in and OUT OF one's mind. Sorry Anselm, and others. (Incidentally, I think a lot of those philosophers you just mentioned could ALL use a healthy dose of skepticism.)

 

Sorry for confusion - I am definitely NOT making the ontological argument here - In fact, just to clarify yet again for everybody - I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

I'm NOT trying to convince you that He exists. Instead, I'm trying to make people aware that attempted proof or "convincing argument" on this issue of God is a useless gesture. You cannot prove or disprove God's existence through rational discussion. And nope, Lloyd, it probably wouldn't be quite right to call this "presuppositionalism" either... this is related to that line of thought, but goes in a different (perhaps broader?) direction.

 

SerenityNow(and others) - You may choose to be offended all you want. I can't really stop you if you're determined to feel you're being somehow victimized.

Please accept my apology, though, once again. I DO NOT want to come across as arrogant.

 

I only suspect that people didn't really think about what I said because I went to a lot of pain (24,000) to say exactly what I meant, spell it out and explain it, and then go back and repeat it... and still people interpreted it as something entirely different. The post was long, dense, and filled with potentially confusing things. I am therefore lead to believe that it is more likely that these people just DIDN'T READ IT very closely - as opposed to everyone (myself included) being really THAT BAD at communication, or ALL of these people just being that stupid. This is why I asked people to go back and re-read if they're serious.

 

And, Amethyst, I'm sure you don't REALLY want to go around claiming that you or anybody else here has heard it all before.

[Ouroboros]

HanSolo - very good points!  (Thanks for the posts man.)

Thanks, and welcome.

 

Sorry for confusion - I am definitely NOT making the ontological argument here - In fact, just to clarify yet again for everybody - I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

I'm NOT trying to convince you that He exists.  Instead, I'm trying to make people aware that attempted proof or "convincing argument" on this issue of God is a useless gesture.  You cannot prove or disprove God's existence through rational discussion. 

Ooooh. Sorry. That didn't go through to well in your initial post. It was easy to misread your intention. But I get it now. Being an agnostic myself, I know what you mean, and I agree. There's is no way to prove IS or ISN'T when it comes to God. So I'm not going to argue with you anymore, since I consider it correct.

 

Actually, I find it interesting to have an agnostic/christian here too, well only if you stay. We have plenty of strong christians, deists, agnostic/deists, agnostic/atheists, and strong atheists, and plenty other kinds too.

 

Thanks for your response.

 

Hans

[Vigile]

So, I'm basically hearing a lot of: "if we can't know anything then...

 

No, you take the time and go back and read my reply. I told you that you are full of it for implying that we cannot know anything. We do in fact know a lot of things. If you choose to remain ignorant of those things that we can know that is essentially your problem, but you look foolish spouting off about how there is nothing you can actually know. You built this Matrix-driven belief of yours on logical improprieties. Our responses to you attempted to show you how.

 

With that said, I think nobody who has posted on this new thread has REALLY taken time to think about and understand what I was saying.  In many posts, it was actually obvious that people were commenting AS THEY WENT ALONG READING - taking no time whatsoever to process.

 

You're really starting to piss me off making this same accusation over and over. Just because we read your little essay and came away with responses that you don't like does not in fact mean that we didn't read it/them or understand.

 

If you're serious about this, then please go back and read again - especially the part about definitional knowledge.  If not, then that's okay.  I understand you all have schedules and lives just like I do.

 

You assume you have found the ultimate truth here and that we are just not taking the time to understand it. The truth is closer to you are just one more apologist providing a spin on the same arguments we have already spent time rebutting. We are truth seekers. You on the other hand ASSUME you know the truth and have accepted it on faith by your own admission. We would posture that faith is a poor, even foolish position to take. And go ahead and argue with us again about how we use faith in our daily endeavors. That is so easy to rebut it's not funny.

 

 

You continue to come here claiming that we are just not paying attention to the gyst of your little diatribes. Well, take a look in the mirror.

[Ms. K]

You're right - I agree completely.  The Ontological Argument fails miserably.  (At least in my opinion.)

 

Then why, exactly, are you employing such a flawed argument to try to convince us of The Truth ?

 

There's a big difference between the idea of perfection in one's mind and the existance of perfection both in and OUT OF one's mind.  Sorry Anselm, and others.  (Incidentally, I think a lot of those philosophers you just mentioned could ALL use a healthy dose of skepticism.)

 

Out of your mind, back in ten minutes?

 

Sorry for confusion - I am definitely NOT making the ontological argument here - In fact, just to clarify yet again for everybody - I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

I'm NOT trying to convince you that He exists.  Instead, I'm trying to make people aware that attempted proof or "convincing argument" on this issue of God is a useless gesture.  You cannot prove or disprove God's existence through rational discussion.  And nope, Lloyd, it probably wouldn't be quite right to call this "presuppositionalism" either... this is related to that line of thought, but goes in a different (perhaps broader?) direction.

 

If you're not trying to convince us that God exists, why do you keep arguing the point that he exists, according to your version of truth?

 

You are very much making an ontological argument. Look up the definition sometime. Take a course in logic. That might help your argument skills....or it might not because you just might choose not to pay attention and hear only what you want to hear. Much like you have done here. We are not amused. Nor are we impressed.

 

SerenityNow(and others) - You may choose to be offended all you want.  I can't really stop you if you're determined to feel you're being somehow victimized. 

Please accept my apology, though, once again.  I DO NOT want to come across as arrogant.

 

I only suspect that people didn't really think about what I said because I went to a lot of pain (24,000) to say exactly what I meant, spell it out and explain it, and then go back and repeat it... and still people interpreted it as something entirely different.  The post was long, dense, and filled with potentially confusing things.  I am therefore lead to believe that it is more likely that these people just DIDN'T READ IT very closely - as opposed to everyone (myself included) being really THAT BAD at communication, or ALL of these people just being that stupid.  This is why I asked people to go back and re-read if they're serious.

 

That is one of the most passive-aggressive apologies I've ever heard in my life. And if you knew my mother-in-law, you'd know that's pretty goddamn passive-aggressive. You know damn well how you have offended Serenity Now and various other posters on this board. You come here, insult our intelligence, arrogantly claim that of course there is a God and we were never Christian in the first place, and go on and on and on. This site is called EX-Christian for a reason. Most of us here WERE Christians, and we WALKED AWAY. Why? We used our reasoning, and figured out that it was all a lie, just a vicious lie perpetuated by church hierarchy for the purpose of controlling the population.

 

And, Amethyst, I'm sure you don't REALLY want to go around claiming that you or anybody else here has heard it all before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ummm, reality, you are in need of a reality check.

 

We HAVE heard it all before. You haven't come up with a new argument. You're giving us the same argument that every freakin' fundy whackjob that comes here gives us. It makes you look stupid, for starters, and then let's move on to "brainwashed", "willing to lie to get converts", "uneducated about your own religion."

 

You're not impressing me in the slightest. Why don't you do yourself a favor, before you really get your ass kicked here, and take your ball and go home? We're not interested in playing by the rules of biblegod. We don't believe. And furthermore, we don't care about the drivel you're spouting.

 

So, do us all a favor, buddy.

 

FOAD.

[SkepticOfBible]

Buddhism was originally rather similar to Christianity. Over the centuries it has been subverted, splintered, and turned into a vast, man-made construct of rules and laws. (Sadly - this is also not unlike a good share of Christianity.) The difference here is that Buddhism thinks that man can actually do things himself. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Five Precepts... really all just general rules in the first place. Do it yourself. Overcome. Just be good enough and work hard enough and you'll figure it all out. Obviously, my points on not being able to even trust your own judgment on whether you're awake or asleep conflict with this JUST A BIT. Buddhism and any other religions (here come Islam, Judaism... even some forms of Catholicism IMHO) where you must follow rules and be "good enough" cannot be the truth - because we are all inherently flawed beyond hope

 

Other religion asks you to follow rules..Mmmmmm So r u saying in your chosen belief/religion you do not follow rules? Please demonstrate how Protestant christianity is not a rule based religion. And please Catholism is not a different religion. Catholics are christians too.

 

Once you accept history, it's a fairly obvious step that this guy Jesus and his disciples EXISTED and had a major impact on our world - and that they would all either have to be some combination of skilled, extraordinarily well-coordinated con-artists / madmen... or sincere. Likewise, then, the Bible could be just a man-made anthology of old texts, or it could be that PLUS the absolute power's chosen method of revealing itself to the humankind stuck within this universe.

 

And once you study the bible, it clearly shows that Jesus was not the messiah as christians want him to be. There is nothing in the Old Testament about a messiah needing two trips, separated by thousands of years to accomplish his purpose. Jesus failed to do a lot of things which the king messiah was supposed to do

 

Messiah Wanted

 

The Bible contains some accurate historical data and references but so does the movie "Gladiator".Keep in mind the Bible was compiled by groups of male clerics who voted on which writings they thought were inspired by "God".

[Amethyst]

Once you accept history, it's a fairly obvious step that this guy Jesus and his disciples EXISTED and had a major impact on our world - and that they would all either have to be some combination of skilled, extraordinarily well-coordinated con-artists / madmen... or sincere.

 

It's obvious? Really? Where's the proof that they were anything other than literary characters? If you did the research I had done, you would come to the logical conclusion that they were myths based off of other myths. There is NO concrete evidence for their existence. The Bible is not proof. That is like using Harry Potter novels to prove that Harry Potter exists. Yes, London is real, and the train station is real, but that doesn't mean he is real. Just because he has fans all over the world and there are movies, doesn't mean he's not a fictional character.

 

[Saviourmachine]

How can I take you serious if you instead of answering posts start with a new lecture? Are you only here to teach? I've no time to become your pupil. Just to repeat some things. 1. Certainty is orthogonal to truth. You can be right and certain, you can be wrong and certain, you can be right and dubious, you can be wrong and dubious. 2. Truth is embedded in human semantics. If you define 'truth' and subsequently says that this definition is vacuous, than that's inaptitude.

[Ouroboros]

That is like using Harry Potter novels to prove that Harry Potter exists.  Yes, London is real, and the train station is real, but that doesn't mean he is real.  Just because he has fans all over the world and there are movies, doesn't mean he's not a fictional character.

WHAT! Harry Potter is not real? Does that explain why I never could get my wand working???

[Amethyst]

WHAT! Harry Potter is not real? Does that explain why I never could get my wand working???

 

*points wand* Crucio!

 

Dang, nothing happened. I wonder why?