03 Jan 11
5 edits
Originally posted by Agerg=================================
On your first section of reply I'm not going to get drawn into debate with you. Your religious bias and penchant for logical fallacies prevents us from making any progress.
As for the science comment you are a Y.E.C. and I don't care how how agile is your coding proficiency; anyone who espouses those kind of views is either ignorant of science in general or hich strongly suggests an ignorance of evolution) is not a topic I wish to discuss with you.
On your first section of reply I'm not going to get drawn into debate with you. Your religious bias and penchant for logical fallacies prevents us from making any progress.
================================
You're not impressing me with your critical thinking skills and penchant for identifying logical fallacies.
It comes across as just posturing.
===============================
As for the science comment you are a Y.E.C. and I don't care how how agile is your coding proficiency; anyone who espouses those kind of views is either ignorant of science in general or bats**t crazy.
===============================
I am an OEC. And it appears we are not communicating at all.
I was not a "coder" for 25 years. I was a computer programmer analyst. And I was a contractor for about 13 of those years.
But how you pegged me as YEC is a mystery to me.
============================
I have no need to make this a degree-off but as for higher level programs I have written, Computer Science isn't my degree - it is an under-grad masters in mathematics (final year).
=============================
You have my respect for that. But I feel no need to be lectured to by you about science education.
And I still think you take comfort in generalizations about the supernatural beliefs and guilt by association mechanisms.
But as you have no desire to debate, neither do I.
==================================
The most complicated program I've built to date was to solve and graph elliptic PDEs in two variables defined on an arbitrary domain using the successive overrelaxation (SOR) and line successive overrelaxation (LSOR) algorithms in C++.
Still learning and playing around with the language when I get spare time so you win that round - go you!
==========================
One thing programming HAS taught me is how utter ridiculous are the expectations of some atheists are.
Even the process of Evolution, I see as an algorithim. And its logical loops and decision gates COULD NOT have arisen by chance.
Evolution, even if true, is a "program" that could only have arisen by intelligent design. That is one thing programming has helped me to realize.
Otherwise, I could make an assumption that say, the Operating System of a Cray Super Computer could have been thrown together by accidents rather then "Look Ahead" thought, planning, purpose, intelligence, forethought, skill, information, and know-how.
===============================
Your comments about mathematics and logic are unsubstantiated assertions. Your belief in intelligent design (which strongly suggests an ignorance of evolution) is not a topic I wish to discuss with you.
=============================
Underwhelmed Doc. EVOLUTION, even if true on a macro level, would be tremendous evidence for Intelligent Ingineering.
And the evidence of the death conquering resurrection of Jesus is not going away.
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergEcclesiastes 1:2 and 12:8 meaningless! Meaningless! Says the teacher. Utterly meaningless! Everytinhg is meaningless! Also psalm 39:5,6; 62:9; and 144:4
It is claimed by certain theists that if it is true there are no gods then it must also be true that life is meaningless.
My contention here is that the theists who do this are essentially redefining 'meaningless' so to cast atheism or non-belief in gods in a negative light.
Indeed no definitions of meaningful, or meaningless I have come across make any refe ...[text shortened]... ying the ego of some magic deity??? Why should atheists agree that your answer is true???😕
03 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergYeah ,Iknow. I was going off at a bit of a tangent.
Hmm...I think our views diverged at some early point in your post prior to this. Moreover, I don't see what, in my last post, is in anyway harmonious with yours here ;]
I hate using words like "God" , because there are so many false connotations ascosiated with that word.
i actually wrote a song called "God is such a stupid word" , check it out on my youtube channel if interested🙂
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by jaywillMy 'critical thinking skills' need no longer be your concern. We never had debates, we had debacles where you either ignore my points and instead lard your every post with worthless scripture for the benefit solely of others, or you answer my points by making appeals to the masses then parade this sh** as though it was an argument I agreed with. The latter was insulting.
[b]=================================
On your first section of reply I'm not going to get drawn into debate with you. Your religious bias and penchant for logical fallacies prevents us from making any progress.
================================
You're not impressing me with your critical thinking skills and penchant for identifying logical fa ...[text shortened]...
And the evidence of the death conquering resurrection of Jesus is not going away.[/b]
Your respect was not sought; and it certainly isn't mutual.
'Debate' over.
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergSounds like someone poopied his diaper and is now blaming others for the increasing irritation.
My 'critical thinking skills' need no longer be your concern. We never had debates, we had debacles where you either ignore my points and instead lard your every post with worthless scripture for the benefit solely of others, or you answer my points by making appeals to the masses then parade this sh** as though it was an argument I agreed with. The latter was ...[text shortened]... insulting.
Your respect was not sought; and it certainly isn't mutual.
'Debate' over.
04 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwThe thing is with 'reasoned arguments' josephw, we both have to agree with each other at every step - I fail to agree with you at the step where you claim that living with belief in god has more intrinsic meaning than living without that belief.
"On the contrary; definitions are very important."
I didn't say definitions weren't important. I only meant that definitions and meanings aren't the primary focus. The focus and primary intent of this debate generally, as I see it, is about the persuasion, through reasoned argument, of one ideological/philosophical/theological system of belief against I'm afraid of dying. That's just too infantile to entertain.
You try to justify your assertion by saying that there is no hope
(you didn\'t actually say that but I infer it)
for atheism - that we all die. That we all die is certainly true, but no hope???
that is a projection of your own fear. Indeed I could say there is less hope in your position - you exist, pointlessly, forever and ever and ever and ever and ... and ever..with no respite! Perhaps I could ask how is this scenario meaningful???
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergIf I may be allowed to respond in part to the question, as it dovetails nicely with the first response I posted to your thread.
The thing is with 'reasoned arguments' josephw, we both have to agree with each other at every step - I fail to agree with you at the step where you claim that living with belief in god has more intrinsic meaning than living without that belief.
You try to justify your assertion by saying that there is no hope [hidden](you didn\'t actually say that but I in ...[text shortened]... er and ... and ever..with no respite! Perhaps I could ask how is this scenario meaningful???
In your response to mine, you cited the several enjoyments you derive from life as proof of life's meaningfulness. I don't think you're that far off the mark, and perhaps believers are being too general in their descriptors when it comes to the topic of meaningfulness/meaninglessness. Without question, no believer can posit and support the idea that life without God is completely without enrichment: our own Scriptures tell us this is not the case!
One of our wisest of members experimented with debauchery and walked away burned but illuminated. He said that a life lived within normative boundaries does produce a measure of enjoyment--- some of the very aspects upon which you touched. Finding one's niche, good friends, a compatible spouse, etc., etc., are all sources of enrichment.
However, at the end of the day--- without God--- you die. All of the momentary pleasures dissipate and there is no comfort in death. Which brings it back to what I touched on in my first response: God imparts meaning. Simply living forever on this planet in our current state would serve merely as perpetuation of those small joys leading into eventual boredom.
Living forever in the presence of the Unique Person of the universe doesn't add a wrinkle, it creates a whole new dimension. It doesn't have to be on misty clouds surrounded by soft-lens stars; that relationship was designed to begin in the most drab place possible: right inside these jars of clay on this mound of dirt.
When Christians say life is meaningless without God, it is on two levels. The first is the comparison level, wherein even the several small joys life offers pales in comparison to the overflowing joy of His presence. The other level is the one which considers the inevitability of death, which renders even the small joys of this life moot.
04 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo essentially what you're saying is that a worldview which espouses atheism isn't so meaningless as other theists have been trying to suggest, but compared to your belief in a
If I may be allowed to respond in part to the question, as it dovetails nicely with the first response I posted to your thread.
In your response to mine, you cited the several enjoyments you derive from life as proof of life's meaningfulness. I don't think you're that far off the mark, and perhaps believers are being too general in their descriptors wh considers the inevitability of death, which renders even the small joys of this life moot.
particular
god, whatever 'meaning' there is in my worldview is negligible...am I right so far?
If yes, this argument would, I argue, be akin to saying "Jack", for example, having three really close friends - those who he trusts as he trusts his own family members should regard the value of this friendship as negligible when compared to "Dave", say, who is claimed to have a close friendship with a billion people.
Even if we supposed such a Dave exists - for the sake of argument; this doesn't take anything away from the fact that local to Jack, those three friends have immeasurable value - moreover one might ask whether the value one should attach to having a billion close friends really is orders of magnitude greater than having only three.
You seem to suggest that the greatest source of "meaningless" in an atheistic worldview stems not so much from the transience of life here on earth (since you go onto suggest that an eternal existence here would fare little better) but from the fact that there is no eternal relationship with the god you believe in.
From my and other atheist's perspective this is a somewhat contrived situation you'd have us subscribe to - you've basically imposed upon us, by your own or by scriptural decree (which atheists clearly wouldn't accept) that only "God" imparts significant meaning to the lives of all humans. Setting aside the fact I don't believe this entity exists in the first place, the question remains for me what is meant by "meaning" here, and how it really is orders of magnitude greater than that I can find in my own finite life here on earth.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by John W BoothI am exposing false teachings for the benefit of the one person who has the honesty to see it.
I am not bewildered. If you are not a troll (parodying Christian cant and certainty, as I have speculated) - and therefore genuine - then I think you have some sort of intellectual incapacity that makes it almost pointless conversing with you. Occasionally you are slightly offensive. But this is not really an issue as you are a peripheral figure getting ...[text shortened]... efs on this forum. But you seem to have decided to continue which is of course your prorogative.
For you to be against me, you must subscribe to false teachings.....why do yo do that....can you not see clearly.
I have said ultimately everything in this world is dust....is this not truth.? even science will agree to this.
I have said that behind all things, there is an intelligent foundation........is this not truth?
I have said that the body cannot animate itself, because it is dull matter and it needs the soul to allow it to function........is this not truth.
I am presenting knowledge that will help you become un-bewildered......not bewildered....can you see that.
You are against me....but you dont know why you are against me......this is odd.
What falsity have I presented.....that you know the truth about....correct me please.
But be honest....and dont fabricate.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by John W BoothIf I say the sun is hot....and you disagree, then that is dishonesty, and you would be just playing games.
Are you seriously suggesting that disagreeing with you is the same thing as 'dishonesty'?
This is what is happening in this forum....everyone is against me.... but they dont know why, because its certainly not because of their honest assumptions, but the dishonest assumptions.
I know why...its because they are bewildered and dont know what to do, or what not to do, and anything that exposes their lives as petty and wasted disturbs them.
It is really difficult to find an honest person here.....nearly all play games.
But never the less, I will remain to expose the false teachings that are presented., because that is what I do.
I do it because there might be one person who may benefit...and they may take to the Vedic teachings and look at them seriously.
I can never on my own change the person to learn why they exist, and how to live a life that gives them perfection.....but the Vedic teachings will.
The Vedic teachings are the authority, and I have not said one thing that has not been supported by them.
When you say to me...." your beliefs" you really mean the Vedic teachings.
But you play games and keep saying my beliefs, as if I have made everything up.
You cannot just make up truth.
The Vedas are eternal, and where existing from the beginning of this creation, and the last creation, and the one before that, and so on.
You give no credit to the Vedas, but you give full credit to your mind.
When you learn mathematics from the authorized mathematics book.....you accept, and you dont invent your own mathematics from your mind.
But when it comes to the spiritual knowledge....you reject the Vedas, and put full faith in your bewildered mind.
You say: My mind is the authority.......and the Vedas are not, this is what you say and it is dishonest.
05 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuno its because you provide no substantiating evidence and never have, your posts are just one long assertion of baselessness after another, people like to reason and what is there to reason in your posts, nothing, for you simply dismiss contrary view as falsehood and when pressed for evidence offer nothing but mere opinion, unsubstantiated and without reference at that. The are practically impotent as a result.
If I say the sun is hot....and you disagree, then that is dishonesty, and you would be just playing games.
This is what is happening in this forum....everyone is against me.... but they dont know why, because its certainly not because of their honest assumptions, but the dishonest assumptions.
I know why...its because they are bewildered and dont kn y mind is the authority.......and the Vedas are not, this is what you say and it is dishonest.