Wouldn't it be nice is there really was a ? ?
Options
Comments
-
It's like playing chess. I don't hate you. This isn't personal. Just debating.
To answer your question, though.. If your ? exists, then by definition, he is supreme. If that is the case, he does not HAVE to meet any of your expectations. If he does, he is not supreme and by default he is not your ? . -
@JadeRighteousness. ...You are correct in what you are saying. I agree with that ? does not have to meet my expectations. That was what I was trying to say the whole time. But that doesn't mean that I...or somebody else for the sake of example...can't think that ? can meet my expectation. My point was to say that it doesn't matter what I think. I can't make ? any less (or more) supreme.
When I made my "win-lose" comment, I did that half-heartedly...because winning doesn't mean that the truth has been revealed. I would hate to win and a lie is my reward. -
alissowack wrote: »Removing theism isn't going to make things better...or make things worse. The struggles of life will still remain. What it's going to do is force people to accept what is even if it may be wrong to accept it or not; to not think that maybe there is an answer outside of themselves...that there isn't a final say in the matters of life.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You stated that removing theism doesn't make anything better or worse.. then you proceed to claim that removing theism would make things worse, which contradicts what you said a sentence or two earlier. But had you not contradicted yourself with that second claim, you still would have contradicted your entire argument by stating that removing theism doesn't have any effect on our lives. When you say that, you infer that theism has no effect on us at all, which really means that belief in ? has no effect on us at all, which really means that ? has no effect on us at all, which really means that ? doesn't exist.
answer this -
edwardnigma wrote: »Damn Bro ? ain't no punk ? , you disrespect the lord and find nothing goes your way in your daily life.
You never hoped and wished for things(not money) that came true and was beyond your power?
When I was a kid I would pray for things and I would recieve some of the things I prayed for, as a kid I would be shocked I recieved what I asked for.
Its a good feeling to be in tune with ? .
Your tone is very negative, would you ask your Mother for something then turn around and tell her she's an ? if she doesn't do it or comply with your wishes?
If you want to invoke ? you need to Respect what your trying to invoke. Also realize ? is not your employee, its actually the other way around. So if you get something you ask for you must be respectful and thankful for your blessings.
Not trying to impose just saying
So praying is like using dragonballs... Watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o&feature=youtube_gdata_player -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »Removing theism isn't going to make things better...or make things worse. The struggles of life will still remain. What it's going to do is force people to accept what is even if it may be wrong to accept it or not; to not think that maybe there is an answer outside of themselves...that there isn't a final say in the matters of life.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »You stated that removing theism doesn't make anything better or worse.. then you proceed to claim that removing theism would make things worse, which contradicts what you said a sentence or two earlier. But had you not contradicted yourself with that second claim, you still would have contradicted your entire argument by stating that removing theism doesn't have any effect on our lives. When you say that, you infer that theism has no effect on us at all, which really means that belief in ? has no effect on us at all, which really means that ? has no effect on us at all, which really means that ? doesn't exist.
answer this
I really don't see the contradiction, but I will try to explain it. There are people who do some really bad things in the name of religion...or theism. And, yet there are some people who do bad things apart from it. Removing theism isn't going to stop somebody from trying to do the right thing nor is having it going to stop somebody from doing the wrong thing. But, at least theism tries to put man in a position where we are not in control. Theism tries to suggest that there are rules and laws in which all must abide by...not just an individual. If we are only left to govern ourselves, then there is a chance that we may wrong our rights...and right our wrongs and there won't be something outside of ourselves to tell us different. Sure, you have things like government, but even they need something over them. Now, does that mean that the world is "going to Hell"? I use to think that, but now I think that is not my call. I'll just have to live life to see. But, I'm not saying that removing theism does anything for risk of conjuring up a utopia about it. -
1. Why put yourself in a position where you are not in control of anything? In control of what?
2. So theism is sort of a crowd control, so that no one steps "out of place"? It has nothing to do with enlightenment? -
There is this sense that if someone is in control of something, that it is always good or that it is always right. It isn't. There are people whose control over something had been destructive to themselves as well as others. Theism is not meant to be "crowd control", it is just to say that there is a standard that is above all standards and that it will never change regardless of what someone tries to do to rebel against it.
-
We're better off in control of ourselves than expecting a made up ? to take care of us.
If theism is that standard you describe then it fails. -
I didn't say that theism is a standard. I didn't say that theism "works". It suggests that there is a standard above all standards. I can be guilty of it sometimes as well, but you are reading what you are wanting my posts to say instead of "what it says" or..."what is".
-
If the standard is ? (or ? 's rules), then the same applies. ? and theism both fail by your description of this standard. If this standard you're talking about is not ? or theism, and you're going to deviate from the original topic, then you should have explained what the standard is, otherwise that's what I'm going to interpret it as because that's what we're talking about. Your entire argument is suggesting that theism works or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you're going to admit that theism doesn't work then that's fine by me.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »If the standard is ? (or ? 's rules), then the same applies. ? and theism both fail by your description of this standard. If this standard you're talking about is not ? or theism, and you're going to deviate from the original topic, then you should have explained what the standard is, otherwise that's what I'm going to interpret it as because that's what we're talking about. Your entire argument is suggesting that theism works or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. If you're going to admit that theism doesn't work then that's fine by me.
Just because I suggest that ? is the standard, doesn't mean people helplessly have to choose it. I haven't suggested that people do follow it nor have I made it a point through any experiences that it does work. You want me to say whether or not it works and I'm not going to...because theism isn't about what works...it's what is (and only if it ? exists).
-
alissowack wrote: »if ? exists.
So you're assuming ? exists based on 0 amount of evidence. And you said yourself that we can't rest on assumptions of who ? is or what ? does so really it's not even productive, in your opinion, to speak about ? even if at all he does exist because if we talk about him at all, we're assuming what he does or who he is. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »if ? exists.
So you're assuming ? exists based on 0 amount of evidence. And you said yourself that we can't rest on assumptions of who ? is or what ? does so really it's not even productive, in your opinion, to speak about ? even if at all he does exist because if we talk about him at all, we're assuming what he does or who he is.
...but, you are assuming that I am trying to give you "evidence". Just about every response I have made are met with this "prove it" viewpoint. It's never on this...can I place my trust in who ? is (or what people say who ? is). I would rather someone say that they don't trust the assumptions of ? than to just say that ? doesn't exist. It's like this...if ? exists and it is found that this deity is nothing of what the religious texts say that are our there, then we are wrong in our assumptions. But, you can't seem to get to that point for you are wanting a "miracle" first.
I believe people use the "evidence" card as a front for their mistrust in something. I also believe people use the "evidence" card as a front for deception as well; that some people will take advantage of what the evidence has to show in order to support selfish intentions.
-
My attitude is based off your argument. Again, you said that we can't rest on assumptions of ? . Okay, cool. My point was that if you have no concrete evidence of his existence, you are assuming... so to say that we can't rest on assumptions and then admit that you have no proof of ? or that ? is not observable whatsoever; that didn't make any sense to me.
? allegedly does miracles. That's part of his job description. To ask for a miracle isn't asking for much since first of all, he's had infinite years of experience in the field and since he's omnipotent, it takes 0 amount of effort to actually perform a miracle anyway. Yet, we see none.
What reason do we have to trust in anything that we have no evidence for benefiting or harming us, being neutral or even existing at all? You said ? is not observable. ? does not effect us to any degree as far as we know. Why trust that a ? exists? There's no reason for it. -
And there you go with the "evidence" thing again. You made the assumption that ? is about performing miracles. Where did that come from? You sure didn't make it up. It is based on what you may have read or what someone said from some religious text. Is it right to assume that ? is only about performing miracles? For it is the case, then people have reason to question this assumption for nowadays "miracles" don't happen. But, I believe it is not the case.
-
One does not simply rule out ? existence.
The scriptures tell us ? is a SPIRIT. The Greek word for spirit is pneuma which one of the literal meaning for is wind. One does not simply rule out the wind existence. We don't physically see the wind; we see evidence of the wind existence by those things which it moves to effect ie the trees, the waters of the oceans, the clouds etc. -
Solid ur ? ? the wind can be seen frozen and tested ? cant be....
-
Allissowack your so ? lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no ? but there probably isnt.
-
A glimpse of ? character can be seen through the very things which He made, just as the scriptures say. ? has also communicated with us through His word. His word gives the truth. We can also see this; through honest examination of the scriptures.
-
Ane how many cats even get opportunity to actually see and test frozen wind first hand, and/or even need to so before believing it exist anyway? We can already see the effects it has on the environment for Christ sake. -_-
-
LMAO... observing the wind and observing a ? 's existence is not even comparable. Anybody can obviously see the effects of wind and anybody can walk outside and actually feel the wind pushing against them. Anybody who is not deaf can hear the wind.
-
solid analysis wrote: »A glimpse of ? character can be seen through the very things which He made.
Including evil? Which goes against his character?
Solidanalysis, you should go back in that thread you created about ? being the only reason for human existance and try to finish what you started. You still didn't answer my questions in there. -
BlackxChild wrote: »Allissowack your so ? lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no ? but there probably isnt.
Peep my signature, Black. To get back on track, would it be fair to say that you are not thinking for yourself as well? You didn't come up with these ideas and perspectives on life just off the top of your head. It took people, places and things before you to aid in your understanding on life and it still does. You can take responsibility and try to do what it right by it, but you can't take credit for it. -
^^^ Thinking for yourself means that you test things out before you blindly believe something. If you follow something without evidence or concrete proof of whatever you're following actually being true, then you don't really know; you're just assuming with blind faith and you're not thinking for yourself.
-
alissowack wrote: »BlackxChild wrote: »Allissowack your so ? lame... Why should I believe in something when there's no proof... Should I be as ignorant as you and just say I have faith/hope just because someone else says so? Do you know how to think for yourself. Im not saying there's no ? but there probably isnt.
Peep my signature, Black.
@ BlackxChild ... In other words, he's a troll
