Gaurav Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Quote: The same basis as to which atheists think there is no God - atheists don't need proof of God's non-existance either to believe. Okay then, case closed. Thanks for agreeing with me then that Atheists are no different than religious folks. Abhe both those sentences are your text! I did not write any of that! I just di dnot quote one of them so you assumed that i had written it! Apna text recognize nahi karta hai kya? You are loosing it now :haha: I deserve a medal for turning CC into a pagal :wink_smile::hysterical: Sala muje pagal banana chata hai? :hysterical: Yes, i understand the difference. However, what you don't understand is this : When the answer is an indefinite, claiming it is just as stupid as disclaiming it ! Do you get this simple logic ?. No it's not because the burden of proof is on the person that makes such outlandish claims! Because that could be true too ! There could just be an evil God keeping track of all our fackups and then waiting to whack us with his dandaa.So you are a pu*sy for being scared of such god? See if such an insecure god existed then I would still reject him and tell him to f@k off! since the answer to the question whether God is or isnt, is an indeterminate question!So let's not pimp as facts what god expects of us when he told us jack shite directly. I am not saying that you yourself are like that but 3-5 billion+ of the population is probably like that! You didnt answer it - you just engaged in a piss-take. My point is not in telling you what to believe but telling you that active disbeleif also requires equal levels of proving their faith. The atheists can't just pass the buck saying ' let them prove God then we'll believe, else no God' because it STILL does not satisfy the clause that God may exist anyways but we dont know it or cant explain it by anything on earth. You are talking about existance and non-existance. Both requires equal amount of beleif if the answer is indeterminate.Yes fair point but based on the evidence it is safe to logically assume that the god as described in holy books does not exist. If some new info comes to light then we can adapt our stance. There is no logic to that because orbiting invisible dildo does not meet the first requirement of supernaturality. Ie, it isnt a God, isnt set in motion by a higher being outside our scope of understanding...what you are doing is pucca typical atheistic smokescreen to the simple answer that you guys are just as clueless as religious nutters are.Wow so you are setting the standard now? My god put it in motion through me. How dare you doubt my faith! You know nothing about mind exploration! :wink_smile::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 No it's not because the burden of proof is on the person that makes such outlandish claims! Correct. However, when the answer is indeterminate, the burden of proof rests on all parties making outlandish claims. In this case, since the answer is indeterminate, the claim that God exists is no more/less outlandish than the claim that god doesnt exist. Abhe both those sentences are your text! I did not write any of that! I just di dnot quote one of them so you assumed that i had written it! Apna text recognize nahi karta hai kya? You are loosing it now :lmao: I deserve a medal for turning CC into a pagal :wink_smile::hysterical: Sala muje pagal banana chata hai? Dude..in that case, please quote properly ! So you are a pu*sy for being scared of such god? See if such an insecure god existed then I would still reject him and tell him to f@k off! STay on topic here. I am not interested in debating with you how one should treat God, whether one is a p*ssy for respecting such a God etc etc..i am talking ONLY about existance/non-existance of God. So whether you reject that God or not, is irrelevant to the question fo whether the God exists or not. So let's not pimp as facts what god expects of us when he told us jack shite directly. But that doent justify atheism ! Atheism is to do with the beleif that God doesnt exist. Its got nothing to do with religion ! but based on the evidence it is safe to logically assume that the god as described in holy books does not exist. Again, that has nothing to do with the question whether God exists or not. Religion != God !! Wow so you are setting the standard now? The standard has been set by logic - the God topic is one tht is fundamentally based on perception of reality- a clause tht cannot be satisfied by innanimate objects like your personal flying invisible dildo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ok I will leave this discussion with my final position as this thread is like a never ending chakra and I don't see what we can add to it. Here goes- I am 99.9% sure based on my logic and my experiences that god does not exist. If the .1% chance of god's existing turns out to be reality the way it is described in religious books then I would still reject him for being an arrogant, violent, evil, sadistic, insecure, egomaniac assh@le! What I mean is that I won't care about him and I have absolutely no respect for him. He can punish or do whatever the hell he wants with me to get his sadistic enjoyment. Now if there is a god that is not the way he is described in religious books then I would still tell him to f@k off as he has created too much evil and suffering in this world. He is basically an underachiever! Luckily for me the .1% chance of him existing are very low. CC and co. you are free to call me a strong atheist, weak atheist, agnostic, bigot, pagal or whatever the f@k you want. It's just a label and I don't care. My stance on god is very clear! Put that on your dial god ke bachon :kiss:Papaji is calling me --->:devil_smile: :bat: :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 We think alike. If God was anything like 'Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah' I would in principle not obey such a being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anakin Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 If God was anything like 'Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah' I would in principle not obey such a being. Nicely put. Probably the most crude and childish portrait of God if there is any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC1981 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 We think alike. If God was anything like 'Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah' I would in principle not obey such a being. True, but strictly speaking, the theist vs atheist vs agnostic argument is about the concept of God(s)- not which way God is described - the childish Abrahamic ways or the more benevolent 'pagan' ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Now if there is a god that is not the way he is described in religious books then I would still tell him to f@k off as he has created too much evil and suffering in this world. He is basically an underachiever! God doesnt cause suffering.... man's desire and actions cause suffering.... u r jus confused.... worshipping and praying for salvation delivers u from those sufferings.... u seem to revel in those sufferings and dont prolly feel the need for deliverance from ur materialistic world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 God doesnt cause suffering.... man's desire and actions cause suffering.... u r jus confused.... worshipping and praying for salvation delivers u from those sufferings.... u seem to revel in those sufferings and dont prolly feel the need for deliverance from ur materialistic world... Yes Mr God's spokesman I must be confused as you have it all nicely figured out. Thanks for clearing my confusion :congrats: :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Good discusison is ON but try to not associate with someone's sceintific accomplishment with his/her views on other subjects. So sadhus might have triggered some science in fact many did but that doesn't mean this becomes a vindication of sadhu's belief-system. For instance I by profession am a researcher and my success or failure in my my scientific endeavour has nothing to do with my belief or lack thereof in some deity . Me thinks in early times science as a field was very primitive and didn't require elaborate labs all u needed was lots of free time and inquisitive mind; Sadhus perfectly fit the bill here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 We think alike. If God was anything like 'Jehovah/Yahweh/Allah' I would in principle not obey such a being. precisely.. I am sure he is not the way they describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 I am 99.9% sure based on my logic and my experiences that god does not exist. If the .1% chance of god's existing turns out to be reality the way it is described in religious books then I would still reject him for being an arrogant, violent, evil, sadistic, insecure, egomaniac assh@le! What I mean is that I won't care about him and I have absolutely no respect for him. He can punish or do whatever the hell he wants with me to get his sadistic enjoyment. Now if there is a god that is not the way he is described in religious books then I would still tell him to f@k off as he has created too much evil and suffering in this world. He is basically an underachiever! Those are classic lines of athiests, or shall I say uneducated athiests. :tounge_smile: Common sense dictates that one should reject a man/philosphy ONLY after understanding him. You are more than quick to "reject" God but may I ask based on what? Isn't it correct to meet the God(if He exists) and then make up your own mind?? What is this hurry to call him sadistic, evil blah blah even without knowing what He stands for? Which is why many athiest are no different from religious fanatics. They think they know everything that is out there to be known, but as the saying goes - the more you know, the more you realize the less you know. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Those are classic lines of athiests, or shall I say uneducated athiests. :tounge_smile: Common sense dictates that one should reject a man/philosphy ONLY after understanding him. You are more than quick to "reject" God but may I ask based on what? Isn't it correct to meet the God(if He exists) and then make up your own mind?? What is this hurry to call him sadistic, evil blah blah even without knowing what He stands for? Which is why many athiest are no different from religious fanatics. They think they know everything that is out there to be known, but as the saying goes - the more you know, the more you realize the less you know. xxx Is meeting necessary; given invariably every text describes Him as all knowing all powerful all this all that; in essence he runs the show. So can't one reject Him based on the quality of His show which is at display every-where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Yes Mr God's spokesman I must be confused as you have it all nicely figured out. Thanks for clearing my confusionconfusion, arrogance, ignorance, stubborness.....i dont know wat u wanna call the thing tht u have... for starters, u can stop dissing God because he is written about in a particular way in some religious texts... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumble_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 By Gosh , One thing is very clear, Atheists can be pretty ****y bunch too.:regular_smile: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Is meeting necessary; given invariably every text describes Him as all knowing all powerful all this all that; in essence he runs the show. So can't one reject Him based on the quality of His show which is at display every-where. Ever met a teenager who absolutely hated her parents, rebelled against them, had a trashy life and by the time she is in her 30's, starts understanding where her parents were coming from and eventually goes back to having good relation with them? Happens all the time. My point is human memory is short. Don't be so hasty in judging someone, let alone God. Always have some room for correcting yourself because none of us know everything perfectly. Whether you are religious or an athiest if you start thinking that you know it all you are wrong. And anyway why this hurry in judging? Remember the ONLY truth as suggested by Yuddhistra "We all shall die", so one day we shall meet our maker anyway. Keep your options open until then. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ever met a teenager who absolutely hated her parents, rebelled against them, had a trashy life and by the time she is in her 30's, starts understanding where her parents were coming from and eventually goes back to having good relation with them? Happens all the time. extremely well said, Lurks.... wat would u in general, call tht teenager??? confused, ignorant, something like tht, yeah?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Ever met a teenager who absolutely hated her parents, rebelled against them, had a trashy life and by the time she is in her 30's, starts understanding where her parents were coming from and eventually goes back to having good relation with them? Happens all the time. My point is human memory is short. Don't be so hasty in judging someone, let alone God. Always have some room for correcting yourself because none of us know everything perfectly. Whether you are religious or an athiest if you start thinking that you know it all you are wrong. And anyway why this hurry in judging? Remember the ONLY truth as suggested by Yuddhistra "We all shall die", so one day we shall meet our maker anyway. Keep your options open until then. xxx You are passing simile as some kind of argument alas it doesn't work like that. Without any rhyme or reason u claiming God is like that misunderstood parent. For starters parents don't kill don't throw u in burning hell-fire no matter what u do. We do have history of at least 2000 years preserved in writing so am not sure which short memory are we talking about here. By rough estimate around 200000 years of human existance doesn't look like hurried judgement to me. If the almighty is trying to make any point by this extended show of human suffering then he better get back to that point, because noone seems to have a clue about his point with this genre of story-telling. Yes everyone will die for sure but this fact hardly seems to be of any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 You are passing simile as some kind of argument alas it doesn't work like that. Without any rhyme or reason u claiming God is like that misunderstood parent. For starters parents don't kill don't throw u in burning hell-fire no matter what u do. Well the difference is the way we both approach our lives. You claim to know it all and hence you are reluctant to give benefit of doubt to God, I am much more of a liberal that way and I have no qualm in giving the benefit of doubt to God(or to a human for that matter). By rough estimate around 200000 years of human existance doesn't look like hurried judgement to me. If the almighty is trying to make any point by this extended show of human suffering then he better get back to that point, because noone seems to have a clue about his point with this genre of story-telling. Not sure if your post made any sense at all. You are somehow suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong, that the world is one place where everything is dark and gloom. Where human beings are continuously suffering. That is simply not the case. If you think life is constant suffering then maybe it tells something about you? For me life is nice and wonderful and fine.You can either be a pessimist or an optimist..I prefer to be the latter. xxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dada_rocks Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Well the difference is the way we both approach our lives. You claim to know it all and hence you are reluctant to give benefit of doubt to God, I am much more of a liberal that way and I have no qualm in giving the benefit of doubt to God(or to a human for that matter). Not sure if your post made any sense at all. You are somehow suggesting, and correct me if I am wrong, that the world is one place where everything is dark and gloom. Where human beings are continuously suffering. That is simply not the case. If you think life is constant suffering then maybe it tells something about you? For me life is nice and wonderful and fine.You can either be a pessimist or an optimist..I prefer to be the latter. xxx I never said I know it all in fact I am in utter confusion but can't stop asking while hiding behind some baseless similes. It doesn't satisfy me. Point is when u equate somone to parental love one gets inclined to have a comparison. Anyway Benefit of doubt upto what extent. When u see scores of just born kids dying in a tsunami in an earth-quake u wonder what was their fault. It's not aboot pessimims or optimism, it's about realism. If I blow ur head off tomorrow I am sure u are not going to give me benefit of doubt but when it comes to God character everything becomes for some larger good, what good. How long will this insanity continue till almighty deigns us with the purpose of it all. Never said life is a constant suffering but question is why suffering at all. As far as I am concerned I have no reasons to complain but I am not about myself only. Why should a somalian kid suffer why should Kalahandi kid suffer. Why should anyone suffer constantly or otherwise. My point is this drama has been on since 200000 years so to say that people are hasty in judgement is plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gator Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 I never said I know it all in fact I am in utter confusion but can't stop asking while hiding behind some baseless similes. It doesn't satisfy me. Point is when u equate somone to parental love one gets inclined to have a comparison. Anyway Benefit of doubt upto what extent. When u see scores of just born kids dying in a tsunami in an earth-quake u wonder what was their fault. It's not aboot pessimims or optimism, it's about realism. If I blow ur head off tomorrow I am sure u are not going to give me benefit of doubt but when it comes to God character everything becomes for some larger good, what good. How long will this insanity continue till almighty deigns us with the purpose of it all. Never said life is a constant suffering but question is why suffering at all. As far as I am concerned I have no reasons to complain but I am not about myself only. Why should a somalian kid suffer why should Kalahandi kid suffer. Why should anyone suffer constantly or otherwise. My point is this drama has been on since 200000 years so to say that people are hasty in judgement is plain wrong. the answer to ur entire post is one word..... "KARMA".... we have the ability to see one lifetime at a time... hence the confusion of "why me?".... well, u might have done something to deserve it... and it may not really be a punishment afterall of dying in a tsunami.... maybe it is God's way of removing ur sufferings and giving u A BETTER life next time around..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts