Does God exist? Part 2 (2 Viewers)

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

Just a friendly reminder to please avoid personal attacks. Thanks guys.

jimmy you wanna get smoked buddy?






jk

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

??? answer my question or goodnight

wow not even a walaikum. Because divine revelation says so.

 

[Aeonium]

wow not even a walaikum. Because divine revelation says so.

why are you calling other people for not responding when you can't even do so yourself; hypocrisy?

 

[totally_screwed]

wow not even a walaikum. Because divine revelation says so.

that's really not good enough but okay

 

[totally_screwed]

I just think it's a bit strange to attribute kinship to a being that's supposed to be divine, and also attributing divine qualities to more than one being

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

more questions
1. if you need religion to maintain your moral standards, doesn't that make you a bad person by default? religion does help make morals, yes, but in a postmodern society the needs for religion-based morals doesn't hold as much. does, say, praying every sunday ensure morals? shouldn't morals be based off intention rather than results?
2. do you do med/law?
3.
4.

you say he has a small brain but
a) he is taking this for entertainment
b) he got a higher atar than you
c) not very loving to insult someone huh – where are the foundations for being a good person? do you care about morals or ethics?

I never said religion is my basis for morality. It is my ethical framework. My morality is an intrinsic quality that I possess. 'Religion-based morals' are responsible for contemporary ethical models and they are definitely needed as you see all these horrible, degenerate, heinous and morally reprehensible things occurring in actuality. Praying every sunday is an action that shows reverence and practice of doctrines and creeds. You listen to gospel readings, practice peace and all these other things which are representative of following Christ. Morals should not be based on intention because of abnormalities, both should be considered because they are complementary to each other.
2. Yes

b) Did he?
c) I can correctly rebuke those who don't take this serious at all, it's inherently nefarious what this person is doing.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

I just think it's a bit strange to attribute kinship to a being that's supposed to be divine, and also attributing divine qualities to more than one being

Can you define what a being is?

 

[synthesisFR]

can u explain a bit more on the christian concept that humanity is inherently sinful and thus should be punished for their sins, and none of their attributes are enough to prevent them from going to hell which is why God sent his perfect ‘son’ as a sacrifice and thus divine intervention saving humanity from their aforementioned imperfection?
i dont rlly understand the concept tbh so an explanation would be nice

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

that's really not good enough but okay

It's a perfectly acceptable answer and the only valid answer. You're questioning why God is as if it isn't out of your comprehension. Are you now going to question anything within scripture that seems unintelligible to you which requires belief from you in the mystery of God or are you just going to do it for one major theological disputation?

 

[carrotsss]

Me when carrotsss has a small brain and can't even provide any retorts:

I genuinely don’t care and have better things to do. I was baptised a catholic and went to catholic schools so I’ve heard plenty of arguments for his existence but personally after all of this I’ve come to the definitive conclusion that God does not exist, however, I entirely respect people who do believe in God and I don’t feel a need to debate them or change their minds - if you look back in the thread I’ve defended the value that religion provides to people.

 

[synthesisFR]

I genuinely don’t care and have better things to do. I was baptised a catholic and went to catholic schools so I’ve heard plenty of arguments for his existence but personally after all of this I’ve come to the definitive conclusion that God does not exist, however, I entirely respect people who do believe in God and I don’t feel a need to debate them or change their minds - if you look back in the thread I’ve defended the value that religion provides to people.

i miss ur carrots pfp

 

[carrotsss]

i miss ur carrots pfp

me too tbh

might change it back now that I don’t rlly have to worry about irl people recognising it

 

[totally_screwed]

Can you define what a being is?

a singular entity? can you explain why that matters

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

can u explain a bit more on the christian concept that humanity is inherently sinful and thus should be punished for their sins, and none of their attributes are enough to prevent them from going to hell which is why God sent his perfect ‘son’ as a sacrifice and thus divine intervention saving humanity from their aforementioned imperfection?
i dont rlly understand the concept tbh so an explanation would be nice

Sure.

Original sin entails an inherent disposition or impulse of humans towards sin, away from God obviously from a biblical narrative of the fall of humanity in the Garden Of Eden. I do not believe that having the capacity to commit an action makes you the Nominative predicate of committing the action that you have the capacity to commit because a child is not a sinner just because they have the capacity to sin, like a person who owns a gun is not a murderer just because the have the capacity to commit such an action. Your idea that humans are "punished for their sins" seems implicit with the idea that there is not moral responsibility of an individual. This also deductively preceds from the idea of predestination and free will. The 'punishment" is not destined and willed by God for you to happen, it is a consequence that occurs IN Gods foreknowledge from your free will. The 'punishment ' is not willed by God, it is willed by you which, consequently, leads to a complete separation from God, which is absolute evil.

Furthermore, Christians hold to the point that in the weight of our nature our evil heavily outweighs our good, thus inferring that we don't have enough redeeming qualities to save ourselves. I see a common misconception and reduction of this to simply believing in Jesus and then going to heaven. This is obviously not true at all. Being saved encompasses believing in Jesus, this subsequently is equivocal with following the stipulations of the New covenant, living in Christ and following his path. Practicing this is an expression of faith. Therefore, being saved means we have been given the grace, unmerited favour, the opportunity to follow the new covenant by practicing its tenants and conditions, retrospectively following Christ.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

a singular entity? can you explain what that matters

It matters because you're conflating personhood with existence and quality of an entity. This subsequently falls into the heresy of tritheism. The difference between a being and a person is a being refers to the existence and essence of a thing, more simply, the nature and properties of a thing or merely something that exists, something of material or immaterial. A person, on the other hand, refers to individual subsistence of one's rational nature. This matters because you said attributing divine qualities to multiple beings. It's not multiple beings, multiple persons. There is only one essence/being that subsists within the three persons. The three modes of supposition of each person necessitates the essential properties: The divine qualities, The hypostatic properties: Personal properties, and The notional properties: Relational properties.

 

[Aeonium]

I never said religion is my basis for morality. It is my ethical framework. My morality is an intrinsic quality that I possess. 'Religion-based morals' are responsible for contemporary ethical models and they are definitely needed as you see all these horrible, degenerate, heinous and morally reprehensible things occurring in actuality. Praying every sunday is an action that shows reverence and practice of doctrines and creeds. You listen to gospel readings, practice peace and all these other things which are representative of following Christ. Morals should not be based on intention because of abnormalities, both should be considered because they are complementary to each other.
2. Yes

b) Did he?
c) I can correctly rebuke those who don't take this serious at all, it's inherently nefarious what this person is doing.

okay, sure, contemporary ethical models are fine. but you don't need religion to teach them in the slightest. you don't need the threat of hell from birth to motivate someone to not be a psychopath; humans are social creatures.
"as you see all these horrible, degenerate, heinous and morally reprehensible things occurring in actuality." and yet, haven't these things often been done in the name of god, e.g the crusades?
womp womp it can show dedication or whatever but i don't see any actual difference in the quality of people. often times, and also exhibited here by you, there is a sense of moral superiority/arrogance evoked by religious people
what abnormalities? beliefs founded in fear grow more unstable with society because people have stopped caring.

b) uh huh very believable
c) you clearly didn't read the past pages properly despite your artificial highground

Sure.

Original sin entails an inherent disposition or impulse of humans towards sin, away from God obviously from a biblical narrative of the fall of humanity in the Garden Of Eden. I do not believe that having the capacity to commit an action makes you the Nominative predicate of committing the action that you have the capacity to commit because a child is not a sinner just because they have the capacity to sin, like a person who owns a gun is not a murderer just because the have the capacity to commit such an action. Your idea that humans are "punished for their sins" seems implicit with the idea that there is not moral responsibility of an individual. This also deductively preceds from the idea of predestination and free will. The 'punishment" is not destined and willed by God for you to happen, it is a consequence that occurs IN Gods foreknowledge from your free will. The 'punishment ' is not willed by God, it is willed by you which, consequently, leads to a complete separation from God, which is absolute evil.

what do you define as a complete separation from god? what do you do
[QUOTE="Atheist/agnostic slayer, post: 7550672, member: 1611394180"
Furthermore, Christians hold to the point that in the weight of our nature our evil heavily outweighs our good, thus inferring that we don't have enough redeeming qualities to save ourselves. I see a common misconception and reduction of this to simply believing in Jesus and then going to heaven. This is obviously not true at all. Being saved encompasses believing in Jesus, this subsequently is equivocal with following the stipulations of the New covenant, living in Christ and following his path. Practicing this is an expression of faith. Therefore, being saved means we have been given the grace, unmerited favour, the opportunity to follow the new covenant by practicing its tenants and conditions, retrospectively following Christ.
[/QUOTE]
hey have you read the crucible or like heard of the salem witch trials

overall: you can have all of these morals and ethics and think you're a good person because of your devotion to god. but do you truly make society/ the world a better place by doing so? the most you are doing, is not becoming a murderer. i'd like to think that's the bare minimum in a society.

 

[Atheist/agnostic slayer]

I genuinely don’t care and have better things to do. I was baptised a catholic and went to catholic schools so I’ve heard plenty of arguments for his existence but personally after all of this I’ve come to the definitive conclusion that God does not exist, however, I entirely respect people who do believe in God and I don’t feel a need to debate them or change their minds - if you look back in the thread I’ve defended the value that religion provides to people.

Definitive conclusion? That implies absolute certainty, can you tell us how this is possible with your senses which are responsible for your rationality and aren't absolute when they can be compromised?

 

[carrotsss]

Definitive conclusion? That implies absolute certainty, can you tell us how this is possible with your senses which are responsible for your rationality and aren't absolute when they can be compromised?

I used critical thinking and based on the contradictions within Christianity and the concept of religion and a God as a whole, and through the weak nature of many of the ‘proofs’ or Christianity which can easily be explained. Whilst nothing in life is absolute, contradictions don’t lie and as I said earlier, it’s not like I haven’t had the chance to give both sides a fair hearing. The theoretical impossibility of an absolute truth does not make all improbable beliefs true - it is a theoretically possible scenario that your eyes and brain are so corrupted as to interpret the sky as blue when it is in fact purple, but this possibility does not make the sky purple nor does it even make this possibility likely.

I’ll once again reiterate that I am not interested in having a debate on religion with you, and you don’t need to find a snarky pseudo-intellectual response to this message. If you still feel the need to, I implore you to read Romans 14:1-4.

 

[totally_screwed]

It matters because you're conflating personhood with existence and quality of an entity. This subsequently falls into the heresy of tritheism. The difference between a being and a person is a being refers to the existence and essence of a thing, more simply, the nature and properties of a thing or merely something that exists, something of material or immaterial. A person, on the other hand, refers to individual subsistence of one's rational nature. This matters because you said attributing divine qualities to multiple beings. It's not multiple beings, multiple persons. There is only one essence/being that subsists within the three persons. The three modes of supposition of each person necessitates the essential properties: The divine qualities, The hypostatic properties: Personal properties, and The notional properties: Relational properties.

okay I vaguely understand your unnecessarily conflated language but not really, you're saying one being subsists within three persons? what's the "being" - God? and the three persons would be also God? and also Jesus and the spirit

doesn't God only need one set of qualities - the divine ones

 

[totally_screwed]

I'm literally open to be a Christian if the Christian concept of God made sense, the concept of "One God" or the oneness of God with no associations to anything else, is far more appealing to me