The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

My words you put in bold are:

"anyone who thinks about it knows that God, or whatever label one wants to use, exists or doesn't exit independently of their belief in him."

Those words do not assert "that faith is an insight into an objective reality".

Nor does that assertion dovetail with anything else that I have been saying. For some reason, you are misreading my words and now that I have cleared them up for you, you can stop misreading them.
 
Spensed said:
My words you put in bold are:

"anyone who thinks about it knows that God, or whatever label one wants to use, exists or doesn't exit independently of their belief in him."

Those words do not assert "that faith is an insight into an objective reality".

Nor does that assertion dovetail with anything else that I have been saying. For some reason, you are misreading my words and now that I have cleared them up for you, you can stop misreading them.
Click to expand...

You defined God as an objective reality.

God can only be known by faith.

Therefore you have said that faith in God is an insight into an objective reality.
 
Kulindahr said:
You defined God as an objective reality.
Click to expand...

The claim of the existence of a god is an objective claim.

God can only be known by faith.
Click to expand...

How did you come by that information? How are you able to examine any attributes about god? More faith? Then the reasoning just becomes circular.

Therefore you have said that faith in God is an insight into an objective reality.
Click to expand...

A conclusion is only as good as the premises it is built upon. You have yet to substantiate your premises, so this conclusion is untrustworthy.
 
Kulindahr said:
You defined God as an objective reality.

God can only be known by faith.

Therefore you have said that faith in God is an insight into an objective reality.
Click to expand...

Ahh, here's where we get to it. You can't simultaneously claim faith as a way to appreciate objective reality, while also claiming that atheism amounts to a kind of faith.
 
bankside said:
Ahh, here's where we get to it. You can't simultaneously claim faith as a way to appreciate objective reality, while also claiming that atheism amounts to a kind of faith.
Click to expand...

Atheism is a faith because it is based on the assumption that the claimed absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
 
Kulindahr said:
Atheism is a faith because it is based on the assumption that the claimed absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

No it is not.
We just don't believe your claims without evidence and that is all !!!
If you claimed you can turn water into wine, we just don't believe it.
 
Kulindahr said:
Atheism is a faith because it is based on the assumption that the claimed absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

If you were to say the definition of "atheism" is the assertion that no gods exist, you would be correct. However, I argue for what would be commonly labeled as "weak atheism", meaning that I simply am not convinced by the proposition of the various god claims, and I would wager that most atheists would label themselves within this category - it certainly seems to be the position taken in this thread, anyway. A rejection of a claim because the evidence presented is unconvincing to warrant belief is not a position of faith. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something. And, as a matter of clarification in these discussions, know that saying "I don't believe proposition-A" is NOT the same as saying "I believe the opposite of proposition-A is true".
 
Kulindahr said:
Atheism is a faith because it is based on the assumption that the claimed absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Click to expand...

Perfect. If it is a faith, then it gives insight into the objective reality that there is no such thing as divinity; gods are either imaginary or conscious charlatanry.
 
FirmaFan said:
If you were to say the definition of "atheism" is the assertion that no gods exist, you would be correct. However, I argue for what would be commonly labeled as "weak atheism", meaning that I simply am not convinced by the proposition of the various god claims, and I would wager that most atheists would label themselves within this category - it certainly seems to be the position taken in this thread, anyway. A rejection of a claim because the evidence presented is unconvincing to warrant belief is not a position of faith. It doesn't take faith to not believe in something. And, as a matter of clarification in these discussions, know that saying "I don't believe proposition-A" is NOT the same as saying "I believe the opposite of proposition-A is true".
Click to expand...

The common form of atheism expressed on this board is militant fundamentalist atheism. It isn't any more interested in scholarship or reason or evidence than are the morons behind the Creation Museum; in fact it delights in using evident error about the position it despises just as eagerly as they do.

It's sheer faith.
 
Kulindahr said:
The common form of atheism expressed on this board is militant fundamentalist atheism. It isn't any more interested in scholarship or reason or evidence than are the morons behind the Creation Museum; in fact it delights in using evident error about the position it despises just as eagerly as they do.

It's sheer faith.
Click to expand...

[Text: Removed] I'd be interested to know what you believe to be the "fundamentals" of militant atheism or simply atheism in general.
 
Kulindahr said:
You don't even know what atheism is, Telly.
Click to expand...

Judging by your posts, you clearly don't know either. Atheism is lack of belief in god or gods. It is one position on one issue. Atheism alone is not a philosophy, ideology, religion, faith, moral system, life stance, or anything else.
 
bort138 said:
Judging by your posts, you clearly don't know either. Atheism is lack of belief in god or gods. It is one position on one issue. Atheism alone is not a philosophy, ideology, religion, faith, moral system, life stance, or anything else.
Click to expand...

Atheism is the faith position that there is nothing supernatural.
 
Kulindahr said:
Atheism is the faith position that there is nothing supernatural.
Click to expand...

Not true. Not all atheists are necessarily naturalists. Most atheists are skeptics and apply the same skepticism that made them atheists to other supernatural claims as well.
 
Do tell, what exactly is militant fundamentalist atheism?

I'm an atheist because I see insufficient evidence to make any other claim--thus far, all of our scientific understanding of the universe works without one. It that makes a god unnecessary then its existence or nonexistence is completely irrelevant. For the record, the first nanoseconds of the time have been thoroughly mapped out without reference any magic powers. If it is unnecessary it would then follow that the deity had no unique impact, that is to say, fulfilled no function that the natural laws had already assumed.

If it's fulfilling no purpose and has no unique impact, one could then claim validity of the clock theory. However, time is a directly proportional to mass. ***one of a handful of speculative theories that work on paper*** Matter did not exist in any recognizable form prior to the Big Bang, which was caused by a slight but sudden imbalance in energy. The antimatter had hitherto cancelled out the matter in a timeless state. The mass of the universe was held at zero for an infinitessimally small period of time before the Big Bang; literally for no time at all, but that is confusing because time did not yet exist. The sudden but slight appearance of a single proton (which quite literally "popped" into existence at that very point) upheaved the prior equilibrium and matter/energy (they're same thing) and time suddenly "began". ***end of 1 Planck time, we now return to your regularly-scheduled consensus*** Matter/energy ballooned into a massive and complex curved-plane within space (henceforth known as the universe), and time sped up in a way that can only be described as exponential. Neither time nor energy are absolute, both are relative and cannot be considered in the same frame of reference as we see today. After the initial inflation, there was a large gap before fusion began on a large-scale basis and the birth of stars drives the current growth of the universe (and the deceleration of time). Time as we use it in day-to-day life is simply a functional and operational definition ingrained by necessity.

To the point; time did not exist during the singularity and only came into being at the first imbalance in matter. (I am tempted to call it a "disturbance in the force"). Therefore, there was neither time nor matter for any "programmer" deity to exist in. But***

***If there is a deity or deity-like creator, I'd buy the following:
An advanced species of sentient lifeforms unimaginably more developed than we are have been designing and creating universes run like computer programs either in reality or a synthesized reality. Their universe is also one of two possibilities: either a 'natural'/godless one or yet another creation by highly evolved life forms, which goes into an endless digression of possibility. We are the little "bits" in their massive piece of software (or maybe we're real, I'm good with either, especially if the creator-race is watching! Haha). I suppose this thinking could make me an evolutionary creationist?

It would explain a lot if a sadistic punk kid was in charge of our universe--the nasty kid frying ants with a magnifying glass type.

So here are my two half-decent possibilities for a deity: God=natural laws; God is simply our limited understanding of a distant creator civilization, in which there is no "classical" (loosely used) deity.
 
Even the evangelical, atheist Richard Dawkins has revised his beliefs over the years...to that of becoming a born again, agnostic..

Professor Dawkins has embraced the possibility that he doesn't know everything...that's progress....
 
kallipolis said:
Even the evangelical, atheist Richard Dawkins has revised his beliefs over the years...to that of becoming a born again, agnostic..

Professor Dawkins has embraced the possibility that he doesn't know everything...that's progress....
Click to expand...

I hope you are not this guy ... ;)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top