Theres no such thing as a Christian God

[RiddleMaster]

I don't believe you. Communion bread would not absorb semen like that.

I'm glad you don't believe me because the story is not true, but...

...what kind of communion bread are you eating that wouldn't absorb a liquid? Every bread I've ever seen would. We weren't using wafers or anything - it was just regular, porous baked bread.

[^]

Wafers. They get soggy immediately, so there's no way you could cum on it and no one will notice.

What kind of backarse Catholics use actual bread for communion?

[Pee Vee Proots, M.D.]

Originally Posted by ^

I don't believe you. Communion bread would not absorb semen like that.

It might. Unless you go to a faggot church that serves grape juice and crackers.

[RiddleMaster]

What kind of backarse Catholics use actual bread for communion?

The Code of Canon Law states that "The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption" (924:2). Most churches just use wafers because it's easy to order them but, if your priest is a bad ass, he can make genuine 100% wheat bread or can bless some.




See? Porous. This is kind of like what we had except not so "super market" looking.

But yeah, the story is made up completely.

[TheSexyBeast821]

There is absolutely no evidence to support the claims made in this thread, and many, many people have anecdotal reports of evidence to the contrary.

[RiddleMaster]

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat.

Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[^]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

The Code of Canon Law states that "The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption" (924:2). Most churches just use wafers because it's easy to order them but, if your priest is a bad ass, he can make genuine 100% wheat bread or can bless some.




See? Porous. This is kind of like what we had except not so "super market" looking.

But yeah, the story is made up completely.

Oh man, and those faggot priests made me do communion with that lame paper bread.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat.

Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Right, so the claim that there is no such thing as God can be dismissed without evidence.

[Proots]

I guess, we'll find out for sure when we kick the bucket.

[poast-bortem!]

[Actor]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

eating my fucking 13 year old jizz. Isles

Woah, you would think it would have evaporated by that time. How did you preserve it?

[RiddleMaster]

Right, so the claim that there is no such thing as God can be dismissed without evidence.

I am surprised at the complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and logic in this forum. Isn't this like high school shit? Don't they teach this anymore? Saddle up for this shit, because I'm only explaining it once:

To claim "there's no such thing as god" is not a positive claim - it is denying the validity of another's claim that it exists.

So, for example, if I were to say "there are no such thing as negatively charged electrons" this would not be a positive claim. Rather, this would be me denying the validity of the positive claim that there are negatively charged electrons. To refute this, one would introduce empirical evidence that there are negatively charged electrons (in fact, all electrons are negatively charged). It would ergo become a substantiated and we can now conclude the positive claim that negatively charged electrons exist is true. Therefore, to say "there are no such things as negatively charged electrons" becomes a false statement. It still, however, is not a positive claim.

Ergo, to say "there's no such thing as god" is not a positive claim. It's like saying "there's no proof for this bullshit claim so I can deny it's existence.

This is known as deductive reasoning and it is the basis for scientific method. Still cloudy? Here's another approach:

Hopefully everyone here has read Romeo and Juliet. If I were to claim that there's no scene where Juliet dies in the play, you can disprove that by opening to book to the act in the end where it happens. The statement then becomes demonstrably false.

If however, I were to say that a scene exists where the Montagues log onto www.drunksexorgy.com and submit their own video, this would be me making a positive claim. You would stand up and say that it's a bullshit claim: YOU NEED NO EVIDENCE TO DISMISS THIS CLAIM. RATHER, I (the one forwarding the positive claim) am required to prove it. There's no way I could sit back and say "Show me where the play DOESN'T SAY THAT HAPPENS?!" because you would just hand me the whole book and say it isn't there.

The burden of proof falls on the prosecution - that is, the one making the claim. To say that your claim god exists is bullshit does not require evidence. As the one making the claim, you guys have to prove it.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

Ergo, to say "there's no such thing as god" is not a positive claim. It's like saying "there's no proof for this bullshit claim so I can deny it's existence.

If you have to couch what you are saying in terms of "like saying", then what you are saying is inaccurate. Either you are saying it, or you aren't. That's scientific. Logical. Deductive.

"Your claim that there is a god is bullshit" - Valid, they cannot back up their claim.
"There is no god" - Bullshit, you cannot back up your claim.

The latter is making an assertion, one that cannot be founded or supported by any kind of facts or proof - if you made the statement, burden's on you to prove it. You can cop out by claiming it's "really" just addressing someone's bullshit beliefs, or play garbage games by saying it's "like saying", but the point here is that it's not.

What you're doing is taking the argument to a second level, and using someone else's failure to validate your own.

[RiddleMaster]

If you have to couch what you are saying in terms of "like saying", then what you are saying is inaccurate. Either you are saying it, or you aren't. That's scientific. Logical. Deductive.

"Your claim that there is a god is bullshit" - Valid, they cannot back up their claim.
"There is no god" - Bullshit, you cannot back up your claim.

You are incorrect.

Firstly, when I had said that my statement was is "like saying something else," I am not misdirecting the specificity of the statement - rather, I'm giving an example so this person can follow along. To say that it is makes it unspecific or unscientific is a strawman and completely negates from the validity of the statement and the example. My statement has always remained the same - there is no such thing as god.

To say "there is no such thing as a god" IS NOT A POSITIVE CLAIM. In fact, to say that "there's no such thing as X (where X is any variable)" is still NOT A POSITIVE CLAIM.

The latter is making an assertion, one that cannot be founded or supported by any kind of facts or proof - if you made the statement, burden's on you to prove it. You can cop out by claiming it's "really" just addressing someone's bullshit beliefs, or play garbage games by saying it's "like saying", but the point here is that it's not.

What you're doing is taking the argument to a second level, and using someone else's failure to validate your own.

Again, you are incorrect. You do not understand the difference between a positive claim and doubting a positive claim. TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANYTHING IS NOT A POSITIVE CLAIM - IT ERGO REQUIRES NO PROOF . It's not "games" or anything else you accused me of - it's the simple rules of logic. I really wish you would have read my examples but I'll try to give another one.

Murder cases are often difficult because they usually require the presence of a body before somebody can be charged. This is because, if someone is trying to book you for a murder where there is no body present, the prosecution has to prove that a crime has actually been committed along with your guilt.

As a defendant, to claim that there is no evidence that a crime even happened is not a positive claim. You do not have to "prove" that no murder happened in light of the fact that it is a positive claim on behalf of the prosecution (along with the positive claim of your guilt).

Taking it back to the electron example, if I were to state that there are NO NEGATIVELY CHARGED ELECTRONS that is not a claim I have to prove because it is not a positive claim. Rather, the burden of proof lies on those who make the positive claim that there are negatively charged electrons.

You're trying to drag this into the realm of opinion and we're dealing the facts of logical fallacies. To deny the existence of something - anything, is not a positive claim due to the nature of reality.

So in case of what we're talking about (since you don't like examples), I can say "no god exists" and do not need evidence for the statement because I am not forwarding a positive claim - I am making a statement of doubt. I am simply saying "all proposed ideas of god are inadequately supported and they are therefore untrue."

Try to think of it the other way around: If I were to say that invisible leprechauns are having a massive sex orgy all over your house, do you need evidence to dismiss that claim? On that point, do you need evidence to deny the claim that invisible leprechauns are real?

Of course not, and it's the exact same thing we're dealing with right here. Just because a bunch of people say that a god or gods exist does not count as empirical evidence. Any claim made without evidence I can deny without evidence.

This is simple logic. The definition of a positive claim is not subjective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof

[RiddleMaster]

Just saying, the Romeo and Juliet example was the best on on why you do not need evidence to deny a claim.

In fact, it would be impossible to prove the denial of a claim on the nature of denial.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

Just saying, the Romeo and Juliet example was the best on on why you do not need evidence to deny a claim.

In fact, it would be impossible to prove the denial of a claim on the nature of denial.

You do not need evidence to deny someone else's unfounded claim. You DO need evidence to support your own claim. That's the difference here, that's where the divide comes in. You don't get to have it both ways.

I realize that you're trying to use terms out of a philosophy class or something, so let's move it in that direction - burden of proof is on the claimant.

If the claim is that there is a god, the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is a God.

If the claim is that there is no god, the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is no God.

The title of this thread is "There is no such thing as a Christian God."

That's the claim, initiated in a new debate, now back it up with some proof. Cannot? Too bad, it shows that the argument is flawed and should have been rephrased to something more scientifically sound.... you know -- that science, logic and reason you're attempting to fall back on.

I realize you're probably thinking "but but but that means if I don't prove it, the fucking dirty lying Christians are right!" No, they are not. Because they are claiming something in a debate elsewhere, something they cannot support. You, and they, cannot support the claims made.

Now, had you either engaged in that debate elsewhere, or rephrased it appropriately, you'd have a case. All you have, is this.

If you cannot prove it, then perhaps you shouldn't claim it. That's the unreasoned kind of thinking that led to religion and that started the debate in the first place.

In short, you have no objective evidence to support your claim, therefore your claim is subjective.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

I am surprised at the complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and logic in this forum. Isn't this like high school shit? Don't they teach this anymore? Saddle up for this shit, because I'm only explaining it once:

To claim "there's no such thing as god" is not a positive claim - it is denying the validity of another's claim that it exists.

So, for example, if I were to say "there are no such thing as negatively charged electrons" this would not be a positive claim. Rather, this would be me denying the validity of the positive claim that there are negatively charged electrons. To refute this, one would introduce empirical evidence that there are negatively charged electrons (in fact, all electrons are negatively charged). It would ergo become a substantiated and we can now conclude the positive claim that negatively charged electrons exist is true. Therefore, to say "there are no such things as negatively charged electrons" becomes a false statement. It still, however, is not a positive claim.

Ergo, to say "there's no such thing as god" is not a positive claim. It's like saying "there's no proof for this bullshit claim so I can deny it's existence.

This is known as deductive reasoning and it is the basis for scientific method. Still cloudy? Here's another approach:

Hopefully everyone here has read Romeo and Juliet. If I were to claim that there's no scene where Juliet dies in the play, you can disprove that by opening to book to the act in the end where it happens. The statement then becomes demonstrably false.

If however, I were to say that a scene exists where the Montagues log onto www.drunksexorgy.com and submit their own video, this would be me making a positive claim. You would stand up and say that it's a bullshit claim: YOU NEED NO EVIDENCE TO DISMISS THIS CLAIM. RATHER, I (the one forwarding the positive claim) am required to prove it. There's no way I could sit back and say "Show me where the play DOESN'T SAY THAT HAPPENS?!" because you would just hand me the whole book and say it isn't there.

The burden of proof falls on the prosecution - that is, the one making the claim. To say that your claim god exists is bullshit does not require evidence. As the one making the claim, you guys have to prove it.

Even if Jesus appeared in front of you and told you your innermost secrets you would still dismiss the event as a hallucination and not proof of anything. This argument you are trying to have isn't about actually seeking proof of God, but rather you using science as a defense mechanism to defend your beliefs and concept of self.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=242215

[mizled]

There is a christian god, however - he happens to be Hebrew.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Even if Jesus appeared in front of you and told you your innermost secrets you would still dismiss the event as a hallucination and not proof of anything.

It might be proof of telepathy or highly advanced spy technology, hardly proof of divinity. Gotta work harder for that, because only the religious folks are going to buy that as "proof".

Even IF "Jesus" were inclined to do that, and as I understand how that religion works... he isn't.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

It might be proof of telepathy or highly advanced spy technology, hardly proof of divinity. Gotta work harder for that, because only the religious folks are going to buy that as "proof".

Even IF "Jesus" were inclined to do that, and as I understand how that religion works... he isn't.

Telepathy itself is proof of divinity, as there has to be a medium for thoughts to travel through, and that medium logically would be consciousness itself, and consciousness that is everywhere would meet the criteria for God.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Telepathy itself is proof of divinity, as there has to be a medium for thoughts to travel through, and that medium logically would be consciousness itself, and consciousness that is everywhere would meet the criteria for God.

You're assuming a whole lot of things that you don't actually know about the way the mind works, mainly because you don't even know that telepathy exists.

If thought travels from mind to mind by one consciousness to another, there is absolutely no "logical" need for the process to be facilitated by a third party, just as one does not need a road for a truck to transport goods from one point to another. Is the road God? Of course not. It's just a constructed pathway.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

You're assuming a whole lot of things that you don't actually know about the way the mind works, mainly because you don't even know that telepathy exists.

If thought travels from mind to mind by one consciousness to another, there is absolutely no "logical" need for the process to be facilitated by a third party, just as one does not need a road for a truck to transport goods from one point to another. Is the road God? Of course not. It's just a constructed pathway.

Two minds being connected implies consciousness existing in between the two minds. If consciousness exists in the space between the two minds, it is logical that consciousness then exists at any given point in space. Ergo, God.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Two minds being connected implies consciousness existing in between the two minds. If consciousness exists in the space between the two minds, it is logical that consciousness then exists at any given point in space. Ergo, God.

Again, you're assuming a connection, rather than simple sending and receiving. Cell phones don't require God, nor do many other facets of our day to day life. Why should our minds? Why call the space between two minds God, unless you're just looking for a cheap excuse to justify your belief with so-called proof?

Giving something a name to prove that something else by the same name exists is exactly that... cheap, illogical, and offering absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[BITCH TITZ]

tl;dr thread but i bet if you know yer gonna die soon you pray to god. just in case

[^]

Originally Posted by BITCH TITZ

tl;dr thread but i bet if you know yer gonna die soon you pray to god. just in case

If rather pray to Satan (and have, as a child).

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Even if Jesus appeared in front of you and told you your innermost secrets you would still dismiss the event as a hallucination and not proof of anything. This argument you are trying to have isn't about actually seeking proof of God, but rather you using science as a defense mechanism to defend your beliefs and concept of self.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=242215

Your bullshit failed miserably in that thread, and now you're trying it again in this one?

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Again, you're assuming a connection, rather than simple sending and receiving. Cell phones don't require God, nor do many other facets of our day to day life. Why should our minds? Why call the space between two minds God, unless you're just looking for a cheap excuse to justify your belief with so-called proof?

Giving something a name to prove that something else by the same name exists is exactly that... cheap, illogical, and offering absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I suppose your theory works according to quantum non-locality... one brain's electrical activity could in theory affect the electrical activity of another brain instantaneously (faster than the speed of light).

However, I think and believe that quantum non-locality is only possible due to consciousness (God) being all-pervasive.

EDIT: I'm referring to quantum entanglement causing non-local effects.

[Rust]

What you've achieved is redefine "god" to mean "consciousness" and claim a victory, in a thread that deals with the Christian god.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Rust

What you've achieved is redefine "god" to mean "consciousness" and claim a victory, in a thread that deals with the Christian god.

An all pervasive consciousness that orchestrates the universe by maintaining the laws of physics fits perfectly the definition of God. Subjective human experience of God is where the Holy Spirit and Christ come into play.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

An all pervasive consciousness that orchestrates the universe by maintaining the laws of physics fits perfectly the definition of God. Subjective human experience of God is where the Holy Spirit and Christ come into play.

Which "definition of God"? Do share, please. Clertainly can't be the Christian God, that mixture of wrath and benevolence that metes out justice in the form of eternal damnation, salvation or whatnot, depending on the day of the week...

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

Which "definition of God"? Do share, please. Clertainly can't be the Christian God, that mixture of wrath and benevolence that metes out justice in the form of eternal damnation, salvation or whatnot, depending on the day of the week...

God.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

God.

That's not a a definition, that's bullshit - I asked you to define your usage of the word god. Any god? All gods? If you can't answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer and must instead rattle off vague bullshit, don't bother. You clearly have no interest in doing anything but playing games.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by Iehovah

That's not a a definition, that's bullshit - I asked you to define your usage of the word god. Any god? All gods? If you can't answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer and must instead rattle off vague bullshit, don't bother. You clearly have no interest in doing anything but playing games.

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

An all pervasive consciousness that orchestrates the universe by maintaining the laws of physics fits perfectly the definition of God. Subjective human experience of God is where the Holy Spirit and Christ come into play.

You clearly have no interest in delving into the true mysteries of life.

[Rust]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

An all pervasive consciousness that orchestrates the universe by maintaining the laws of physics fits perfectly the definition of God. Subjective human experience of God is where the Holy Spirit and Christ come into play.

Except, not only is that not in any way equivalent to "consciousness" (since consciousness doesn't 'orchestrate the universe by maintaining the laws of physics', or at least you haven't shown how it would/should/does ) but that's not remotely close to the definition of the Christian god, which requires a long list of other attributes besides omnipresence and "maintaining the laws of physics".

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

You clearly have no interest in delving into the true mysteries of life.

No, what I clearly have no interest in is resurrecting shit from another thread in this one. If I wanted to discuss that, to "delve into that", I would have fucking click on the link you've cheerfully supplied here and posted in that thread instead.

I have not, so either a> stay on topic and get a touch of delving or b> or expect me not to indulge you in what I perceive as either a deliberate attempt to derail this thread or obliviousness to the topic at hand.

You're not getting both.

[Zanick]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

Two minds being connected implies consciousness existing in between the two minds. If consciousness exists in the space between the two minds, it is logical that consciousness then exists at any given point in space. Ergo, God.

Consciousness as the facilitating party in telepathy doesn't necessarily imply intelligence, but it would certainly raise a lot of questions regarding the nature of such a connection. It could well be an automated medium, and maybe this would actually redefine our definition of God, who knows.

[TheSexyBeast821]

Originally Posted by zanick

Consciousness as the facilitating party in telepathy doesn't necessarily imply intelligence, but it would certainly raise a lot of questions regarding the nature of such a connection. It could well be an automated medium, and maybe this would actually redefine our definition of God, who knows.

What do you mean by automated medium?

[Zanick]

Originally Posted by TheSexyBeast821

What do you mean by automated medium?

I mean this facilitating consciousness would be another medium, similar to light or air, capable of transmitting information while remaining subject to physical laws. There is no reason to suspect it possesses intelligence.

[RiddleMaster]

To everyone who disagreed with my post:

Would you make a claim that you know the tooth fairy isn't real?

Case closed.

Oh, and to whoever said that I'm using science as a "defense mechanism," you need to read a fucking book for christ's sake.

Extremely amazed at how stupid people on this site are. This thread is done.

[Iehovah]

Originally Posted by RiddleMaster

To everyone who disagreed with my post:

Would you make a claim that you know the tooth fairy isn't real?

Absolutely not. Why? Because the claim that the tooth fairy IS real is completely unjustified, unsupportable, and unsubstantiated. Giving the retards who make the claim a platform to stand on by suggesting their claim is worthy of argument is ridiculous.

So again, no, wouldn't make that claim. The claim is stupid and unprovable by the very standards YOU claim to hold.

How does that feel, knowing that you spit in the face of the very ideals you claim to uphold, that you're little different than the religious simpletons you pretend superiority to? The only thing done here is the failed line of logic you've been following since the beginning of this thread.

Case closed indeed, idiot.