I'm not going to allow you to make it an issue.
The rhyme went as such, “God is all one in the same, just give it a different name“.
Add, IMO and now its just an opinion. End of story.
Playing it safe
- Thread starter Dirty Dan
- Start date
I'm not going to allow you to make it an issue.
The rhyme went as such, “God is all one in the same, just give it a different name“.
Add, IMO and now its just an opinion. End of story.
What the hell are you talking about. Do you want to pick a fight?
Your opinion is just a valild as mine. Nothing to discuss. I am one of millions of people who think some is there. You don't.
No, I'd like you to address the issue. You made an unsupported statement that [pp]"all gods are one and the same". I have contested this issue and pointed out the flaws with such a claim.
For some reason you now seem very unwilling to even acknowledge the issue anymore but instead drag this off down some irrelevant path of worthlessness.
Whenever you're ready.
There are opinions and then there is rational, logical and well thought out examination of those opinions. You've managed the first part but seem utterly unwilling to engage in the latter part. No son, they're not equally valid - there's plenty to discuss unless, as becoming apparent, examining issues in a proper manner is too much effort for you.
Argumentum Ad Populum aside, I don't see what this is even relevant to.
Agreed. What is it you want to know about God, anyway?
You may notice I don't defend God, not my job. If I defend anyone it is victims.
Last edited:
Ah, Pascal's Wager. A really arse argument, really.
It's woefully insincere model.
Furthermore, it assumes many things. Among which is the idea that the god proposed for belief in is the Christian god. Or, at least, a monotheistic deity or some sort; as well as a rewards-and-punishment system for the afterlife.
So, I can worship any concept of God with any creed and it's all good? Don't you think some concepts and creeds are contradictory?
Yes they are contradictory.
Why would anyone use those flat earth believers from the past as a guide.
The question is what do you want?
Unfortunately it seems that you're not even aware of what we're even discussing. That at least explains the problem.
You made an unsupported claim that "god is all one and the same" - which is a statement that all those different gods are in fact the very same entity. I have addressed, as have others, that this claim fails for various reasons - namely that these different gods are quite often mutually exclusive.
I request that you defend your case by showing how these mutually exclusive entities are in fact the very same entity.
Whenever you're ready.
Snake,
I can see from both sides that would be correct. So please let me know what I am missing from your argument.
Theist-all gods are the same because it's the same god, mine.
Atheist-all concept of gods are the same because the believer assumes a supernatural being of somekind.
I could see theists viewing gods as being different but that is only the ones who are willing to accept others beliefs.
Is this what you are getting at ?
Curious.
I can see from both sides that would be correct. So please let me know what I am missing from your argument.
Theist-all gods are the same because it's the same god, mine.
Atheist-all concept of gods are the same because the believer assumes a supernatural being of somekind.
I could see theists viewing gods as being different but that is only the ones who are willing to accept others beliefs.
Is this what you are getting at ?
Curious.
You can not force yourself to beleive in Gods or Goddesses or Scientology Alien Overlords. Which is why YOU are not a pure Xian and Lori is. Just as Tom Cruise is a pure Scientologist. There's a lot of Scientologists "playing it safd" out there - but, the Theta AX65-K7 knows who is being true to words of Xenu (or Xemu).
haha... anyway, you're only able to play it safe because you lack the level of stupidity to believe in a Xenu (or Jesus or Allah etc...). You were born pretty much normal. BUT, you were conditioned to be fearful of your eternal soul. Well, if you can get past the notion that you WILL DIE just like everyone else and this will be the END of YOU. Then you have nothing to fear and may even be able to live a little freer. BUT, if not, if you can not overcome this fear - then maybe you should keep playing it safe, I mean, if that makes you happier.
No, the question is which god. The reason that's the question is because of the OP, which uses Pascal's Wager as a basis. The idea is:
- Better to believe than not believe... just incase it's true
Forgetting the fact that such a statement is worthless, (belief isn't simply a matter of squeezing real hard but about being convinced by the available data), we see that the statement is problematic right at the start because, in making it, it leaves it better to believe in every possibly true god just incase. You would have to actually believe in each individual one "just incase" Thor is not the same as Allah, Abellio is not the same as Marduk and so on.
Now, the contention is that they're all the same god - but this falls foul of the mutually exclusive natures of many of these different gods, something I am currently trying to get cleared up. A statement that "Atheist-all concept of gods are the same" is an error and indeed a non sequitur in context of the discussion. Sure, atheists in general probably have the same concept of gods as far as their probable non-existence is concerned, but it's not relevant to the discussion.
I want to hedge my bets and be prepared for the possibility that any religion that ever appeared on Earth could be true.
It can't be done using the faithful to explain.
I suggest try using technology to define God. Also, throw out the boasting made by believers.
Think of it as advanced alien technology from another solar system. All the different deities can be introduced by using CGI. The computers send data packets to an organic brain for the mind to recognize, communication to the brain similar to a wireless cell phone call.
The computerized graphical interface can send anything to the brain. You want loony tunes characters, how about devils or ghost?
I thank swarm for this:
Neural science has made a break through. Scientists can extract images directly from brain.
http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/
Before to long the sex industry is going to have a whole new way of having sensual sexual pleasure. A 3D looking sex partner and it never gets any farther then your head.
Your talking about our [humans] level of scientific development now. If the sender can star trek with its technology, then they would most likely communicate without the need for the actual cell phone gadgetry. Computers in orbit that can send anyone a wireless message through their computer graphical interface.
Some of the visions people speak about sound quite interesting, if one is trying to discover the capablities of the technology. I watch ghost hunters to pick up tidbits.
Well, you're quite the imbecile. In essence you're right though - next time you make worthless opinions, you should put "imo" next to it. Having said that, there's little need. It's not like nobody recognised that it was your opinion.. other than imbeciles that is.
As for "are we done", it most certainly seems so. Unless that is, you're going to grow a pair and face up to requests for you to support you opinions. That of course is very unlikely. IMO.
As for "are we done", it most certainly seems so. Unless that is, you're going to grow a pair and face up to requests for you to support you opinions. That of course is very unlikely. IMO.