You have to be stupid to believe in God.

[Age]

Kant pretty mucb established that knowledge of 'god' could be neither a priori nor a posteriori knowledge and that there is nothing observable in the world that would require us to posit such a hypothesis. simply said, there is no evidence for 'god'. not the astonishing, finely tuned universe, not that ghost u thought tapped u on the knee and not the voices in your head.  none of this even kinda proves a god exists, mate. u need 2 take a gotdamn philosophy class'er sumthin.

Philosophy? Atheists need to work out what that actually means before they start lecturing me about "philosophy" ffs.

There's yer fuckin evidence, and it's all ya gonna get out of me: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

WHY does God HAVE TO BE EITHER:

1. Divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. A combination of the above.

WHY, to you, there could NEVER be absolutely ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY?

[attofishpi]

Kant pretty mucb established that knowledge of 'god' could be neither a priori nor a posteriori knowledge and that there is nothing observable in the world that would require us to posit such a hypothesis. simply said, there is no evidence for 'god'. not the astonishing, finely tuned universe, not that ghost u thought tapped u on the knee and not the voices in your head.  none of this even kinda proves a god exists, mate. u need 2 take a gotdamn philosophy class'er sumthin.

Philosophy? Atheists need to work out what that actually means before they start lecturing me about "philosophy" ffs.

There's yer fuckin evidence, and it's all ya gonna get out of me: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

WHY does God HAVE TO BE EITHER:

1. Divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. A combination of the above.

WHY, to you, there could NEVER be absolutely ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY?

Don't bother attempting to discuss anything with me, you can't even string logical comprehendable sentences together half the time. Just fucking read your question there!! WHERE AM I STATING THERE ABSOLUTELY CAN BE NO OTHER POSSIBILITY YOU FUCKING IMBECILE???

[Age]

For you, maybe... and who cares about that for themselves?

What makes you think it exists for anyone else as it exists for you... and what difference does it make if it doesn't?

Lacewing, it clearly doesn't exist for most others (the majority of atheists - and theists) as it does for me, but when god-bothering atheists call out the likes of me as "STUPID" then, I get bothered.

The kind of 'god' I'm referring to is one which the god-believer claims rules over all others regardless of the vastly varying perspectives of all others.

Is that what you claim of your entity? If so, that would be stupid, don't you agree?

WHY would you even THINK that that would be STUPID, let alone BELIEVE that that would be STUPID.

It sounds like you are CLAIMING there is some 'thing' that rules OVER ALL "others" regardless of the vastly varying perspectives of ALL "others". And, that 'thing' is what 'you' BELIEVE here "lacewing".

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are DOING EXACTLY what 'you' CLAIM "others" DO, which 'you' also CLAIM IS STUPID.

REALLY, HOW STUPID can some people REALLY BE?

Your entity could be all kinds of things. Nobody else has to experience or believe in it. It's your special trip.

Why do you want anyone to believe in it?

WHY do 'you' "lacewing" WANT and EXPECT "others" to ACCEPT and/or BELIEVE what 'you' KEEP TELLING "others" here IS THE TRUTH?

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' are DOING EXACTLY what 'you' CLAIM "others" DO, and which 'you' KEEP 'trying to' CLAIM is STUPID?

[Sculptor]

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT ANY OF YOU BELIEVE! WHAT FUCKS ME OFF IS THE ARROGANCE OF STUPID ATHEISTS IN LABELLING THOSE WITH GNOSIS AS STUPID.

Seriously?

If your gnosis is completely at odds with all other Christians' gnosis, why would you trust what you think you "gKnow", or is your gKnow just a Gnu?
And if you are sure and confident of what you gKnow then why should you be so fucked off?
Sounds stupid to me.
It seems to piss you off that I have this opinion. Why?

methinks....

[Age]

“Hell is the impossibility of reason.” Oliver Stone

Okay, but who would have thought we'd bump into so many that remind us of that here?!!!

It is NOT necessarily that there is the IMPOSSIBILITY of 'reason' here. It is more the case that these people here, in this forum, in the days when this is being written, are SHOWING and PROVING just HOW they could ALL 'reason' out, to "themselves" ONLY, 'that', which is ACTUALLY Truly UNREASONABLE, to ALL.

See, it is ONLY 'that', which is ABLE TO BE REASONED to and by ALL, that IS Truly REASONABLE. The rest just SHOWS and PROVES how there REALLY DOES EXIST an ABILITY for human beings to 'reason' absolutely ANY and EVERY 'thing'. Which, by the way, is what SEPARATES 'them' from ALL the OTHER animals on earth.

And, it is this ABILITY, combined WITH BELIEVING, itself, WHY 'hell' EXISTS, and EXISTED, on earth, in the days when this is, and was, being written.

[Age]

Lacewing, it clearly doesn't exist for most others (the majority of atheists - and theists) as it does for me, but when god-bothering atheists call out the likes of me as "STUPID" then, I get bothered.

The kind of 'god' I'm referring to is one which the god-believer claims rules over all others regardless of the vastly varying perspectives of all others.

Is that what you claim of your entity? If so, that would be stupid, don't you agree?

Your entity could be all kinds of things. Nobody else has to experience or believe in it. It's your special trip.

Why do you want anyone to believe in it?

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT ANY OF YOU BELIEVE! WHAT FUCKS ME OFF IS THE ARROGANCE OF STUPID ATHEISTS IN LABELLING THOSE WITH GNOSIS AS STUPID.

Were you even AWARE that you JUST DID the EXACT SAME 'thing' as what you SAY and CLAIM "FUCKS you OFF"?

I believed in Christ - the guiding light (likely through many times in my incarnations on Earth), so since now I KNOW God...it appears that what Christ stated was true, that to know GOD is via faith in Christ (faith in love).

But the words "jesus christ", in relation to KNOWING God, via faith/belief in "christ" is in relation to some 'thing' ELSE and NOT just 'love', itself.

COMPREHENDE?

Some are saying that 'you' have NOT FULLY comprehended "your" 'self', YET. Or, do you BELIEVE otherwise?

[Age]

“Hell is the impossibility of reason.” Oliver Stone

That is so true. Would you like to experience a day of hell, a Day of Reckoning?

Are you under some sort of PRESUMPTION that you HAVE?

If yes, then would you like to SHARE with 'us' what HAPPENED on 'that' day, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

I could ask for you?

[Lacewing]

I DO CARE when people insist I am stupid simply for attempting to provide evidence and reasonable analysis of my experiences on a philosophy forum.

Isn't it okay for people to see some things as stupid? Maybe it is.

[Age]

As I thought. You haven't a clue what god is.
You don't know what you believe in.

Bullshit. (and I don't merely believe)

Why should I follow that?

I couldn't give a flying fuck what you "follow"..whatever that means!

Spoken like a true Christian.
Are you going to tie me to a stake and burn me now?

Just fucking sad that only one of us KNOWS the other is wrong

But you do not know what you believe so I'll assume that you are wrong.
That would be fair, rational and reasonable.

Do you KNOW what you do NOT BELIEVE?

If yes, then what is 'that' that you, supposedly, KNOW.

[Age]

Bullshit. (and I don't merely believe)




I couldn't give a flying fuck what you "follow"..whatever that means!

Spoken like a true Christian.
Are you going to tie me to a stake and burn me now?

That sounds kindov kinky but I assure you, it aint my thing - CHRISTIANS (Those that act as per Christ's guidance) would never do such a thing. Breaking the golden rule pretty much rules them out of being considered CHRISTIAN..comprehende?

Hang on, wait a minute...are you going to suggest atheists never burnt anyone on a stake?

I bet more Christians were burnt on stakes for being Christian than vice-versa.

Just fucking sad that only one of us KNOWS the other is wrong

But you do not know what you believe so I'll assume that you are wrong.
That would be fair, rational and reasonable.

I do KNOW this...any entity that has total power over what I perceive of reality is God in my opinion...whether it be divine, AI or combination of both. My BELIEF is that it is Divine, since what I have been advised re Christ - that HE DID DIE on the crucifix.

HOW, EXACTLY, does one human being DYING on A crucifix, then somehow 'rationally, logically follow' and PROVE, to you, that God is DIVINE?

So. What is not rational and reasonable in what I am stating?

[Age]

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT ANY OF YOU BELIEVE! WHAT FUCKS ME OFF IS THE ARROGANCE OF STUPID ATHEISTS IN LABELLING THOSE WITH GNOSIS AS STUPID.

How about the arrogance of theists who insist that everyone else should believe as they do?

And, what about the ARROGANCE of so-called "atheists" who insist that EVERY one else should BELIEVE as they do?

Or, does this NOT count when 'you' are one of 'them'?

How about all the crap labels that arrogant theists (on this forum) place on atheists?

How about all the crap labels that arrogant "atheists" (on this forum) place on "theists", like, for example, 'You have to BE STUPID to believe in God'?

Will you PROVIDE ANY examples of what 'you' SAID here "lacewing"?

If no, then WHY NOT?

These are reasonable challenges on a philosophy forum, where there are a handful of theists making varying claims about their particular view of a god. You guys can't even get the stories straight among you.

LOL

One HAS TO LISTEN BEFORE they could make such A CLAIM.
'you', "lacewing", OBVIOUSLY, do NOT LISTEN.
So, 'you', "lacewing", have NO IDEA what ACTUAL STORY or STORIES LAY BEFORE 'you'.

Why would this demonstrate any credibility to anyone other than how it serves you?

Talk about one who MAKES UP their OWN stories, which they then USE to SERVE them.

ONCE AGAIN, "lacewing" it is YOU who is DOING EXACTLY what you CLAIM "others" DO and CLAIM is WRONG.

If someone insisted through preposterous stories that a giant ladybug ruled over you, whether you believed in it or not, and they claimed your disbelief was a sign that you were being arrogant, and you would be condemned as a result to the worst imaginable compost pile forever -- would you think that was stupid?

YES. I think it IS just as STUPID to DISBELIEVE some 'thing' EXISTS when that one has NO CLUE AT ALL as to HOW that 'thing' IS DEFINED EXACTLY.

LOL The example you PROVIDE is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and Incorrect from the outset.

You can know what you know... and someone else can know what they know... and neither has to see the same, nor must they be lorded over by the other's perspective. Only men want to command others.

AND, CLAIM that "others" ARE STUPID for NOT BELIEVING what 'you' DO "lacewing" is a PRIME EXAMPLE of AGAIN 'you' DOING what 'you' CLAIM "others" DO.

'you' are CLAIMING that 'your' BELIEF LORDS OVER "other's" perspectives. 'you' CLAIM this SO MUCH that 'you' even CLAIM that "others" and their perspectives ARE STUPID.

It is ONLY people like 'you', "lacewing" who WANT to COMMAND "others".

I believe that you've had profound experiences for yourself with other entities. Well, so have I. We interpret it differently, however.

But WHY do 'you' CALL the "others" STUPID.

It is REALLY like 'you' are 'trying to' COMMAND OVER 'them', with 'your' OWN perspective/s of 'things'.

What difference does that make?

Finding out what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, instead of just BELIEVING that you ALREADY KNOW, will then HELP 'you' here.

[Age]

I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT ANY OF YOU BELIEVE! WHAT FUCKS ME OFF IS THE ARROGANCE OF STUPID ATHEISTS IN LABELLING THOSE WITH GNOSIS AS STUPID.

How about the arrogance of theists who insist that everyone else should believe as they do?

I don't care whether anyone wants to believe in the amount of love in Christ as a guiding light. I DONT CARE.

But that human being IS, what is called, DEAD.

So, how, EXACTLY, could there be ANY amount of love in "Christ", as a guiding light?

The answer, by the way, and in case you are NOT YET AWARE is ACTUALLY Truly SIMPLE and EASY to KNOW and UNDERSTAND.

I DO CARE when people insist I am stupid simply for attempting to provide evidence and reasonable analysis of my experiences on a philosophy forum.

DO you CARE when you insist "others" ARE STUPID for having OTHER BELIEFS, views, or perspectives?

How about all the crap labels that arrogant theists (on this forum) place on atheists?

This isn't a team effort. Atheists come in all forms as do theists. What crap labels are you talking about?

These are reasonable challenges on a philosophy forum, where there are a handful of theists making varying claims about their particular view of a god. You guys can't even get the stories straight among you. Why would this demonstrate any credibility to anyone other than how it serves you?

Again, it's not a team effort. Personally I believe this God has manifested itself to those of at least some spiritual belief throughout ALL cultures, and various religions have sprung from that...ultimately, it's the same BEING.

If someone insisted through preposterous stories that a giant ladybug ruled over you, whether you believed in it or not, and they claimed your disbelief was a sign that you were being arrogant, and you would be condemned as a result to the worst imaginable compost pile forever -- would you think that was stupid?

Now you are being very daft. Are you comparing a story of immense suffering to insist on faith in love via a MAN to a frickin' bug!!?

You can know what you know... and someone else can know what they know... and neither has to see the same, nor must they be lorded over by the other's perspective. Only men want to command others.

I believe that you've had profound experiences for yourself with other entities. Well, so have I. We interpret it differently, however. What difference does that make?

Lol. No DIFFERENCE...you can reincarnate through time, maybe be raised by hippies that have similar experiences.

[Age]

Philosophy? Atheists need to work out what that actually means before they start lecturing me about "philosophy" ffs.

There's yer fuckin evidence, and it's all ya gonna get out of me: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=33214

WHY does God HAVE TO BE EITHER:

1. Divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. A combination of the above.

WHY, to you, there could NEVER be absolutely ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY?

Don't bother attempting to discuss anything with me, you can't even string logical comprehendable sentences together half the time.

WILL you PROVIDE JUST ONE of these ALLEGED sentences??

If no, then WHY NOT?

What is 'it' that you are AFRAID and SCARED OF here, EXACTLY?

'you', "attofishpi" are ANOTHER one who is VERY QUICK to ACCUSE me of some 'thing' WHEN 'you' are RUNNING AWAY, but VERY USELESS in backing up and supporting YOUR CLAIM. LOL 'you' are NOT even ABLE to PROVIDE just ONE EXAMPLE of what 'you' CLAIM I have done, and this IS BECAUSE ABSOLUTELY NONE EXIST.

Just fucking read your question there!! WHERE AM I STATING THERE ABSOLUTELY CAN BE NO OTHER POSSIBILITY YOU FUCKING IMBECILE???

WHERE you STATED and WROTE the WORDS:

Either:-
1. God is divine and constructs our reality in real-time.

2. 'God' is A.I. - Artificial Intelligence - that we have evolved into a simulation (see simulation hypothesis) ..again, our reality is constructed in real-time.
NB. The reason we would evolve into a simulation is to conserve resources as entropy increases.

3. but, then it could also be this:- God is a combination of the above.

THIS THREAD IS PROOF OF POINT 1. or 2. or 3.: BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

That is WHERE, 'you FUCKING IMBECILE'.

By the way, do you think or BELIEVE that the last TWO WORDS ACTUALLY HELP here in ANY WAY whatsoever?

OBVIOUSLY IF there can ONLY be the POSSIBILITY of EITHER of 'the above', THEN, to 'you', there could NOT be ABSOLUTELY ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY, to you, correct?

[Age]

I DO CARE when people insist I am stupid simply for attempting to provide evidence and reasonable analysis of my experiences on a philosophy forum.

Isn't it okay for people to see some things as stupid? Maybe it is.

Is it okay for people to see the OBVIOUS STUPIDITY of your BELIEVE "lacewing", 'There is NO one truth'?

And, is it okay for people to see that, 'You have to be stupid to BELIEVE in 'There is NO one truth'?

[Sculptor]

Bullshit. (and I don't merely believe)




I couldn't give a flying fuck what you "follow"..whatever that means!

Spoken like a true Christian.
Are you going to tie me to a stake and burn me now?

Just fucking sad that only one of us KNOWS the other is wrong

But you do not know what you believe so I'll assume that you are wrong.
That would be fair, rational and reasonable.

Do you KNOW what you do NOT BELIEVE?

If yes, then what is 'that' that you, supposedly, KNOW.

No, what is that then?