|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 8:44 am
 |
|
|
 |
Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that. As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing? Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about. In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable. Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right? lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right? Assuming hell does exist and 'everyone' includes God, yes.
Do you think God is a part of their community? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 8:58 am
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that. As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing? Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about. In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable. Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right? lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right? Assuming hell does exist and 'everyone' includes God, yes. Do you think God is a part of their community?
Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
black_wing_angel Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:00 am
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Does it matter if the question HAS a true answer or not? If I asked you 'does chocolate taste good?', is there a right answer? No, not really. But if you were in a room full of people who hated chocolate, I bet the last words out of your mouth would be 'You're all ******** crazy', or something to that effect. Maybe you're half joking, but you're half not. If you THINK you're right, that's all you need. And if you're right and someone else thinks differently, that makes them wrong, QED. There's no two ways about that. As an example, this very debate. Does it matter? No. Is there a right answer? Probably not. So why are we arguing? Because it's philosophical. Nobody has to be "right" for anything to be achieved in such a debate. The God debate is fruitless; it's like abortion. Such topics are things people are extremely stubborn about. In any case, you specifically stated that people "have to be right." Okay, now fit that into this debate. Do they have to be right, or do they have to feel right? They are two different things and I'm just going to assume you meant the latter, considering, once again, the former is not applicable. Feel right. But if you're in a philosophical debate and nobody disagrees with you, doesn't that make you right? lmao. Westboro church. They all think "fags go to hell." If none disagree within their community, does that make them right? Assuming hell does exist and 'everyone' includes God, yes. Do you think God is a part of their community? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:21 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Oh, see, you said community. I missed that. I was referring to 'nobody' as an absolute, not nobody within a set.
It's cool. cool
Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community.
1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people.
2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no?
Quote: Yes, it does interfere with the law. I wonder when we will get a publicly agnostic or atheist president of the United States of America. The issue I draw in regards to religion that interferes with the law is where the religion does not allow itself to be scrutinized or criticized. Where it has declared itself right, just, truth and the authority of all things. I do not trust any such people and would not wish for them to be laying the law for me.
So what is the alternative to religiously-influenced rule? Scientific rule? See, this is where I have a problem with such a claim. For a civilised government to take place, a degree or order and rule is needed. By which do we achieve this? By making rules. If science is not the objective view of religion, then by what model should be reinstate such rules? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:33 am
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. 1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people. 2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no?
Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything...
Now that's a thinker. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 10:32 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Silver Screen Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. 1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people. 2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no? If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker.
Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously.
I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them.
I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so.
How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 10:40 am
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. 1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people. 2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no? If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker. Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously. I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them. I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so. How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right?
IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?"
Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:43 am
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. 1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people. 2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no? If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker. Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously. I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them. I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so. How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right? Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right.
I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right.
However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Quote: Well, if it's true that God is "Everywhere", then yes, technically he would be a part of their community. 1. God would have to openly agree for them to be correct in speaking for him when they say God hates "fags." We don't even know for sure if he exists, much less what he thinks about gay people. 2. For their position to be correct through lack of opposition, that would mean that everyone - including who it applies to - would have to agree with them, no? If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker. Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously. I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them. I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so. How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right? Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right. However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker. Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously. I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them. I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so. How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right? Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right. However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad If everyone believes you're right...
But do they? surprised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:13 pm
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel If God's only two options are agree or disagree and he doesn't disagree, that means he agrees. Which means they're right because nobody disagrees. Again, assuming for the sake of argument that God exists. But... assuming he doesn't exist, then nobody would disagree and they'd be wrong, because a nonexistant being can't hate anything... Now that's a thinker. Man, I hate that assumption. No offense to you, obviously. I discussed something similar with somebody else a few days ago. She said that the tea parties were "racist" because some of the party-goers were dropping the n-bomb. Those that stood around the racists and said nothing, she said, were also racist, because they didn't flip a s**t. Does that mean they were, by silence, agreeing? I don't believe so, as I've spoken to many of them. I personally don't think that somebody who doesn't openly disagree is by default agreeing. In many cultures God is a neutral being, from what I understand. I myself am an agnostic, as I've said, but my view on God, if (s)he/it exists, is that ze is just that - neutral. Indifferent, perhaps? Does that signify an agreement to baseless hatred? I wouldn't imagine so. How is a supposedly non-interactive god supposed to tell us that ze agrees or disagrees? Furthermore, many religious individuals counter Westboro's stances by saying the opposite - that their God loves all of His children. So in the case of direct objectivity, who is right? Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right. However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad If everyone believes you're right... But do they? surprised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 1:56 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right. However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad If everyone believes you're right... But do they? surprised One step at a time, m'dear. One step at a time.
I'm sure that's what Nicolae Carpathia told himself too. cool b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:56 pm
|
|
|
|
Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Silver Screen Fresnel Okay, I'll admit that when I said "doesn't disagree", I meant "does agree" and left no room for a neutral stance, which was flawed. IMO, I think 90~% of the 'racists' at the tea parties were there with the specific intent of making the tea parties look like Klan gatherings. I personally saw one guy with a sign that said "why did we elect an ape?" and I just gawked like "did he seriously just write that on a sign and hold it up in public?" Why does said God have to tell us if he agrees or not? We don't have to know. If the WBC says all fags go to hell and God agrees, the fags will find out when they're burning for eternity. The WBC might never know. You don't have to KNOW you're right to BE right. God knows enough of my bullshitting has turned out to be right. I definitely agree to the fullest that you do not have to know you're right to be right. However, if you don't know, how would one gain a sense of satisfaction from such a debate - one without known rights or wrongs? Typically the value of being right is satisfaction in knowing so, but if you don't know, then I fail to see the point. sad If everyone believes you're right... But do they? surprised One step at a time, m'dear. One step at a time. I'm sure that's what Nicolae Carpathia told himself too. cool b |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
