CreateDebate


Nahga's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Nahga's arguments, looking across every debate.
4 points

everyone is born an atheist. an atheist is one who lacks belief in a god, everyone is born lacking belief in a god. god belief is the product of indoctrination. lack of belief does not require you to be taught anything.

you act as if we are born believing in everything and someone has to convince us not to. that is not the case. we are born lacking believe in ghosts gods and other superstitious notions. these are culturally propagated. atheism is simply a lack of belief. you are born lacking belief in a god. lacking belief is not rejecting a belief that you have never been introduced to. you dont understand epistemology.

1 point

so thats why everyone is born an atheist? then the devil must be more powerful than all powerful god, because atheism is the null hypothesis. the default position.

awaiting your reply, but think it through this time.

nahga(81) Clarified
1 point

life is just biological processes, consciousness is awareness and is emergent from the brain. they could be named hebrew national beef franks but they already have names: namely consciousness/awareness and life.

so you'd rather use a word like 'spirit' because it sounds metaphysical or something?

there would be a lot less ppl making themselves look delusional if they stop trying to mystify ordinary , everyday shit.

not saying thats what youre doing, but there are ppl who do this on purpose.

2 points

damn....no spoiler alert or anything...................................................

1 point

self awareness emerges from the brain. nothing else is necessary. as you say, our awareness stops when the brain stops.

but what is the spirit?

every time i ask this question, no one can define the spirit as anything they know, or can show to actually exist, and most of the time it is simply defined via equivocation as things known to emerge from the brain.

yet ppl are always talking about spirits.

if it aint just a feel good buzzword, what the hell is it?

1 point

how do you know its there if you don't even know what IT is?

you would obviously be able to define it, it's function, and parameters,

it if you knew what it was, yet you contend 'it's there, without being able to define what it is?

arguments like this are what prompted this question in the first place.

but we are no closer to a definitive answer than we were before asking the question.

nahga(81) Clarified
1 point

@ Facadeon:

What essence? havent you simply traded one ambiguity for another?

1 point

anything that exists, exists not because of our beliefs but in spite of them.

1 point

would you mind providing examples? otherwise you're commiting a logical fallacy: the bald assertion

1 point

right chuck. scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena. it is not a hypothesis which is an educated guess.

theory is the most important thing in science. theory never, ever becomes law. theory explains law.

2 points

Can you give an example of an atheist misuse of the word 'fact?'

Make it plain.

1 point

'If God cannot do so then he is not omnipotent, something which conflicts with the notion of a deism.'

So jehovah is a deistic god? i was under the impression that he is a personal theistic god of the anthropomorphic variety.

I am not a theist, or a deist. I have no belief in a god, mainly due to lack of evidence but all the logical inconsistencies born out of the things attributed to the abrahamic god, only make god look even less likely to actually exist. It is the contention of christians that god cannot violate free will. any and all other logical inconsistencies only add to the problem.

if you dont understand why omnibenevolence and indifference are incompatible, youre short because i wont waste any time explaining something so blatantly obvious.

1 point

'This is written in a manner which leads me to believe that you do not believe in the existence of free will.'

so it never occurred to you that i don't believe in any god?

'free will' in the theological sense is an excuse. that's not to say that ppl cant do whatever the hell they want to do. but our ability to make decisions doesn't have anything to do with a 'god allowing us' to do so, or 'not wanting us to be robots.'

'Why couldn't God violate an individual's free will to make a point?'

because that is logically inconsistent with the assertion that god cannot (or does not) violate free will.

if god could violate Pharaoh's free will to give himself an excuse to kill all Egypt's first born, he could violate the 'free will' of all child molesters to make sure no child was ever again molested. and in doing so, he would be beginning to solve 'the problem of evil'.

'the problem of evil' is only a problem because theists contended that god is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. these qualities are directly contradicted by the persistence of 'evil'. one cannot be all loving, all powerful and indifferent to the suffering of untold millions of children.

the fact that i need to explain all this, puts a particularly humorous spin on your totally unnecessary snipe, citing 'uneducated corruptors'. but thanks for asking.

1 point

no. of course not. free will is just an excuse for a nonexistent god's inability to intervene, where any existent, moral god would choose to do so.

ppl claim that god refuses to intervene, because that would violate free will.

but if no god exists, no god would intervene anyway, which completely solves the problem.

the same ppl who claim that 'divine intervention would violate free will', also claim that 'God answers prayers'. This directly contradicts the claim that god must preserve free will.

If God hardened Pharaoh's heart, then he violated free will and punished the children of Egypt for his own gratification.

the fallacy of free will and the problem of evil, both demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the Christian god.

1 point

the entire bible was written by man. yet you seeks to arbitrarily define some laws as that of man and others of a god. don't you have any intellectual honesty? or does that result in hellfire?

1 point

ask a theist for evidence of god and you'll get fallacy or philosophy, but one thing you certainly will not get is logical justification for god belief. i guarantee it.

4 points

'The reason why there was those laws is because those are for the Jews to follow.'

So because they were Jews, God required them not to wear poly/cotton blends?

You didn't even attempt to reason out a logical answer to the question. your answer gives no reason for god wanting them not to wear poly/cotton blends. the fact that they were jewish is not a reason, its an excuse. one that doesn't hold a teaspoon of water.

2 points

Don't you think you should at least clarify the question?

'Can you have a scientific purpose for believing in God?'

I don't even know what you're asking.

But God does appear to be 100% made up.

nahga(81) Clarified
1 point

'If I acknowledge that the god I worship is malevolent, I must acknowledge my own iniquity."

If a person feels he gets his sense of morality from his religion, he cannot acknowledge the malevolence of his own god without shooting himself in the foot.

I don't even think most satanists believe in a malevolent god. they just believe in liberation from the hypocrisy of the aforementioned paradigm.

1 point

'You don't see very many theists who believe in a malevolent God. Why is that?'

Actually lots of theists believe in a malevolent god. God is one great big appeal to emotion. He loves you, he will guide, and protect you, if you bend to his will. If you don't he'll torture you repeatedly forever. If you follow his rules and someone tries to impede or oppose you, they will see his malevolence.

In other words, gimme your milk money or my God will beat you up at recess.

You are free to choose, but if you don't choose the choice God has chosen for you, your store will be destroyed by arson. This is what I like to call 'Divine Extortion'.

I don't believe In Kali or Jesus because they're equally ridiculous. There is neither objective evidence, nor logic to support their existence.

If theists cant get a warm fuzzy from their faith, they'd see no point in constantly lying to themselves.

Logic takes those lies and exposes em. Thats why theists hate it, and why they compartmentalize so much.

3 points

If an atheist asks a theist for evidence of a God, he gets no evidence. What he generally gets is philosophy. Where the problem lies is that theists are unwilling to admit their philosophy is just philosophy. They insert it where it does not belong, where it has no validity, and this is why they're looked upon as being intellectually dishonest adults, with childlike minds, who simply refuse to accept the reality of human mortality..

they never even use the word philosophy when they're asked for evidence, they simply spew it out as if saying 'the evidence is all around you' actually proves what they posit. "i know in my heart there is a god' proves absolutely nothing because no one knows anything in his heart (which is simply a pump to circulate blood throughout one's body.) what they're really saying is that they find the idea of a personal god, emotionally appealing. well we as atheists already know that. but we have long since accepted that reality wont kneel before us to placate us in our self-centered fantasies. it doesn't care about our opinions or our feelings.

2 points

Yes, to hell with separation of church and state. We need one nation under desert goat herders, cause Da Big Bad God comin' to get us. We have the minds of small children, so we actually believe such utter nonsense.

Why shouldn't we have a president who believes he can become a god? Superstitious nonsense is superstitious nonsense. You can call it Mormonism, Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. It's still fairytale bull crap.

1 point

all ppl of a particular church do not have the same idea of god. all ppl of a denomination dont have the same idea of god. nor do all ppl of a city or culture or era. what a dictionary describes as 'god in a monotheistic sense' is perfectly irrelevant. Obviously I am referring to opinions, not standardized definitions. you shouldve gotten that from "ask 20 different ppl and you get twenty different answers'. we are not machines, we are human beings, with different views , different philosophies and different concepts of our personal gods. why do i even have to say this? God as the hero of western revenge fantasy is just one of god's many guises. you shouldnt get the idea that god is one thing specifically defined because ancient and contemporary world culture, myth and superstition shows that god/ gods are not, and all of this goes without saying. yea it does get lonely around here.

1 point

What is God? A super-thingie of nebulous ambiguity? A one size fits all security blanket for the ignorant and superstitious? Ask 20 ppl what God is and you get twenty different answers. Ask where god is and you get the same. God is and does whatever anyone says, whatever anyone chooses to believe. God is the hero of western revenge fantasy. An elaborate contradiction guilded in emotional appeals. God's truth is not to be found beyond death. That would require a functioning brain. God is just a sugarcube.


3 of 5 Pages: << Prev Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]