Anthropomorphic Godhead

[+Liquid Gardens]

25 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 

And the really ironic thing here is, the Big Bang is one of the greatest pieces of evidence one could use in defense of the concept of a God. Literally everything that exists in our universe exploding into existence instantaneously from seemingly nothing with extreme precision.

Isn't everything that occurs in this universe happening with extreme precision? 

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Isn't everything that occurs in this universe happening with extreme precision? 

What I was speaking to specifically was in regards to the laws of the universe being 'fine tuned' to support life.

[Illyrius]

45 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

 Dude, wtf are you even talkin' about?

Sorry wrong person. I am not Some Dude - the messiah of your religion. I think he is somewhere preaching about Big Bang woo.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Sorry wrong person. I am not Some Dude - the messiah of your religion.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Yes that is Some Dude I think. After he preached the whole scientific woo to the world.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

Yes that is Some Dude I think. After he preached the whole scientific woo to the world.

I don't have a religion. You're just using what I said as a stupid dismissive way to deny scientific facts.

If you disagree with any scientific theories put forward, then by all means present your own interpretations. Use logic, reasoning, evidence. Put forward a rational argument based on the data. Lord knows I disagree with scientists all the time. I'm a spiritualist, who thinks that the existence of a spiritual reality on top of this material one is a genuine possibility, and has some plausible scientific evidence in support of it. That's why I vehemently disagree with the materialist dogmas put forward by many mainstream scientists. Just look at the links in my signature and you'd note the scientific evidence in support of my own interpretations.

You aren't giving any scientific, logical, or philosophical arguments in support of your positions at all. To the contrary, you're just lazily dismissing science as a whole all while wrongly accusing others of positions they do not hold.

You've yet to actually respond to anything I've said with any intelligent refutations. If you disagree then give me a rational argument as to why. Otherwise I won't continue to degrade myself by lowering down to a childish level mockery.

[+OverSword]

15 hours ago, Mr. Argon said:

Why do you think it is obvious? There is even one religion which depicts a Supreme Being as a flying spaghetti monster, for example.

There is a mock religion created to demonstrate the absurdity of belief in religion with a flying spaghetti monster (bless his noodly appendages) and a heaven that has constantly erupting beer volcanoes.

I think it's obvious because humans (and all animals) a very self centered and self important so if a primitive person was to imagine what the supreme God of humans looked like I would be surprised if it looked like anything rather than a human.

 

[Illyrius]

Just now, Aquila King said:

I don't have a religion. You're just using what I said as a stupid dismissive way to deny scientific facts.

If you disagree with any scientific theories put forward, then by all means present your own interpretations. Use logic, reasoning, evidence. Put forward a rational argument based on the data. Lord knows I disagree with scientists all the time. I'm a spiritualist, who thinks that the existence of a spiritual reality on top of this material one is a genuine possibility, and has some plausible scientific evidence in support of it. That's why I vehemently disagree with the materialist dogmas put forward by many mainstream scientists. Just look at the links in my signature and you'd note the scientific evidence in support of my own interpretations.

You aren't giving any scientific, logical, or philosophical arguments in support of your positions at all. To the contrary, you're just lazily dismissing science as a whole all while wrongly accusing others of positions they do not hold.

You've yet to actually respond to anything I've said with any intelligent refutations. If you disagree then give me a rational argument as to why. Otherwise I won't continue to degrade myself by lowering down to a childish level mockery.

As a point of your post you said that Some Dude brought Science to the world and that this Science is a new and better Bible. You weren't joking in that part. You meant it quite seriously.

[Illyrius]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

There is a mock religion created to demonstrate the absurdity of belief in religion with a flying spaghetti monster (bless his noodly appendages) and a heaven that has constantly erupting beer volcanoes.

I think it's obvious because humans (and all animals) a very self centered and self important so if a primitive person was to imagine what the supreme God of humans looked like I would be surprised if it looked like anything rather than a human.

 

Oh i see now. Thank you.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

As a point of your post you said that Some Dude brought Science to the world and that this Science is a new and better Bible. You weren't joking in that part. You meant it quite seriously.

And since when were you a mind reader? Last I checked my own brain I was, you just apparently didn't get it.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

And since when were you a mind reader? Last I checked my own brain I was, you just apparently didn't get it.

I am not a mind reader, but it's obvious from the post.

[Illyrius]

You dismissed everything before Science as something outdated and wrong, and proposed that Science is a new religion.

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

As a point of your post you said that Some Dude brought Science to the world and that this Science is a new and better Bible. You weren't joking in that part. You meant it quite seriously.

IMO religion and science are very similar.  Both are systems developed in order to help us explain the universe.  I wonder what ultimate explanation of truth will replace science?

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

I am not a mind reader, but it's obvious from the post.

Let me lay it out for then:

[Illyrius]

Just now, OverSword said:

IMO religion and science are very similar.  Both are systems developed in order to help us explain the universe.  I wonder what ultimate explanation of truth will replace science?

He is just trying to evade what he actually said. But he knows very well what he said.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

You dismissed everything before Science as something outdated and wrong, and proposed that Science is a new religion.

I dismissed the Bible as outdated and wrong. That says nothing to the notion of spirituality.

[Illyrius]

22 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I dismissed the Bible as outdated and wrong. That says nothing to the notion of spirituality.

And you said that the Science is a new Bible, havent you? Ok you haven't said that upon further examination, but you said that science (as a conclusion to jour joke) is the new outlook which is the right outlook for humanity to follow. You haven't said that directly, but it could be read between the lines, but nevermind. Not going to push that forward.

Edited November 10, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

And you said that the Science is a new Bible, havent you?

For Christ sake, if you don't get it you don't get it. You're horrendously wrong, so just move on already.

[Aquila King]

Note to self, never write jokes. 

I'm either not at all funny or people are ridiculously moronic to the point of brain damage.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

For Christ sake, if you don't get it you don't get it. You're horrendously wrong, so just move on already.

I get it.. don't worry. I get it perfectly.

[Illyrius]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Then some billions of years of stuffs happened and yadda yadda, man came up from the dust of the Earth (through evolution).

And Man said "let there be light!" And he invented fire.

Then man said "Let us make God in our image." And it was so.

Then man proceeded to kill each other over who built the better God. They also measured dick sizes.

Then some dude came up with science, and now here we are today. Amen.

 

- The Better Bible

plain..

...and simple.

[Illyrius]

Aren't you proposing with that that everything before Science was wrong, and that only Science has all the answers?

Does that make it a religion?

Edited November 10, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[+Liquid Gardens]

44 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

What I was speaking to specifically was in regards to the laws of the universe being 'fine tuned' to support life.

That was what I thought, just suggesting a reason why I don't think that's the case (in addition to the obvious fact that 99%+ of the universe is very inhospitable and fatal to most life).

[Illyrius]

14 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

For Christ sake, if you don't get it you don't get it. You're horrendously wrong, so just move on already.

Ok, moving on.

[Aquila King]

Just now, Mr. Argon said:

I get it.. don't worry. I get it perfectly.

*sigh*

Let me try one last time to spell it out for you. I said:
 

Quote

 

In the beginning, the heavens and the Earth came from somewhere. Don't know where or how or what exactly, but that s**t happened. And it was so.

Then some billions of years of stuffs happened and yadda yadda, man came up from the dust of the Earth (through evolution).

And Man said "let there be light!" And he invented fire.

Then man said "Let us make God in our image." And it was so.

Then man proceeded to kill each other over who built the better God. They also measured dick sizes.

 

You are for some stupid reason taking this ^ to mean that I totally oppose any spiritual concepts, while supporting materialist science. I am not. If I am, show me specifically where I am. Now let me explain the joke point by point so you can at least try to get it this time, okay?

I am writing a parody of the Biblical creation account. Do you know what a parody is? I'm citing the fact that I support the science of evolution as opposed to biblical creationism (note that this doesn't mean that I support a purely naturalistic/materialistic form of evolution, I don't, I support a spiritually guided form of evolution, but it's evolution nonetheless). I'm also citing the fact that most (if not all) of the specific deities in various religions are man-made inventions, nothing more. This does not mean that I oppose the notion of there being some sort of 'God'. I don't. I think that God's existence is a genuine possibility, merely that the Abrahamic God specifically does not exist. And lastly here, I stated how mankind has killed each other and waged holy wars over their different ideas of who God is. That is a fact.

Do you see what I was trying to say now?

Now on to my last part:
 

Quote

 

Then some dude came up with science, and now here we are today. Amen.

 

- The Better Bible

 

This ^ is a comedic concept called: 'exaggeration'. Of course I don't believe that just 'some dude' came up with science. Only a complete moron would believe that.

I'm not in any way saying that 'science is the new Bible', merely that it is better than the Bible.

14 minutes ago, Mr. Argon said:

Aren't you proposing with that that everything before Science was wrong, and that only Science has all the answers?

Does that make it a religion?

This ^ is known as the non-comedic form of exaggeration, where the user is just simply being an idiot.

No where did I even hint at such a thing, as I expressly laid out for you above.

You apparently have been inserting ideas into the text that are not there.

I hope this little expose helps in your previous misunderstanding, and I will try to avoid speaking in metaphors and using big words for you in the future.