Atheist reply to religous "question".

[BlueLight]

Check my post above this your's again.

[laa]

Haven't studied critical thinking yet, I'm just introduced to it. All the symbols doesn't make much sense to me, except I'm guessing the different symbols mean 'Then' or other things that reminds of it. :/

[BlueLight]

the game had little to do with critical thinking. that's deductive logic or propositional logic. Now while critical reasoning does require a bit of deductive logic; it was also the week of the class that i was allowed to skip.
When you do propositional logic you normally cut down on the text by change it to lines.
some times stuff wont match up perfectly "I had a nice day." and "I'm having a good day." but for the most part you can translate this as the same thing. Some time the devil is in the details and you can't say both of these are the same.

[laa]

I find all this critical thinking to be rather interesting. The game linked a site, and I'm currently reading up on it. Very slowly though.

Anyhow, to get back to the subject at hand, what is your take on religion and god? I've been getting the vibes for a while that you've been arguing with people just to exploit the weaknesses in their arguments for a while now...

... Don't shoot me if I'm wrong. Hehe

[BlueLight]

You might be right which would be "Attacking the straw man". (There's a reason i didn't reply to smack. I'd have to quote fallacies at him so he can understand my example which is kinda silly. I mean even you saw what i saw getting at in a sense. Not the fine details but i'll just say random factors i didn't count for.)
However you came to me with a argument and i stated the problems with it.
Your arguments had major flaws and i pointed them out. The last/ big one i haven't really checked since it was... very confusing when i skimmed though.

Now we're off topic. Take it to PM's if you want.

[laa]

I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I see it as training for whenever I get into a serious argument. It's good to be prepared and to have several facts and tricks one can pull out of ones sleeve in the face of ignorance or political disagreements.

About the confusing argument, it does not surprise me. I tend to do that now and then. Confuse people, that is.

[Smackman]

Blue you aren't smart. Your logical arguments against me are due to the fact that English isn't your first language half the time. The other times you create absurd scenarios, say they're exactly like what I'm talking about, and proceed to argue against them. It's like you have some kind of Napoleonic complex and just have to try and assert your dominance by jumbling some numbers together that you learned in that little class of yours.

[BlueLight]

Blue you aren't smart. Your logical arguments against me are due to the fact that English isn't your first language half the time. The other times you create absurd scenarios, say they're exactly like what I'm talking about, and proceed to argue against them. It's like you have some kind of Napoleonic complex and just have to try and assert your dominance by jumbling some numbers together that you learned in that little class of yours.

What does this have to do with the topic on hand? If it changes anything, then i would be happy to argue with you.
otherwise send it in a PM.

[Smackman]

It has things to do with asinine arguments you made earlier regarding the topic at hand. This needs to be out in the open because you constantly come into threads and try to look smart, usually not to the benefit of anyone in there.

If I were to say I like toast in a random thread you'd probably come in and try to argue the logic of it.

[talin]

Eh, I'm going to have to take a logic class now to actually compete in the long run with you guys but I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that there isn't much arguing whether you like toast or not. It's a preference which (at least I) can't dispute because I am not you and have no evidence to the contrary. I could say it's POSSIBLE you're lying but I would have even less proof than you simply because it was you who made the statement and you most likely know more about you than I do. I'm sure Blue would be in a similar position.

As for Blue Light's arguments, I enjoy thinking about them. They help spot holes in my own logic and arguments and help me figure out how to better my own view points and give better opinions and observations. If someone keeps their head clear and open-minded, they may well find that they can learn and grow from the experience. Inversely, this could also help Blue Light if someone were to argue back and allow him to either gain further insight, or at least practice in finding possible holes or weaknesses in others logic as well as his own.

[BlueLight]

Eh, I'm going to have to take a logic class now to actually compete in the long run with you guys but I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that there isn't much arguing whether you like toast or not. It's a preference which (at least I) can't dispute because I am not you and have no evidence to the contrary. I could say it's POSSIBLE you're lying but I would have even less proof than you simply because it was you who made the statement and you most likely know more about you than I do. I'm sure Blue would be in a similar position.

As for Blue Light's arguments, I enjoy thinking about them. They help spot holes in my own logic and arguments and help me figure out how to better my own view points and give better opinions and observations. If someone keeps their head clear and open-minded, they may well find that they can learn and grow from the experience. Inversely, this could also help Blue Light if someone were to argue back and allow him to either gain further insight, or at least practice in finding possible holes or weaknesses in others logic as well as his own.

Again off topic. if we want to debate my augmentative style then make another thread or use PMs.

[talin]

Ok...

Would it be possible that if there was a god before which created us, do you think he/she/they may have lied a bit so that we would accept their teachings? Many scientific theories have become accepted facts due to evidence and research findings and so many are willing to believe that Jesus really was this great son of god. Could it be that many parts of the bible (or what ever your preferred scripture is) was a lie or exaggeration due to the fact that many humans were uneducated and it was far easier for them to believe that everyone was zapped into existence than through a complex and near inconceivably long process of trial and error. They already worshiped pagan gods because of "miracles" and easy stories of grandeur, how is the bible different. Even if there was/is a god, would it really be that big of a stretch for them to have copied and improved upon our human attempts so that we would accept him/her more easily? So tell me, If this is a possibility and we can't prove, nor disprove it, then would those ancient stories be important or would it be the morals behind them?

[BlueLight]

Ok...

Would it be possible that if there was a god before which created us,
do you think he/she/they may have lied a bit so that we would accept their teachings?

that two question, at least i think. fine i'll answer them both.
Would it be possible for god/s to lie about their teaching? I see no reason why they couldn't. Truth be told that is a interesting question.
Do you think God/s may have lied a bit so its teaching would be accept? Not really. I mean in a way that would make sense in a larger population but i don't think so. A example would be santa claus. Children believe in him because we tell them about him. No reason to believe God/s at the start wasn't brain washing children.

Many scientific theories have become accepted facts due to evidence and research findings and so many are willing to believe that Jesus really was this great son of god. Could it be that many parts of the bible (or what ever your preferred scripture is) was a lie or exaggeration due to the fact that many humans were uneducated and it was far easier for them to believe that everyone was zapped into existence than through a complex and near inconceivably long process of trial and error.

Possible, but reasoning doesn't seem likely to me personally. However i can say that books were cut out of the bible because they were deemed "Uninspired by God".

They already worshiped pagan gods because of "miracles" and easy stories of grandeur, how is the bible different. Even if there was/is a god, would it really be that big of a stretch for them to have copied and improved upon our human attempts so that we would accept him/her more easily? So tell me, If this is a possibility and we can't prove, nor disprove it, then would those ancient stories be important or would it be the morals behind them?

I'm not going to say it's possible because i'm not sure, but it doesn't seem like it's possible. What i will say is if you had a Omniscient person, then it is possible he would lie people would believe what he's saying.

I would like to note that i'm questioning my first answer. That's why my last answer doesn't reflect the same response.
I did like the questions. They didn't assume anything that is in question was correct.

[Zeus Kabob]

If God were omniscient and wanted everyone to believe him, everyone would believe him. If he exists, he must have a different goal.

(The reason I say that everyone would believe him is that if he's omniscient then he knows exactly what he must do to make people believe he exists.)

[OwnerOfSuccuby]

It is no metter doy you beliave or not. He may exist or not. He can like humans or dislike or // to them.
The only one thing that is realy true - that TV / monk / Bible / can lie to us. And if they are not the same - then yes they do and they lie.

May be not all of them - but if only one do - or half of them - how will you find the truth ? Humans - the most of them lie lie lie - every day. Do you realy think god likes them ? Or the cleric that lies and do not use the same rules that Bible use and touch use some thing ? Who translate it - The liers ? And who write it ? Is it realy true ? If it does not help - than what is it for ? It is like Star Wars - so you belive in Dart Weider ? What is the point ? There are a lot of religins - some of them say the different things - who is right ? Who cares ? Some of clerics are more bastards then ordinary every day liers. If so - why some body have to belive. To belive is mean to be tricked.

The bible say - that the god is true. Yes he may be - or he may not - but if bible is not true it means nothing. He can be the same way or can not to be =)

The only one thing that is realy true - some clerics and monks just wants your money !!!

So fuck them all =) If the god is real - he will understand me if i am not bastard like they are - if he is not - what is the point to worry about ?

[BlueLight]

It is no metter doy you beliave or not. He may exist or not. He can like humans or dislike or // to them.
The only one thing that is realy true - that TV / monk / Bible / can lie to us. And if they are not the same - then yes they do and they lie.

May be not all of them - but if only one do - or half of them - how will you find the truth ? Humans - the most of them lie lie lie - every day. Do you realy think god likes them ? Or the cleric that lies and do not use the same rules that Bible use and touch use some thing ? Who translate it - The liers ? And who write it ? Is it realy true ? If it does not help - than what is it for ? It is like Star Wars - so you belive in Dart Weider ? What is the point ? There are a lot of religins - some of them say the different things - who is right ? Who cares ? Some of clerics are more bastards then ordinary every day liers. If so - why some body have to belive. To belive is mean to be tricked.

The bible say - that the god is true. Yes he may be - or he may not - but if bible is not true it means nothing. He can be the same way or can not to be =)

The only one thing that is realy true - some clerics and monks just wants your money !!!

So fuck them all =) If the god is real - he will understand me if i am not bastard like they are - if he is not - what is the point to worry about ?

I'm sorry but um... what?
I'm not really seeing the argument. just a long statement that's overly long, saying stuff like the bible could lie to us. Yes the bible could be lying, that's why using the bible to prove god is circular argument.

[talin]

I think he's saying something along the lines of

"We have no proof of whether they are or aren't lying but we do have proof that humans lie constantly through out history so I don't try and figure out if the bible is true or not, I just try not to be an asshole and trust that if god exists then he will judge me by my actions rather than whether I believed in him or not, and if he doesn't exist then why should we even worry?"

His spelling and grammar needs work but to be honest, that's kinda what I've been saying this whole time except I didn't put it so direct and simple.

I also think that he mentioned that what the bible says can't be used as proof for anything anyway and that clerics and monks want money (for no described purpose) but that might be a misinterpretation so don't put to much stock in that.

[BlueLight]

I'm sorry but i'm not even sure where to go with that.

[talin]

He was making a statement declaring that he believes (opinion):
it does not matter if you believe in god or not
God may or may not exist
God may or may not care about/like us (humans)

He states that he knows (fact):
People lie
Television (is made by people and therefore) can lie to us
Monks (are people and therefore) can lie to us
The bible (is written by monks (people of religious faith) and therefore) can lie to us

Then he goes and says something I can't comprehend:
If they (TV, monks, the bible) are not the same, then they can lie to us. (I believe he means the bible because if you replace "they" with "the bibles" then he is referring to the fact that there are many variants of the bible giving different stories and contradicting each other so if one is true then another will be false so it stands to reason that not all bibles can be true because they all lie compared to one another. This threw me for a loop at first too.)

He then goes on to state that MAYBE one or possibly more are completely true in their own way but not all of the bibles and then asks how we are suppose to tell which bible(s) is/are telling the truth.
Then he assumes that most humans lie every day.
then he asks if god likes the lying humans.
Then he questions if we think that clerics (don't) lie and decide to break their own rules even though they tell others to not break them (or possibly change the rules to fit their needs?).
He then asks if the liars are the ones who translated the bible.
Then he asks who originally wrote the bible. (I guessing he assumes a human physically wrote it and might have lied about it's origin)
THen he asks if the bible is true.
then he asks what it is for if it does not "help" (does not say what it's supposedly does/does not help)
He then asks if it is simply a famous work of fiction like star wars (only taken as truth)
Then he asks what "the point" is.
He points out that there are many religions that each have different claims and asks which one is the right religion.
He claims that some clerics are more like bastards than "ordinary liars"
He then goes on to say that if you believe what they say, you are being tricked.
Then he states that the bible claims god is "true" (that he exists) but if the bible is not true then this means that what the bible say does not matter.
He acknowledges that god may exist but also that he may not.
He then claims that some clerics and monk just want our money
He says "fuck them all" and claims that god will judge him fairly on whether he was good or bad towards other rather than his beliefs but if there is no god then it won't matter anyway.

Can you make some sense of it now?

[BlueLight]

He was making a statement declaring that he believes (opinion):
it does not matter if you believe in god or not
God may or may not exist
God may or may not care about/like us (humans)

He states that he knows (fact):
People lie
Television (is made by people and therefore) can lie to us
Monks (are people and therefore) can lie to us
The bible (is written by monks (people of religious faith) and therefore) can lie to us

Then he goes and says something I can't comprehend:
If they (TV, monks, the bible) are not the same, then they can lie to us. (I believe he means the bible because if you replace "they" with "the bibles" then he is referring to the fact that there are many variants of the bible giving different stories and contradicting each other so if one is true then another will be false so it stands to reason that not all bibles can be true because they all lie compared to one another. This threw me for a loop at first too.)

He then goes on to state that MAYBE one or possibly more are completely true in their own way but not all of the bibles and then asks how we are suppose to tell which bible(s) is/are telling the truth.
Then he assumes that most humans lie every day.
then he asks if god likes the lying humans.
Then he questions if we think that clerics (don't) lie and decide to break their own rules even though they tell others to not break them (or possibly change the rules to fit their needs?).
He then asks if the liars are the ones who translated the bible.
Then he asks who originally wrote the bible. (I guessing he assumes a human physically wrote it and might have lied about it's origin)
THen he asks if the bible is true.
then he asks what it is for if it does not "help" (does not say what it's supposedly does/does not help)
He then asks if it is simply a famous work of fiction like star wars (only taken as truth)
Then he asks what "the point" is.
He points out that there are many religions that each have different claims and asks which one is the right religion.
He claims that some clerics are more like bastards than "ordinary liars"
He then goes on to say that if you believe what they say, you are being tricked.
Then he states that the bible claims god is "true" (that he exists) but if the bible is not true then this means that what the bible say does not matter.
He acknowledges that god may exist but also that he may not.
He then claims that some clerics and monk just want our money
He says "fuck them all" and claims that god will judge him fairly on whether he was good or bad towards other rather than his beliefs but if there is no god then it won't matter anyway.

Can you make some sense of it now?

I'm shocked at your reply because 1 people lie, 2 your a person, and 3 your saying this is what the other person was saying.
Joking a side i think you miss the point of my statement. For most of his statements is seems like he's saying "Is the sky blue?" which most people would answer yes to.
Now it's such a jumbled mess that I personally see no way i can answer it and be sure what's really the question. As for your second post.... How the hell did you make it more confusing then the original?