Which is better, believing in a god or not?

Everyone has the right to judge others based on their actions and words. If they don't want to be judged, then they shouldn't exist. I don't force people to see my way. I show them why they're wrong and why I'm right. If you believe everything in the world is subjective, then you would allow a man to kill your family? No, you would kill him because to you, that's wrong. I would kill him because he's hurting people for no reason. Do you see the difference?

Ok I got three simple words for ya: LIVE "YOUR" LIFE. This life you have now belongs to no one but you. Live the way you want to live. If you want to live believing in "God" then by all means go ahead. But if you want to live fighting for youself then no one can stop you. And another piece of advice my friend, live like a lion, never live like a dog.

What if they refuse to see your way as "right"? Eventually you'll either have to accept the fact that they don't agree and move on, or you'll have to force your way of thinking on them.

If a man were to kill my family, I'd most likely attempt to stop him yes, in order to protect my family, I assume you would do the same for yours. But in the end your reason is essentially the same as mine; you think that what he is doing is wrong. Now your reasoning to why you think it's wrong might not be the same, but the results are.

So no, I don't see the difference.

1. The only way they could refuse my "right" way was if they in turn showed me I was wrong. 2. If my explanation didn't show them they're wrong, I come up with a better explanation. Unless they literally have no sense of understanding, in other words, a lack of sentience, in other words, less than a human, it would eventually have to be one of the two. But we're going to assume this guy does have a sense of understanding.

Hmmmm, that part was entirely wrong. I tried to be polite about this but what I should've said is: There comes a point when subjective doesn't matter. I reread what you said about this earlier: "The only way someone can be right is if they were the last person on Earth" or something along those lines. Then that means that person was right along, regardless of the fact whether there were people or not. Baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka baka.

This is only possible with something that can be ultimately proven, the existence of a higher being is not provable, thus you will never be able to prove that you're right, just as little as they'll be able to prove you wrong.

Nonono, what I said was that the only way a universal sense of justice is able to exist is if there is only one sentient organism left in the universe being able to have a sense of it. That has nothing to do with right or wrong in the end, just that as long as there are two persons alive there will be at least two opinions on every subjective matter in existence. This doesn't mean that the last living person is "right", seeing as soon as another organism with a sense of justice appears there will be split meanings again.

Regardless of what you think, I'm convinced that subjectivity always matters.

So you agree with me that people can be proven wrong and people can be proven right, so long as it's provable. Which in essence you mean there are people who are right and people who are wrong.

You know, Chlor, you're an agnostic. And I just remembered why that's bullshit. You already agreed that babies aren't born religious. And if you know anything about burden of proof, then that means "God" doesn't exist until someone else can prove it.

Oh, so if this person never changed his thoughts, he would become correct by virtue of just being the last sentient being. Why? Why does that make him correct? Because there's no one else to argue with him? Yea, because that's what makes people correct. Chlor...

Of course people can be right and wrong, I've never stated that no one can have the right or wrong facts. I think you have been confused by that in one paragraph we've been discussing morals and the sense of justice, and in the other one facts. No one can be right or wrong when it comes to morals or something that ultimately is unprovable, morals because they are subjective and thus doesn't exist, the unprovable because, well, you simply can't prove that you're right.

Give any substantial proof that God does in fact not exist, and you can claim that again.

And lastly: I see that you're getting frustrated with this discussion, you're taking things out of context, my dear. YOU said that the "correct" justice is the one that is universal, I simply stated that by that thinking the only "correct" (please note the quotation marks) way of thinking would be the one of the last thinking organism, since there is no other way to make justice a universal sense. YOU are the one that said that made it correct, not me.


Edit: If you can't stop misquoting me, putting words in my mouth and take things out of context this discussion is over, just sayin'.

Insert blurb regarding a correlation between poor arguments and NeoStriker.
inb4 callous attack by aforementioned user

Dude even if someone has a different religion we have to respect it whether they believe in Satan or in a jellyfish it's their life not yours, whether they believe in god/s or not it's their choice. Mine is still in question as of the moment.

Well I wouldn't respect Satan but generally other religions I guess.

On topic: I believe on my religion and well, even though its your wish what you believe in, I'd say, believe in a God, I guess.

No I'm just saying not to bash people with stereotypical discrimination towards religion and just respect them for what they believe in.

That is true since in my country respect is not evident at all.

And so you don't think morals can coincide with facts? Morals can very much be proven. Morals are derived from the experiences we've had in our lives. If someone punches you because you said their hair doesn't look nice, whatever you derive from that is a moral. If you derived that people who punch you are bi-polar druggies that are a danger to all those around him, well, you better be sure you're damn right. "Unprovable"? "Unprovable" is the same thing as "doesn't exist". For example, when people make "God" "unprovable", he "doesn't exist".

Um, do you not understand burden of proof? The person who makes a claim has to provide the proof. Human beings are not born knowing "God", thus it took someone else to claim "God" exists. Those people have tried to provide proof, but time and time again they have been refuted. Any "substantial proof" I have to get would be evidence to refute your claim, since I am supporting the neutral state of "God doesn't exist".

Yes, the "correct"(absolutely right in every way) justice should be universal. It can exist, just it practically will never be universal. And then you stated that the only possible way for that to happen is if only one person is alive. I said...what? You just said it yourself, "the only 'correct' way of thinking would be the one of the last thinking organism, since there is no other way to make justice a universal sense" Or are you saying that by default, the ONE person that thinks correctly will become the last person on Earth?

Communication is a two-way street. Not only do I have to correctly take the meaning out of your words, you also have to correctly put your meaning to words. How about you don't complain before making sure you absolutely wrote the right thing? Because I actually re-read your argument(by that I mean the four previous pages) three times before writing what I wrote and even that took ~20min of re-writing what I wanted to say again and again.

PS: Tegumi, have something constructive to say or get the fuck out. Yes, this is an invitation for you to make this a three-way if you so desire, since I've been getting the feeling you want to say something. And no, that was not a sexual innuendo, because the thought of doing anything sexual with you makes me want to puke out my intestines.

Suppose two people had completely opposite lives. As they progressed through the years, they formed their moral beliefs around their experiences. These two people have no connection to one another, as a result their moral codes exist independently. For what it's worth, I'm just throwing this out to make you think, but how exactly do you know who's right or wrong?



The first thing that needs to be said is that you've misinterpreted your position in the argument. Apparently the issue is whether or not God exists. The neutral position in this debate would be that the existence of God is neither proven, nor disproven. To say God doesn't exist, you are making an assertion. Therefore, the burden of proof rests upon you to legitimize your claim.



I disagree. This all cuts close to Social Darwinism, unless I'm mistaken. Subjectivity can never be objective, even if there is only one sentient being. Its not like Highlander. A universal social construct can only exist if there is a society for it to govern.

A universal code of ethics is something accepted by everyone. In theory, it is possible, but taking into account the social differences it is impossible.



Whatever floats your boat...

Well, The Jesus jumped in and stole basically my entire retort, so I'll just keep this short and repeat the most important parts, (imo).

Morals are based on experience, people have different experience and they'll obviously have different morals based on them right? Morals can never be right or wrong.

Unprovable does not mean "doesn't exist". Do you believe that there are any other dimensions than the 3 we can perceive, Striker? They can't be proven, so then they can't exist?

No justice can't be "absolutely right in every way" since justice is subjective.

Burden of proof works both way, the neutral sense would be "God might, or might not exist." Give me some substantial proof that backs up your claim.

If you read what I wrote three times, and spent 20 minutes re-writing what you wanted to say, then even if you misunderstand what I wrote you should still be able to not take it out of context to suit your own needs, or completely misquote me, those has nothing to do with understanding it. And if you don't understand what I write, please ask me to elaborate instead of trying to interpret it.

So are you Chlor and Tegumi combined or do I know you? Either way, I'm tired, but fine, whatever, challenge accepted. I'm prepared for a 3 on 1.

By the way the Earth spins in only one direction, and the Sun burns and radiates heat. If you derive something other than that from experiencing life on Earth, you have something wrong with you.

You are born from the womb of a woman. You eat food grown from the earth and harvested by hand. You die from old age that time has given you. In what part does "God" influence this life at all? To a man like this, "God" naturally doesn't exist.

I'm not even the one who meant those things, I think. Most of that was questioning Chlor. I agree a universal code of ethics is possible, and thus the idea exists, but is practically impossible. But at the point of being universal, what's the difference between objective and subjective?

Really, are you Tegumi and Chlor combined or something? You really came out of nowhere...



Tired...

So to you, "different" exists outside of the concepts of "right" and "wrong"?

Why you gotta call a brudda by his last name? Well, really, I just feel uncomfortable when people refer to me by "Striker". If anything, you can call me MC Berry Lime, a flavor you can taste all the time.

Being able to tell the difference between "can't be proven" and "yet to be proven". Until "God" can be proven, he does not exist.

Ehhh, I disagree with your neutral state.

If I took it out of context, then I must've read it wrong. Sorry.

I believe in God, but I don't believe in the church.
I believe what is written in the Bible, but I don't believe a lot of interpretations of it.
I don't like arguing over religion, either. It's a personal business.
For me, believing in God is wonderful, because I know that I can always turn to God.
What others believe is not for me to judge.

Yes, I'd say that "different" is a concept completely unrelated to "right" and "wrong", mostly since "different" is not a based on morals, different is simply relative.

Yeah, I actually wrote Neo first, but I watched the Matrix the other day and suddenly I couldn't get the voice of Laurence Fishburne out of my mind, so it felt better to just call you Striker.

That there are dimensions past the 3 we live in is something equally impossible to prove as the existence of God, since they can not be perceived with the human mind. Until God has be disproved, the possibility of his existence can't be disregarded.

I don't understand how you can't. Your claim is not neutral.