God and the Limitations of Atheism or Dudley's Revenge

[lalalol1011]

OMG! Hdgregmore is actually Dudley Dorkfinger's himself.

Proof:

1) Dudley gets called an idiot

2) Hdregmore gets called an idiot

IT's all coming together now o_O!

[pochopaz7381]

@hdregmore sorry sometimes I send things by mistake

[pochopaz7381]

But t

[hdregmore]

@pochopaz7381 Why s?

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy Wrote irrelevant stuff about Nazism which i have dealt with.

Nazis are not religious. They may claim to be but by their actions they are clearly not. The majority of Nazis in WWII were in fact atheists. I have let you have your say and I understand that you disagree with my definition of religion. That is your opinion.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy Wrote "No, you are Nazi in how you behave and act,"

I am sorry that you believe that my opinions are somehow reminiscent of Nazism. I do not think they are. As I have explained, I hold to the traditions definition of religion which must involve God. Religion without God is quite meaningless.

I have allowed you to express your opinion about me (which a Nazi would never do) and I have responded with an explanation of your criticism. Now kindly move on as this achieves nothing.

[bayouboyy]

@TheVeediotgamer

What is wrong with you? A simple typo and you fly off your seat and act like it is a huge deal? Grow up kid, in the real world, people have better things to consider. I find it very interesting that you continue to berate me and say my arguments are silly, but offer nothing to the discussion. Its like a little kid on the playground going "your wrong and I'm right."

[bayouboyy]

@TheVeediotgamer

"You, on the other-hand."

So you don't like what I am throwing down? Good for you. If you have a problem with any of my arguments, then address them and I will be more than happy to reply. Words have meaning and need to be used in the proper context.

Going around and dictating who is a religion and who is not is immoral in my book. I believe people have a right to practice any religion they want and to have any beliefs that they want as long as it doesn't hurt others.

[bayouboyy]

@TheVeediotgamer

"Christianity and Christianity (TM) are two different things."

When people tell me they are a Christian, I believe them. When Christians say, "Oh, well he/she isn't a real Christian," I have a problem. If you don't want to be associated with other people who label themselves as a Christian, then don't label yourself as one. Simple.

I see no difference here. I completely understand the both parties might believe differently, but they both label themselves Christians.

[bayouboyy]

@TheVeediotgamer

"Silence is suggested before you continue to make an ass of yourself."

I have no such concerns in life. If people think me an ass, fine with me. I just care that people believe things for good reasons and that if they want to make assertions of reality, they need to back up what they assert with demonstrable evidence. They also need to define what they mean, and understand that words have meaning that is important when exchanging information.

[hdregmore]

@FANTASHOW100 Wrote disrespectful rubbish about religion.

Deleted.

[bayouboyy]

@TheVeediotgamer

Why? Do you think he is POE, or just not a "TRUE (TM)" Christian like you? Never ceases to amaze me how Christians will distance themselves from other Christians when it suites their needs.

[JusticeinUnity]

An adorable parallel between the religions. Most people do believe in intelligent design or some time of spiritual force that has lead to the creation of the variety of species, they just don't have the nerve to admit to it and need to connect to nothing. Thanks for the laugh.

[hdregmore]

@JusticeinUnity Thanks. Atheists spend a lot of time highlighting the differences between religions. the common parallels are often not thought about. Who knows, perhaps the way for religion to survive is by the commonalities uniting people under one banner.

[FANTASHOW100]

You realize there are religions that don't believe in any kind of god, right?

[hdregmore]

@FANTASHOW100 Bawahaha. What nonsense. Religion is the belief and reverence of God. Even the Buddhist religion contains Gods .Buddha did not deny the existence of God only the limited perceptions about what that existence is..

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

"Religion is the belief and reverence of God."

That is a terrible definition for religion and just fractally wrong.

"Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values."

I'm not 100% on board with this definition, but it is drastically better than yours.

Jainism and Raëlism both don't believe in the existence of a god(s) (as in an eternal all powerful all knowing being). Idiot.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy Of course that is what religion is. Your twisted definitions lacks the one ingredient that defines it - God. Which makes it quite laughable. If you knew anything about religion and devotional service then you might understand my definition.

Jainism like Buddhism is a process moving one toward enlightenment or breaking the cycle of birth and death. This philosophy is clearly described in vedic literature as impersonalist and seeking freedom from reincarnation. Beyond this is bhakti

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

Not my definition turbo. If you want to define religion by having a god(s)as a requirement, good for you, you really do like to make your own terminology up, don't you? I don't care what you call it, when people have houses of worship, practices, mantras, tenants, and supernatural beliefs, that is a religion, and the law agrees. When they tell me that they don't believe in any god(s), I believe them. You on the other hand, call them liars and look like an ignorant jerk for doing so.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy Raëlism is a nonsense started in 1974. They have no religious principles or processes for the attainment of understanding God and the universe.

Now who is looking like a REAL idiot?

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

That is because Raëlins don't believe in any gods. >.< Great deductive reasoning Captain O!

You really make yourself look like an ignorant clown when you say stuff like this. LOL.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy No fuck Faraday? That's because they are NOT a religion idiot.

You really make yourself look like a moronic imbecile when you attempt to suggest that religion does not include God. How stupid you are. That is like saying that water skiing does not include water.

Bawahahahahahaha. Go away and educate yourself.

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

"Go away and educate yourself."

Your the one who needs to be educated. Raëlins are a religion and the law and vast majority of people I talk to agree. Who made you King Nazi, dictating who is a religion and who is not based on some fantastical warping of reality? Where I live, we have freedom of religions and people can have any religion they want to, no matter how absurd and no Nazis like you say that they cannot be.

Its pretty clear who the moron is around here.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy Wrote: "Raëlins are a religion" and "Raëlins don't believe in any gods"

By your own words you say they are not a religion.Read what you write. Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing that must be honored. However religion must be properly defined otherwise you will have groups like Scientology called religious. A religion MUST have a process whereby one can come to love God and understand his/her place in the universe. No god no religion.

That is not my dictate. That is fact.

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

Only by your definition of religion, which is wrong. I never agreed to your definition and I never will. Luckily for me, neither does the law in my nation.

Scientology is a religion.

Raëlins don't believe in any gods and Raëlins are a religion, I will never claim otherwise.

"No god no religion. That is not my dictate. That is fact."

No it is not a fact. Show me any decent nation in which such a thing is dictated, not in mine!

I would hate to live next to a Nazi like you.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy More nonsense. If the country that you live in accept Raëlism and Scientology as religions then that is there problem. The fact is that neither of these organizations believe in any God or Gods. You are correct in asserting that the definition of religion differs throughout the world and where MY definition is a personal one, the opinion it is not held by everyone. The etymology of "religion" is such that it's original meaning was "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power" or...

[bayouboyy]

@hdregmore

"If the country that you live in accept Raëlism and Scientology as religions then that is there problem."

Weird, what you consider a problem, we consider basic human rights. You must be some sick kind of evil.

"MY definition is a personal one"

That isn't what you said. You said "No god no religion. That is not my dictate. That is fact."

"etymology of "religion" is..."

Absolutely correct and means absolutely nothing. Definitions change, get over it.

[hdregmore]

@bayouboyy "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,".

I can assure you that I am not a Nazi. I simply have an opinion based on religious study that religion involves a path to God and that the highest form of religion is Bhakti or love of God.

I am sorry if that offends you, but it is the truth as I know it.

[RichardTeh3rd]

meh

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd Whatever.

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd If you accept that God created the universe then you must also accept the universal characteristics of that creator. Derrrrrrrrrrrr. These atheist questions just keep getting dumber.

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd What are you referring to? You sound like a naive hippie who has smoked too much dope. I have built a career on advising people of the horrors and atrocities committed by atheists. They number at least in the tens of millions and in our recent history. So there is no fear or nonsense about being "aloud" to kill millions.

The problem with an overly open mind is that there is nothing to filter out the nonsense.

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd Good luck to you then. If you wish to block your lungs with an illegal and controversial remedy then go ahead. Have you thought that by the time you are 20 you will probably have other serious health issues due to your dope panacea? You see I know a bit about arthritis, in particular psoriatic arthritis. You would be much better off with glucosamine, condroitin, fish oil and exercise. As for your last sentence, that is just laughable.

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd So you are saying that we should kill the weak people in society? Well that is an offshoot of atheism called eugenics and it was practiced in certain parts of the world early last century. At least you are an honest atheist who understands and admits that evolutionary "survival of the fittest" leads to the culling of the poor unfortunates. Hitler and Stalin had the same idea. You should go away and consider what you have written. EVERYONE in society deserves equality in life.

[hdregmore]

@RichardTeh3rd You are a bitter and twisted individual. Either that or you are writing bullshit. Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary term relevant to animals in the wild. You are a sentient being and as such should know that humanity is dependent on us all to behave in a manner that protects the downtrodden and eases the suffering of those less fortunate. Whether they be American, Arab, Russian, Religious or Atheist. I think that you have watched Red Dawn too many times. LOL.

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed is a Mirror Quote atheist who writes in riddles that constitute no eventual meaning. Deleted.

[krakendahed]

It seems as if you insist that everyone must wear a hat, and that there must be something wrong with a person who doesn't wear one. How do you know that they didn't spend a lifetime in the hat store and just couldn't find a hat that fits?

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed I miss your point. If by hats you refer to religions, then it is clear that not everyone wears a hat. This video merely attempts to explain the atheist strawman of "you cannot all be right" in reference to God. A person can spend a lifetime in a "hat" but not be religious.

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - You did not miss my point, apparently. :) How is that a strawman? It's just an observation. If one religion says there is only one god and another says there are two gods, then they can't both be right. It's a contradiction that it be one and not one at the same time. Of course, if you say god cannot be known through rational thought and is irrational, they why do you try to use rational arguments to justify the irrational?

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed The plurality of the methods of understanding God does not in any way diminish his/her validity. In order to accept that you would have to limit the characteristics of a creator to those of man. Which is in no way logical. It is not a matter of irrational or rational thought. it is a matter of following the processes in order to gain the knowledge. So it matters not which hat you wear if the purpose of shading yourself is fulfilled. The outcome is the evidence obtained.

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - Still seems you insist that there is only the evidence of god to be found, not it's negation. Your bias towards the validity of god *is* a limitation and denies a possible understanding of god (the understanding that there is none). If understanding god were like wearing a hat, you insist that one must wear a hat even if one cannot find a hat that fits.

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed I thought that atheists always took the line that is "impossible to prove a negative"? Perhaps you should speak to your brethren. Your "Dawkinsian Bias" (which is a proven effect) does not allow you to to be correctly impartial. The comparison of the hat is perfect. Even if an atheist insists of not wearing a hat he is still desirous of one. To the point where he insists on filling forum pages with tales of that which he denies. This is the constant agony of nonacceptance.

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - No, just not *feasible* to prove a negative. If the area of search was reasonable, a negative could be proved. Plausibility can be used when detection becomes unfeasible. Are you accusing me of "Dawkinsian Bias?" Never having read any of his books, I'm not sure what that is. My atheism was caused by the KJV Bible back in the early 1980's. I have found that after all, I am perfectly comfortable not wearing a hat. I have to *imagine* the atheists you are talking about... :)

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed Wow, you have just defied the logic espoused by thousands of atheist debaters online. Plausibility has nothing to do with it, otherwise it would be a subjective probability. I do not see how scriptural text can turn anyone into an atheist. Unless of course it was being read without authoritative explanation. It is possible to extract any erroneous conclusion from it without being given it's correct purport. The followers of Jim Jones found that one out. If you're happy then so am I.

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - "Wow, you have just defied the logic espoused by thousands of atheist debaters online." Is that a compliment? The negative "there are no bacteria in this Petri dish" can be proved but the negative "there are no bacteria anywhere else other than the earth" becomes impossible to prove due to the unreasonableness of the search area. I'm sure the latter is an example of the "impossible to prove negative" those atheists are talking about. So I really didn't defy their logic.

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - "Plausibility has nothing to do with it, otherwise it would be a subjective probability." Are you saying that a reasonable and rational person should ignore the implausibility of a claim? Are you even aware of the numerous incompatible properties arguments? Or is "god" only knowable by the irrational? :)

[Telamnar]

I like how this video assumes there is only one god. Many religions assume multiple gods.

[hdregmore]

@Telamnar That is a fair point. Although they all have the same characteristics. Just substitute God for Gods if you like.

[Tonguenyomom]

"Why limit God to only being understood under one process?...The characteristics of God are such that there are no limitations." So I guess I can understand God as a pile of rotting meat surrounded by flies and it would still not be wrong. I mean, you can't tell me He can't be understood that way since that would be applying limits to how He can be understood.

[hdregmore]

@Tonguenyomom You misunderstood. That was said in reference to the number of different religions. Oh but you knew that didn't you because you are just being disingenuously vague. How long have you been a sad Mirror Quote atheist? It is an interesting ploy but it never works here.

[krakendahed]

You could think of atheism as remaining sober and not getting drunk on those bottles of alcohol. LOL :)

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed The problem with that is most atheists are piss pots : )

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - "The problem with that is most atheists are piss pots" This sounds like it is coming from a theist "drunk" on a god. Might need to sober up a little bit to gain back some civility. :)

[hdregmore]

@krakendahed No, it was an accurate assessment. To "think of atheism as remaining sober and not getting drunk" contravenes what a religious life conforms to. So yes the "drunk atheist" is a reality. As for your civility nonsense, just when was I not civil to you? Was it before or after your innocuous similie face?

[krakendahed]

@hdregmore - Sorry, but your video explicitly uses the analogy of exploring god to the experiences one would have after drinking alcohol. The atheist, in that scenario, would not have drunk from any of those "bottles of god" so therefore must be sober. I'm sure there was someone you were not being civil to, even though I know it wasn't me by your emoticon. :) Why can't atheism be just one more experience of god albeit the negation of a god?