Five hundred eighty proofs of God's Existence

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

An entire philosophical subordinate to where it works. That's
insane! I am a functionalist in all aspects of life. What works simply
works.

You're using words that you don't understand.
That's not what functionalism fucking means, so never dare use it again.

You obviously were trying to say "I'm practical" with bigger words.
But no; you're still wrong.

It's stupid to say
"Ok, in this aspect it's all about agnosticism. In this aspect it's clearly absolutism. Here it's all about skepticism"

You really can't grasp why that's stupid?

[Slap Your Love]

I fucking know what fuctionalism is. It's a sociological term
stating that society's problems, class, ect should be left alone
if it works because it works. I said I apply this everywhere.

I don't need to label it Agnosticism then. The fact remains
that God can neither be proved or disproved. That's all.

I completely agree with Absolute idealism.

I know what I type Alan. So quit the internet tough guy immaturity.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Why are you bringing a sociology term into something non-sociological and don't even use its definition?
That's philistine *

Why do you give any legitimacy to this God of yours but not to GM's pet. What makes them different? According to your own admission, nothing.


* see what I did there? I brought an art term that means crude, unrefined, low-brow, dumb, et all, to a non-art conversation and didn't even use its definition. How cool is that!

[Godslayer Jillian]

And just to step on your balls, it is not even a sociological term.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM is the sociological term.

Functionalism itself is a philosophical basis that means something can only exist if it has causal powers. I exist because I influence the world around me, and my mind is a different entity than my brain as it has its own causal powers not explicable through my brain alone.
Clearly you ain't a functionalist, as you believe in something that has no causal powers and therefore no evidence.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Why do you give any legitimacy to this God of yours but not to GM's pet. What makes them different? According to your own admission, nothing.

He's obviously saying that he chooses to believe in God for the same reason you choose to not believe. You make it sound as if he said GM's pet wasn't real, which he didn't.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Why are you bringing a sociology term into something non-sociological and don't even use its definition?
That's philistine *

Why do you give any legitimacy to this God of yours but not to GM's pet. What makes them different? According to your own admission, nothing.


* see what I did there? I brought an art term that means crude, unrefined, low-brow, dumb, et all, to a non-art conversation and didn't even use its definition. How cool is that!

Because I was using it in the sense that that's how I feel about everything.
I did use it's fucking definition but only in another sense. You not understand?
The word isn't the thing that matters it's the idea behind it.

I give all legitimacy to GM's pet because it could exist even without
his knowledge. I would never know. I cannot deny what I cannot
disprove. What makes them different? Faith. Next question?

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And just to step on your balls, it is not even a sociological term.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM is the sociological term.

Functionalism itself is a philosophical basis that means something can only exist if it has causal powers. I exist because I influence the world around me, and my mind is a different entity than my brain as it has its own causal powers not explicable through my brain alone.
Clearly you ain't a functionalist, as you believe in something that has no causal powers and therefore no evidence.

OH SHIT I SHORTENED THE WORD THUS CHANGING THE MEANING!?! No.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

And just to step on your balls, it is not even a sociological term.

STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM is the sociological term.

Functionalism itself is a philosophical basis that means something can only exist if it has causal powers. I exist because I influence the world around me, and my mind is a different entity than my brain as it has its own causal powers not explicable through my brain alone.
Clearly you ain't a functionalist, as you believe in something that has no causal powers and therefore no evidence.

"3. social sciences assessment of social institutions by role: the analysis and explanation of social institutions according to the function they perform in society, for example, the family seen as an institution for social stability and cohesion"
World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

"3. social sciences assessment of social institutions by role: the analysis and explanation of social institutions according to the function they perform in society, for example, the family seen as an institution for social stability and cohesion"
World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004

Omfg I love you. Ahahahaha.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

What makes them different? Faith.

It could be that his pet is the one with divine powers.
Yet from the literally infinite combinations of anything, you have faith on that specific one. One that millions of others also believe with just as much absurdity and with as much lack of any actual reasons. You don't find that any bit conformist?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

"3. social sciences assessment of social institutions by role: the analysis and explanation of social institutions according to the function they perform in society, for example, the family seen as an institution for social stability and cohesion"
World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004

Therefore:

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Why are you bringing a sociology term into something non-sociological and don't even use its definition?
That's philistine *

Simple enough
He didn't even "use the meaning" [sic]

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

It could be that his pet is the one with divine powers.
Yet from the literally infinite combinations of anything, you have faith on that specific one. One that millions of others also believe with just as much absurdity and with as much lack of any actual reasons. You don't find that any bit conformist?

Conformity has no part with my faith lol. Fail.

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

He's obviously saying that he chooses to believe in God for the same reason you choose to not believe. You make it sound as if he said GM's pet wasn't real, which he didn't.

Ding ding ding! Someone with brains!

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Therefore:
Simple enough
He didn't even "use the meaning" [sic]

I applied it to what I meant very clearly.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Conformity has no part with my faith lol. Fail.

Really? Then tell me why you choose to believe in the same concept of divinity than millions of others when by your own admission there's no reason to believe in it.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Really? Then tell me why you choose to believe in the same concept of divinity than millions of others when by your own admission there's no reason to believe in it.

1] I feel it and based off that...
2] Why not? I loose nothing and gain everything.

Just as you can feel that there isn't one.
But you gain nothing if you're correct.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

1] I feel it and based off that...
2] Why not? I loose nothing and gain everything.

Now you're throwing logic and reason through the window. Why did you attempt to use them in the first place if this is your only reason for believing?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Really? Then tell me why you choose to believe in the same concept of divinity than millions of others when by your own admission there's no reason to believe in it.

If all belief were based absolutely on hard proof, there would be no such thing as an educated guess or an estimate. Also, I don't expect anybody would ever try to prove anything, as anything with little proof would be 'non-existent'. I'm an atheist myself, but I can see reasons why people might believe in a God. There are plenty claims of having 'seen' or 'interacted' with a Higher Power. In a world ignorant of lions, you can't prove you lost your arm to one.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Now you're throwing logic and reason through the window. Why did you attempt to use them in the first place if this is your only reason for believing?

No I'm not I'm saying there is no way to prove there is
or isn't a God through logic and reason. I believe through faith
and a spiritual connection which also can not be proved or
disproved to another but applies to me.

[Slap Your Love]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

If all belief were based absolutely on hard proof, there would be no such thing as an educated guess or an estimate. Also, I don't expect anybody would ever try to prove anything, as anything with little proof would be 'non-existent'. I'm an atheist myself, but I can see reasons why people might believe in a God.

Exactly. As do I see reasons of not believing in one.

[gothicusmaximus]

My pet afghan unicorn bigfoot is in fact responsible for the rain. If you don't mail me 20 dollars, it might never rain again.

[Slap Your Love]

Fuck the rain. I loose something [20 dollars] for believing in your rain God but nothing for believing in my God.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

If all belief were based absolutely on hard proof, there would be no such thing as an educated guess or an estimate.

I'm not demanding hard proof. That implies absolute certainty.
But he's not speaking about that. He thinks with absolutely no evidence he can make an absolutist claim. In fact, he just devolved from so-called agnostic, to just another believer by his own admission; only a believer in something that admittedly has no proof.
With absolutely no proof other than a lack of negative proof (which is sad peopel are stupid enough to demand), it does make sense to question that he would believe in exactly the same form of divinity as everyone else. Clearly it isn't just a coincidence.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

No I'm not I'm saying there is no way to prove there is
or isn't a God through logic and reason. I believe through faith
and a spiritual connection which also can not be proved or
disproved to another but applies to me.

Dude, seriously, stop talking
"I'm being logical! That's why I FEEL and have FAITH!"
Very nice work; are you Socrates incarnate?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

If all belief were based absolutely on hard proof, there would be no such thing as an educated guess or an estimate.

"God exists" isn't an educated guess, it's blind faith. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the existence of god.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

I'm not demanding hard proof. That implies absolute certainty.
But he's not speaking about that. He thinks with absolutely no evidence he can make an absolutist claim. In fact, he just devolved from so-called agnostic, to just another believer by his own admission; only a believer in something that admittedly has no proof.

And you care why? Do you 'feel' for him? Are you going to save him from the error of his ways?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Slap Your Love

Fuck the rain. I loose something [20 dollars] for believing in your rain God but nothing for believing in my God.

Actually, Schnookers hates your god, and if you continue to believe as you do, my pet will see to it that you are, upon death, trapped in an endless sequence of torments, each more unspeakably horrible than the last.