Cider is speaking of Cheese in a platonistic sense. The earthly forms that you know are but imperfect copies.
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
Cider is speaking of Cheese in a platonistic sense. The earthly forms that you know are but imperfect copies.
Do you know what 'materialistic' means? It doesn't mean 'made of material' of that's what you're thinking.
The Cheese takes many forms. Just as God the creator of the Universe took material form through his son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, The Cheese sometimes takes material form in order to better facilitate the workings of the beloved nuclear reactors. How else can you explain nuclear reactors? Unlike the pointless unicorn, The Cheese explains nuclear reactors because The Cheese makes them work.
God doesn't take a materialistic form.
I don't think you know what materialistic means.
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was the earthly form of Himself, God the Almighty King of the Angels. Likewise The Cheese takes on earthly forms so as to better facilitate and maintain the workings of the nuclear reactors.
I don't think you even know what you're talking about.
Is there anyone echo in here?
Do you know what materialistic means? Clearly not.
I'm talking about your 'unicorns are pointless whereas God created everything' argument and how ridiculous it is. I agree that unicorns are pretty pointless, so I invented The Cheese instead; he makes nuclear reactors work in the same fashion as God made the universe from nothing. Now you have two imaginary beings, each with a use and purpose - so where does that leave your unicorn/God argument?
He's quite clearly mocking how moronic religion is, you're just not getting it.
Are you just trying to call God "Cheese"? Because that's not the cheese we know..
I don't care what you call "God".. Allah, Cheese, whatever, as long as it carries the same properties as God, then you're just saying the same thing.. However using a word known to describe something to describe something else is a pretty stupid idea. And if that's your main argument against the point I made, then
.Are you just trying to call God "Cheese"? Because that's not the cheese we know..
I don't care what you call "God".. Allah, Cheese, whatever, as long as it carries the same properties as God, then you're just saying the same thing.. However using a word known to describe something to describe something else is a pretty stupid idea. And if that's your main argument against the point I made, then
No, I'm saying that there is no cheese; cheese is imaginary, I made Him up just now. The only difference between Cheese and God though is a degree of popularity.
God can be used to explain the creation of the universe, but that's only as valid an explanation as Cheese is from somebody somebody who doesn't know how nuclear reactors work.
Basically God is a random guess, the liklihood of accuracy therein being infinitesimal.
Holy shit, materialistic doesn't mean the same as "having material form".
ma·te·ri·al·is·tic
[muh-teer-ee-uh-lis-tik]
excessively concerned with physical comforts or the acquisition of material things rather than spiritual, intellectual, moral, or cultural values.
ma·te·ri·al·is·tic
[muh-teer-ee-uh-lis-tik]
excessively concerned with physical comforts or the acquisition of material things rather than spiritual, intellectual, moral, or cultural values.
You didn't answer my last post. Why did you call it cheese, when you didn't give it any of the properties of the actual cheese we know? Pointless isn't it? If you're going to give it God's properties then might as well call it "God".
I was addressing that at you, Danny1982. You seemed unable to grasp the meaning of the word and kept misusing it.
I don't think it's me who is failing to grasp the meaning of the word.
Wait, what? Are you on a wind-up? What do you think it means?
What on Earth made you think that we were talking about the word in the economoic sense?!
I explained what I mean by this word a few pages back.
By the way, you can find the meaning of the word in any dictionary as well.
Does materialistic have meanings we're unaware of?
Check the dictionary.
here's 21 of them
http://www.onelook.com/?w=materialistic&ls=a
they seem to indicate that Count Orduck used a dictionary.
What happened to the philosophical meaning of materialism?
The Cheese as I'm referring to it shares some of the properties of God, as do ghosts, the devil and unicorns; it is not God though. God is the creator of the Universe; The Cheese is concerned only with nuclear reactors. Unless you think that all imaginary beings of power are God? In which case surely unicorns are God.
It doesn't mean "made of material" it means "only things made of material exist"
You didn't answer my question.
Exactly. And what does "materialistic evidence"/"materialistic science" mean?
What the feck does that have to do with Cider mocking god by talking about the omnipotent nuclear cheese?
Does the "cheese" follow the laws of materialistic science or not?
I think what Danny1982 is saying (sorry if wrong) is that God or a diety is supposed to be beyond our worldy (materlistic = exists in matter or energy) universe. Simply THE creator.
Cheese, unicorns etc simply don't work. They only exits within the boundaries (laws of physics) of our universe and each of them are created/made/assembled by something.
Cheese, unicorns etc simply don't work. They only exits within the boundaries (laws of physics) of our universe and each of them are created/made/assembled by something.
It's clear what I meant.. Cider just made a stupid argument, and they're now struggling to defend it.
The cheese shares the timeless properties of god and isn't the type of cheese you find in your fridge, I believe cider made that quite clear.
Then why call it cheese??
Well done. You have trotted out one of the biggest fallacies that exists. The puddle analogy covers it nicely.
It is not extremely unlikely that the universe works how it does because if it didn't you wouldn't be here at all. So in fact the probability of the universe being as it is very likely indeed, a likelihood approaching 1.
Douglas Adams at Biota 2 - Cambridge 1998) said:
And atheism is a lack of belief and not a belief that there is no god. There is a huge but important difference.
Only in the same sense that God follows them.
The Cheese, like God, is a primarily ethereal being. Like God though in the case of Jesus Christ, The Cheese has earthly conduits; the yellow objects you know as everyday cheese.
God and The Cheese, two entirely made up beings existing simultaneously in both the material and ethereal worlds which explain the creation of the universe and the nature of a nuclear reactor respectively.
Of course though, it's all bollocks. The Cheese doesn't explain nuclear reactors any more than God explains the creation of the universe. Some men can explain how nuclear reactors work though, and likewise some men can explain the creation of the universe (albiet less definitively in this case). You need neither cheese nor god to explain either. They might as well be unicorns for all the difference it makes.
Religion, ladies and gentlemen.
God is an ever receding gap of human ignorance. Stop trying to wedge that gap open.
Because the idea of god is as ridiculous as the idea of the cheese. He was mocking religion, not writing a theological thesis.
TBH this is utter bollocks and a disingenuous attempt to subvert the meaning of the term theory (in scientific terms) to enable you to believe whatever gibberish you choose. Our understanding of things can and should change as the evidence changes but lets face it the evidence for God is non-existent and any that supposedly happened in the past seems to have stopped happening - funny that. The few claims of proof of the supernatural such as the "miracles" performed by JPII are quite plainly bullshit so transparent that even good conspiracy theory nuts would be embarrassed to trot out something so ludicrous.
You also don't prove something by saying that there is no proof that it doesn't. Not unless you think that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is God because there is exactly the same amount of proof for and against the FSM as there is for any other god. Basically this is bullshit pseudo logic that nobody with a pulse would use in everyday life. Everywhere else we use the evidence for something, rather that the lack of evidence of non-existence which is a logical falacy, to decide "truth", for want of a better word.
Huh?
Rubbish. I feel stupider for interacting with you.
You would would you?
Backs away looking for the nearest exit.
I'm Muslim, as most of you are aware, but I don't believe Atheism is a religion, or has any suitable grounds to be classed as one. It's not an article of faith, is it? Believing that there is no God doesn't formulate a religion. To put it simply, what constitutes a religion is a set of beliefs, limits, and moral principles. I did find this article to be interesting, though I'm not entirely convinced by it just yet: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion
I was applying arbitrary characteristics to the unknown; I don't know how nuclear reactors work and the first thing I thought of was a powerful cheese being whose earthly conduits reside in our fridges and power nuclear reactors. Likewise you don't know how the universe was created so you invented the term God and arbitrarily gave that term characteristics such as sentience, intelligence and compassion. What's the difference between what I've done and what religion has done? In both cases something unknown has been artificially made known without any scientific basis whatsoever.
I hate to break this to you, but there's no evidence to support the existence of a unicorn. Outside of fiction and fantasy that is. In other words exactly like god.
And of course neither is an imperative in explaining anything, despite dannybarcelona's best efforts to argue otherwise.
First of all, the laws of probability, and the laws that regulate the universe which made the probability became close to 1 (if we assume that this claim is actually correct), didn't come from nothing, and can't come from nothing.
There is an important thing you should realize here. Science is not explaining where things come from. They only explain the mechanisms through which things happen, and the properties of the things that exist in the universe.
Science is like analyzing a really complicated program. You can discover a lot of things about the program. You can discover how pushing this button does this. And how pushing that button does that. And what the mechanism is through which these events happen, but what you have to realize is that you're merely discovering the details of an already written program, which is why you're always going to be tied to the laws according to which the program runs. And that logically means that you'll never, no matter how much you discover, be able to eventually reach the conclusion that the program simply "wrote itself". Because you have to start somewhere, and you have to have laws to depend on to be able to build a theory in the first place. That's the limits of our science, which is why all what science can do is really just "prolong the chain".
Second, are you saying that what atheism is saying is: "I don't know if there is a God", rather than "God doesn't exist"?