Either there is a God or there isn’t, so pick a side and bring the logic. I’m not interested in hearing any of the usual bulls~~~ like “you can’t prove there isn’t a god or you can’t prove a negative.” We can prove there is no god by deductive logic and knowledge of a wide range of topics, you just insist on continuing to believe. If you think there is room for the existence of the god of Abraham, then this debate is not for you, you are a pussy agnostic and need to go start a thread for pussies. Expect many diverse topics and be prepared to bring the legitimate citations. (Internet sources are not welcome, they better be damn good) We will plunge into various pools of fact across; anthropology, quantum fields and astrophysics, biology, history, philosophy, sociology etc… Through our combined exchanges, we will know more and educate each other; we will reach a consensus if we have the capacity to be honest.

Mathematics began where numerology ended. Chemistry began where alchemy ended. Astronomy began where astrology ended. Unfortunately, religion never began or ended, since it continues to mutate and evolve. It’s giant assumption still persists to present day. It’s anthropomorphic nature; a hideous birth defect on the evolved hominid brain, continuing to reek havoc on the species. We certainly can’t expunge it from our DNA, this ludicrous desire for superstition, fear, divine comfort etc… but we can call it out. We can flush it out for ambush.

I invite all guests to ridicule or defend, logically, the moral nature of monotheism as well as the plausibility of it’s dogma. These are distinctly different topics, both deserving discussion. However, even if religion proves to be ethically beneficial (which it won’t) it still means nothing since it’s plausibility is nil! Does god exist, is entirely different than, Is it good for humans to believe?

We may as well begin with some of the most common defenses for faith such as the ontological argument, the physical constant argument and other pitiful attempts to invoke piety in suckers.  Once we bash the s~~~ out of those, we can move onto other convincing arguments against faith and dogma. We can show how immoral and demonstratively destructive, such belief reliably inflicts on our species. Then we can finally marry our conclusions to sovereign men, the progressive male who has gone his own way.

Good luck and remember, You can’t go Yahweh and Your Way at the same time.

You can’t go Yahweh and Your Way at the same time.

Says who? If God exists, then if that statement is true, then MGTOW is anti-God. At that point, you choose God or not God. It’s not a statement on God’s existence.

If God does not exist then you’re just a chemical reaction. Your thoughts and feelings have no meaning nor value. The things you say, think, dream, and do are all purely chemical reactions. Nothing you can do can escape you from this, for all your thinking, considerations, and actions are entirely chemical reactions and nothing more. Finally, the Universe ends for no purpose and it takes you and all you’ve ever done and completely erases it, just as it will with your conscious, dreams, and everything else. This includes all the going in your way.

Finally, it’s a below the belt attack and predetermines the outcome. I don’t trust your honesty. I think you’re rigging this. It’s as though you elevate MGTOW to that of deity, but MGTOW subjects itself and owes it’s creation to the current status of things, as they are found, criticized, and observed. Conclusions drawn, and decisions made. That implies that MGTOW subjects itself to the universal laws. These decisions borrow from morality, since we make decisions based on what we decide humans should do. We say, “This is bad,” and that’s a moral law. In atheism, there is no morality. Morality is purely a theological concept because mother nature has no morality. In mother nature, there are fungis that bore into c~~~roaches and take over it’s mind, and eat it from the inside. It’s creepy-fascinating.

Double-finally, you’re absolutely incorrect. Should there be a God who created the universe and judges us, then there is a moral law. Shouldn’t he expect us to examine things and judge them right and wrong? Doesn’t he expect us to grow up and be adults, deciding what we will do or what we will not do based on moral law and what we need and like to do? MGTOW can only justify it’s existence in a theological framework, because that’s an adult decision based on sober information and judging morality. That’s exactly what God wants. In other words, the work here is dirty, but it’s Godly.

Tripply-finally, you just broke a important MGTOW rule. You’re determining what another man is to do with his time. So what if he chooses to pursue fairy tales and magic water? What if he discovers what he believes is the truth and decides to live it out? You just created a way to judge men by.

You’re displaying typical ignorance about the origin of morality too. Other mammals; dolphins, mice, chimps,  to name a few, display moral behavior. Religion didn’t invent ethics. Im on my phone and lack the study but mice will even starve themselves to prevent physical abuse of another mouse.

On the moral nature of monotheism, I value what Sam Harris said in Letter to a Christian Nation, page 49; “You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the apropriate gurantor of your moral intuitions. Your own intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular.”

Pretty lame beginning and fail for Crustian apology. May as well save face now and convert to atheism.

In atheism, there is no morality. Morality is purely a theological concept because mother nature has no morality.

Incorrect. The only morals that exist are the ones that came from evolution, “mother nature” as you so annoyingly anthropomorphize is it (I guess that’s to be expected since you anthropomorphize everything without ever noticing how vain and bias it is). The world has gotten by on nothing else, but the instinctive moral behaviors that were passed down and fit to each species. You may think they aren’t real but they are visible and actually protect you for being murdered outright everyday. On the contrary, your fake arbiter of morality is suspiciously absent in the cosmos. Where does your ethics come from? Outer Space?

peterfa wrote:

Should there be a God who created the universe and judges us, then there is a moral law.

Who says? This doesn’t seem like a giant assumption to you? Should, would, could and if? You base your world around a giant “maybe.” Reality works without that assumption.

peterfa wrote:

MGTOW can only justify it’s existence in a theological framework,

There it is, Christians, caught red handed, trying to bring bronze age myths and twisted morals into MGTOW. What part of Going Your Own Way don’t you understand? You’ve NEVER gone your own way in your entire life because your mind is locked in a theology of servitude. You haven’t gone your way because you still act as if an invisible sky monster will damn you to hell. You still navigate your life on tip toes around whether Crustian ideology permits your next desirable action. You aren’t a sovereign man. You just happen to think MGHOW are cool and want to act like you are one. Unfortunately, MGTOW and Christianity are  oil and water. Mgtow is progressive; its the end game for men who know the facts, the fact is we serve no gods because none exist. Christianity is traditional: it’s the deliberate celebration of avoiding known facts, they celebrate blind obedience to a dictator that can’t be shown to exist. They carry on about plots that are impossible, that violate everything we know about the world. You are about as free a man, as animals are ‘free’ in the zoo.

This is all besides the point and elementary. You need to be brought up to speed on a lot of science. I feel like I’m talking to someone from Sunday School in the nineties. Even your position on a position is outdated by at least 20 years.

peterfa wrote:

You’re determining what another man is to do with his time

Negative. I’ve only pointed out an incredibly obvious contradiction, that if MGTOW is a statement of self ownership, then you can’t own yourself and be owned by god at the same time. Somebodies authority trumps the other. If you think faith is excusable, and that ‘gawd’ has the final say in you life, you are not sovereign, period. You can be celibate and promote men your whole life but your MGTOW status will be hypocritical or at best, amateur.

Take a look at your view of life, completely dominated by wishful thinking, vanity and fear. You don’t even value the truth of life in the way that is readily observed and measured daily. The truth is what we see, not what we pretend or wish is real. Your version makes no sense and infinity isn’t real. Why the f~~~ would you want to live past death? I could understand a desire to live for a few millenniums or maybe more. But your celebration of potentially living forever is frightening! Why would you want that? Same goes for celebrating faith; why do you think betting is admirable? Wouldn’t it make sense to base your world view around indisputable facts and celebrate the only life we know for sure is real? You need to seriously re think your life.

I’m not interested in hearing any of the usual bulls~~~ like “you can’t prove there isn’t a god or you can’t prove a negative.” We can prove there is no god by deductive logic and knowledge of a wide range of topics

Well before all this begins you are stuck with one of two things.  First you must post a definition of what God is, so we know what you are trying to disprove.  Which in effect means you are proving a negative or only the physical universe exists.  However you do not care about this contradiction nor are you trying to prove that only the physical universe exists, so it leads me to my second point/option.

If you do not give a definion of God, as to what your argument is about, then we are stuck using him as an axiom.  This in effect would mean you are disproving an axiom that is required for your argument to exist.

Neither of the two make sense.

Also how much reading is required for one to be considered knowledgeable?  Wouldn’t this negate all possible arguments by “fallacy of authority” if because it is written in a book it must be true?  Otherwise why would one have to be well read?

Also what authors must one read and not be allowed to read in order to participate?  How is the legitimacy of an author determined?  Who is qualified to determine this?

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

If you think there is room for the existence of the god of Abraham, then this debate is not for you, you are a pussy agnostic and need to go start a thread for pussies.

So by default one is an agnostic if they believe in one of the Abrahamic traditions?  So what is a Christian to “allow room for” without being an agnostic?

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

we will reach a consensus if we have the capacity to be honest.

So if we agree with each other then it must be true?  Who holds us accountable for our honesty?

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Mathematics began where numerology ended. Chemistry began where alchemy ended. Astronomy began where astrology ended. Unfortunately, religion never began or ended, since it continues to mutate and evolve. It’s giant assumption still persists to present day. It’s anthropomorphic nature; a hideous birth defect on the evolved hominid brain, continuing to reek havoc on the species. We certainly can’t expunge it from our DNA, this ludicrous desire for superstition, fear, divine comfort etc… but we can call it out. We can flush it out for ambush.

Please site where you read this or where you got this idea from.  We will need authors, page numbers, etc.  Otherwise we cannot prove you gain this knowledge through reading.  And if you did not get it from reading then you are violating your first rule about having to be well read on the topic you are discussing. 

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

so pick a side and bring the logic

  otherwise it is all opinions.

You said:

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

I invite all guests to ridicule or defend, logically, the moral nature of monotheism as well as the plausibility of it’s dogma.

But before you said this:

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

This room is strictly for debate between atheists and theists. Agnostics and moderates need not participate since they either haven’t read enough to take a side or don’t know what the hell they are talking about. (usually liberal co-existers who are tremendously naive about the human condition. All you fence sitters can go start another room about pussy footing moderation, this is a battle room for people who actually have a back bone)

Which one is it?

Also which monotheistic faith are we talking about?  If one is a monotheist but ascribe to no particular faith are they agnostics?  But you said no agnostics are allowed.  However, by default agnostics are theists.  So which one is allowed?

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Then we can finally marry our conclusions to sovereign men, the progressive male who has gone his own way.

Well then you would be subjecting yourselves to rules and in effect no longer be “sovereign”.  However if I was sovereign, and declared myself a god though my sovereignty I would be a theist.  But if I could not declare my “god-like” status, because of reason, then I would be subject to reason and therefore not sovereign.

By the way, does one get a prize for being “sovereign”.  Do I get a medal, or cash prize, or maybe one of those nice little smiley face stickers?  Am I better than others for being sovereign? What is in it for me exactly?

I am going to insult you.  Okay?  So I don’t want it to be said “John Doe” is an asshole/dick/retard/etc.  I am going to tell you the insult and then I am going to explain why I am insulting you.

Okay?

You can tell that you stacked sandbags during your whole time in the marines.  Between your rebellious attitude, emotional instability, and lack of critical thinking skills it is quite obvious.  Your “rules” contradict themselves/are subjective/use excessive emotional language.  How is anyone suppose to take this seriously?  Who are you again?

“Beware the Lamiae”, it means “beware the myth” if I am correct.  I guess that is a fitting name since that is how you view yourself in “mythic proportions”.  Or all your arguments are based on false myths (such as religion being fundamental cause of war, Christians are murderers, etc.).  Or maybe it refers best to your arguments, which like a myth, lack reason and fade with time.

Now why am I saying such things?  Because if you do not make sense according to your own standards then how can you determine the truth in others?

You have a log stuck in your eye but you are pointing out the twig in others.  But how can you even see if there is a twig to begin with because of the log in your own?  Why don’t you rewrite the rules so they make sense.  Give definitions for clarity.  And stop with the shaming language directed at everyone.

You give the impression, although I may be mistaken, of being the type of personality that does not learn except through overwhelming punishment.  And even after that you will continue rebelling.  That is why, and I am guessing, all you did was stack sand bags.

Now is this personal?  Yes.  Is it an insult?  In some respects yes, and in others no.  It is more “rude” than anything.  But you are a rude person.  You demand things your way, without explanation, and insult anyone who disagrees with you.  What do you expect?  You only understand shaming language,  how else is one to get  a point across?  You make us all look bad.

MGTOW and Christianity are oil and water.

Atheism and Christianity are oil and water, look out behind you, radicals are sneaking up disguised in religion (a religion you dare not mention), you live in fear, unlike Christians, you’re fear is knowing they’ll cut your throat…..

Back to business. The religions under scrutiny here are Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all their various flavors and branches. I’m calling out the easy prey here that pushes scripture. The god of Abraham. I’m not speaking about Spinoza’s god or Einstein’s. They were Pantheists. Their “god” was more or less the universe and it’s components. Their god lacked anthropomorphication. However, there are modern believers who are running out of logical ground. They are bending Pantheism to make it anthropomorphic, to make it a personal god. This isn’t surprising since we’ve seen the three monotheisms branch and divide countless times for countless reasons. Now, having lost to Evolution, and struggling to find plausibility in the modern world, it has to morph yet again into an even more vague and pointless idea that can be confused with beauty or nature itself. The modern theist has no doctrine or book to follow, no Christ to accept or Jihad to tangle with. He just thinks that energy and spacetime gives a s~~~ about him. How humble.

I should clarify and relax citation a little. I now admit, Wikipedia is a fruitful source, though not formal or trustworthy. It can be taken with a grain of salt. I also would like to say that if it’s self evident (and I know I’m giving you a huge pass here for trouble) it should stand here unchallenged as long as we’ve looked under all the rocks around it.

When I was speaking about religious tendency being innate in our DNA. This stands on it’s own. Please don’t mystify this but take a look at our species objectively; I’m not saying Bible versus are written into our cells. When you look at the nature of belief (anthropomorphism) and the track record for life on Earth, especially the last 5000 years; it fairly obvious that our knack for anthropomorphic behavior and thinking is ingrained. We are superstitious by natural design. We see a fruit tree and think it nurtures us, the Sun moving for us, caring for us. We get angry with machines as if they have a conscious. We even name machines human names and speak to them. We are delusional, anthropomorphizing beings. It goes back well beyond spoken language and even this branch of hominid. The very act of burying someone is anthropomorphic and we’ve been doing that for millions of years. It’s safe to say that anthropomorphic tendency goes back more than 20 million years. The answer to why we are like this is obvious. Neurology. This is an exciting time because we’re understanding how and why the brain evolved the way it did. Anyway, it’s self evident that the need to anthropomorphize our world is ingrained in human instinct. We are animals. Complex ones, but animals all the same. If this isn’t self evident then I’d like to see you prove otherwise.

Have you ever heard the saying, “If triangles had a god, their god would have 3 sides?” This is anthropomorphic. This is the thing that we’ve done too. Everything about god has been anthropomorphic to the letter and it’s a red flag. He is a he, he designs, destroys, loves, hates, commands, forgives, bets, envies, punishes etc etc… To throw in the political angle, he is all powerful, all knowing and forever. The ‘omni’ triad is really about invoking fear, awe and mystery. After we made him exactly like us, we had to assign also, whatever was infinitely beyond human capability. This is a red flag. So why did we invent a god that is just like us? Wouldn’t god, if he were real, be so alien and foreign in nature that no human could understand? But the point is that god is a human concept to begin with. The answer we desperately needed to make sense of things no matter how outlandish it was. There has never been evidence for god and there never will be, because the fever we’re under, originates in us. No such ‘thing’ could exist, especially in a deterministic universe. This is why the most brilliant man to have ever lived, Einstein, completely denounced the idea of a personal god. He saw the biased logic in it, he saw the finger prints of unreasonable human psychology behind it. Back then you couldn’t outright say, “there is no god, you people are fools.” Many people across history hide from the psychopathic mobs for fear of being blamed for a tornado or drought. But they would bury their first born in a post hole or cut the genitalia off kids all the same, to fit in with the cultural memes.

The philosophical and deductive logic surrounding human anthropomorphic behavior is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period. I know you don’t care to believe this but the absence of freewill also flatlines Him. Why stop there? When you really begin to look at all the angles, it becomes transparent that god isn’t real. Please notice I never do it the favor by capitalizing god. To me, the abrahamic god is no different than Apollo or Hades or Thor or Krishna. You must be atheist too when they are on the table, but why? Do you not think the people who worshiped them felt the same way about them as you do for your god? It becomes pretty clear after a while that the mere premise of the idea is flawed beyond repair.

You have to admit there is a variable that’s similar across the board in humans. The need to characterize a god, almost exclusively human. But when you look at the multitude of god’s we’ve made and evaluate the opposed claims they make, it’s obvious that none of them are real. What is real, is the experiences that humans have (emotional, neurotic, contemplative, spiritual). They have these feelings and even practice maximizing them. But they all attribute these meaningful experiences to a realm of imagination. We don’t have to draw lines in the sand and kill each other. Humans will eventually explore the best ways to explore this aspect of the human condition (meditation, prayer, ‘faith’ for lack of a better word) without having to make retarded claims about the origin of life. We’ll be able to reconcile our capacity for these life changing modes of attention, present in all religions, without inflicting psychopathic moral actions on the entire population of Earth. 

You of all people here picked up the literary meme of saying “feel-good” religion. Of all people here, you should understand the idea and truth of memes easily. You should be able to admit that religion is damn near exclusively in the “feel-good” emotional comfort business. Why do these people gather, but to experience the glowing aura that we feel in groups, especially when the air is pulp with mystery and awe. They don’t care if it makes sense, they just know it feels good to keep doing it. They will continue to do it despite the erosion of a moral society, despite logical consistency, despite scientific mountains of data pleading with them to stop the non-sense. They are a group of drugged hooligans, emotionally gambling for a quick Sunday high. How dishonest do you have to be to see this, and fail to admit that it’s a misstep? The first step is admitting it’s a problem.

Just like in every human discourse, medicine, economics, physics, biology–we don’t have to know the answers to begin moving in a positive direction. It’s high time we move in that positive direction which will alleviate and make secular, morality and ‘transcendental’ experiences. We just can’t afford to ignore it anymore. Plus, we can’t make progress anywhere else in humanity because this blunder persists and blocks everything.

Now with that being out of the way.

What exactly do you mean by personal God?  If you are referring to a God that is only personal, then I would have to agree and say one does not exist.  If you are saying one that is impersonal only, then I would have to say that doesn’t exist either.  Both version are limited due to being personal only or impersonal only.  To have any limit, in this regard, would not allow God in essence to be God.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

After we made him exactly like us, we had to assign also, whatever was infinitely beyond human capability. This is a red flag.

According to these faiths, we were made as images of God. Not the otherway around.  And as and image there are many similiarities and reflections of truths, but due to the nature of an image than can be incomplete or distorted.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

Everything about god has been anthropomorphic to the letter and it’s a red flag. He is a he, he designs, destroys, loves, hates, commands, forgives, bets, envies, punishes etc etc… To throw in the political angle, he is all powerful, all knowing and forever.

I don’t see how a God can be anything but anthroporphic (I don’t like the word because its states the Creator was made in our image, instead of vice versa.  I will use it, though to prevent any confusion in regards to definitions.)  Mathematics and the various sciences cannot spontaneously create answers or give answers to philosophical problems.  To have an anthropomorphic God, is to say that there is a God who has a “will”.  Math, philosophy, the various sciences, do not have a will.  To say something is anthropomorphic is to say that it wills things.  Destroy, love, hate, etc. are all examples of a will in action.  Now, where as a man might love or hate things that are either illogical or inconsistent with reality, a true God would know what to do with these things (love, hate, etc.) correctly.

These things are not strictly emotional but fundamental forces of will, not dependent on nor excluding emotion.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

The philosophical and deductive logic surrounding human anthropomorphic behavior is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period. I know you don’t care to believe this but the absence of freewill also flatlines Him.

In the Abrahamic religions there is exact commands to not anthroporphize God.  No idols, images, etc.  He is also called the unseen God or strictly “I am”.   All “emotions” are just manifestations of will.  In Christianity God takes the form of man, but this is not anthropomorphization (because this requires imitating attributes) but rather man becoming God and God becoming man.  To imitate is one thing, to become is another.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

What is real, is the experiences that humans have (emotional, neurotic, contemplative, spiritual). They have these feelings and even practice maximizing them. But they all attribute these meaningful experiences to a realm of imagination. We don’t have to draw lines in the sand and kill each other. Humans will eventually explore the best ways to explore this aspect of the human condition (meditation, prayer, ‘faith’ for lack of a better word) without having to make retarded claims about the origin of life. We’ll be able to reconcile our capacity for these life changing modes of attention, present in all religions, without inflicting psychopathic moral actions on the entire population of Earth.

They do not attribute these experiences to the realm of imagination, as least the genuine ones do not.  But I am having a tough time understanding what you are trying to say here.

People kill eachother.  The only time a religion gives a command to kill would be in the old testament inorder to keep order, however that was revealed as incomplete through the new testament.  Also, all civilizations of the time practiced killing.  Judaism and Christianity actually prevented many of these beliefs.  Child sacrifice was common amongst the pagans, along with murder for various issues, persecutions are rampant, etc.  Self defense and a  just war (which is very rare and fundamentally defensive) are the  only times in Christianity killing is allowed.

Islam is another issue.  I cannot and will not argue about that.  If I am correct they are allowed to lie and kill in many aspects.

Beware the Lamiae wrote:

You should be able to admit that religion is damn near exclusively in the “feel-good” emotional comfort business. Why do these people gather, but to experience the glowing aura that we feel in groups, especially when the air is pulp with mystery and awe. They don’t care if it makes sense, they just know it feels good to keep doing it. They will continue to do it despite the erosion of a moral society, despite logical consistency, despite scientific mountains of data pleading with them to stop the non-sense.

This is true and also false.  In the mega churches this is true.  In Catholic and Orthodox faiths it is not about “feel-good”.  Although one is expected to worship using ones whole self, it leaves emotion as only a small part of the faith.  You have to understand these “feel goods” do not even  follow their own faith.  As a matter of fact, these “erosions” in societ ty you point to, are a deficiency in many of these values and ethics.  Can I ask what form
of Christianity you were exposed to so I can figure out where you got these impressions?

In regards to the science proving religion to be non sense, what studies are you talking about?  If anything human biology, expressed in the brain, points to the
necessity of religion, in some form or another, as a natural part of existence.  As to which religion is correct is another problem.
In summary:
Religion is not fundamentally emotional.  If you did any brief reading of a Catholic catechesis or Orthodox philosophy one would have to conclude that reason is a large portion of certain faiths.

I would have to ask again, what Christian faiths you are pointing too?  I am under the impression you are talking about some megachurch or something.  If this is the case then I would have to agree with some of your prior points.