Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Christian/Religious MGTOW is it possible?!
Tagged: Christianity, Gospel, Kingdom, Repent
This topic contains 278 replies, has 95 voices, and was last updated by 
Badger 1 year, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Seems to me to be a semantic argument.
Isn’t that what all arguments are though? As I said you cannot prove God exists through a logical/mathematical/emotional argument.
Flying Spaghetti Monster
No one said there is a flying spaghetti monster. Why are you pushing this idea?
I see nothing logical about an invisible and undetectable supreme being.
Logic is Logic. Math is Math. A logical God could not be God because he would be limited to logic. Which brings me to a prior point. You are a “logical” man. What is so logical about pushing the idea of a “flying spaghetti monster”?
until someone is able to prove that anything like I mentioned does exist in a manner graspable by the <span style=”font-family: Thread-000023f4-Id-00000839;”>average person who is expected to believe it</span> then I’ll continue to go merrily on my way through life thinking as I do now and letting others believe what they wish as long as they don’t bother me nor attempt to control my behavior through the prism of their set of moral beliefs, religious or no.
Why does anything have to be prove to you? The person “high” above everyone else. Who are you again?
No. Words mean something. As Bill Clinton famously replied:
I’m using the FSM as an absurd example to contrast the existence of some fabled beast to that of a supreme being so we can remove the issue of God from the conversation.
A logical God could not be God because he would be limited to logic.
Okay, you’re losing me. What exactly is your point? I mean in a general sense. That there cannot be a logical God? And if there can’t be, then what’s your point? I’m seriously asking you, not arguing with you – lol.
Why does anything have to be prove to you? The person “high” above everyone else. Who are you again?
Not sure what you mean by ‘high above everyone else’. However, no one has to prove s~~~ to me except those who wish me to accept their belief system either personally (as a friend, mate, etc) or societally (through laws), or they wish me to accept something without proof that substantially affects the way that I live life. I am not asking you to prove anything to me, btw, so you can calm down.
Anonymous43I didn’t come here to fist fight: RELIGION, POLITICS dangerous stuff!
I think I’m going to stay the coarse and devote my efforts to removing the cases of deteriorated gynomite from the decks of MGTOW; they’re saturated and dripping nitroclitcerin….I love what ListenUp said earlier about Paul the Apostle. Out of all the other apostles,(Capt. Kirk’s voice) he was the most…MGTOW. He never got married even though it was his right to do so. He advised young single Christians not to marry in order to avoid unnecessary worry and needless troubles. He wanted them to be free from concern, make better use of their limited time on earth, to be happy and to give undistracted attention and devotion to their life’s purpose. He gets my vote for the inducted into the MGTOW hall of fame with all the other great ones.
@MG-Tower, I appreciate what you said about gynocentrism in churches today. I grew up in it. I always found it interesting in my old church that women have always taken great care to ensure that the ministers and elders are men. I remember when one of the elders decided to give women more of an authoritative role in the church. The church protested so much that it was almost torn in half. Many people left but what really surprised me was that the main antagonists were women. These women realized that true power lied behind the throne and were very happy to use the church to terrify children into obedience and enslave the men to servitude via marriage and fatherhood. These women didn’t want to be liberated, they enjoyed their covert control over men.
Ronin: St. Paul for the win! RE Gynocentrism….think about it …..gyno……..center……s~~~ its all about the VAG!!!! damn……..
@ListenUp, Hell yeah. Women have been a royal pain in the ass in church and even in the good book. To start off, Eve just f~~~s it up for everybody. But in all honesty, Adam’s simp like nature is to blame too. Then you have Rebekah whose machinations of favoritism caused strife between Jacob and Esau. Solomon allowed the love of his wives and concubines to turn him from going his way to their way much to the consternation of Israel. Samson’s strength wasn’t stronger than Delilah’s desire to uncover his weakness and totally undo him. Even the strife between Jews and Muslims today can be traced back to Sarai, the wife of Abraham and mother of Isaac(the revered ancestor of the Jews). She casted out Isaac’s half-brother Ishmael(the ancestor of Muhammad and revered prophet of Islam), so that Isaac may receive his father’s inheritance. The two religions have been fighting in that land ever since. If that doesn’t covert guys to MGTOW, nothing will.
Ronin: yup you got all that right bro. a couple weeks ago i was speaking on the whole adam and eve think somewhere on the forums and it occurred to me that it was first adam and God and then eve showed up and her closest match wasn’t adam, it was the serpent. that said a lot to me. my dad and i used to laugh about that one. the video below is as close as i get to the other guy you mentioned:
Which limits God. Not making him God.
True, a personal only god is limited. However He would be limited if only impersonal also.
Wait so first you say if God was limited he wouldn’t be God, then you contradict yourself by saying both personal and impersonal concepts of God are limited. Also why say “personal only” and “only impersonal” when they’re mutually exclusive? Then again according to you “A logical God could not be God because he would be limited to logic.” so this is kinda hopeless.
As to the ambiguity to the definition of “God” there is also clarity in the fact that we are having a conversation about “God”. So ambiguous in one aspect yes, however there are certainties.
Straw man since I did not claim that there’s no meaning whatsoever but that the term is open to multiple interpretations (aka ambiguous).
Going back to the “water in a bucket” example. You cannot prove that there is no water. You can only prove that their is a bucket.
We could come up with a lot of empirical evidence through observation and experiments and show that it’s overwhelmingly probable that there’s no water in a specific bucket. To be precise that’s no absolute proof but if you mean that then you contradicted yourself because the same goes for the existence of the bucket.
You cannot prove a negative. +(proof)= +(proof) +=-(negative) does not happen.
another example: 1=1 not 1=0
Proving an impossibility/nonexistence is definitely possible in mathematics, for example you can assume that there is an object with a certain property and derive a contradiction.
Radiological dating actually raises more questions in answers as many of the variables required to make the measurements are pulled out of thin air.
Even if radiometric dating was as unreliable as you claim that’s completely beside the point because 6000 years was merely an example (replace it with 60 if you will). Also there’s overwhelming evidence besides radiometric dating:
In addition, evidence from other aspects of geology (e.g., estimates of depositional rate and rates of other geological processes) support the great age of the Earth. Prior to the availability of radiometric dating, and even prior to evolutionary theory, the Earth was estimated to be at least hundreds of millions of years old (see above). Radiometric dating has simply made the estimates more precise, and extended it into rocks barren of fossils and other stratigraphic tools.
No one said there is a flying spaghetti monster. Why are you pushing this idea?
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster does and I used it as an example.
Why does anything have to be prove to you? […] Who are you again?
It’s irrational and intellectually dishonest to blindly believe in concepts and base your life around them without evidence. If all you care about is comfort then yeah, believing in personal God might be a good idea but it has little to do with true understanding.
Gonegalt:
<span style=”font-family: Thread-0000307c-Id-0000021c;”>A logical God could not be God because he would be limited to logic.</span>
God can be logical. Logic cannot be God.
I’m using the FSM as an absurd example to contrast the existence of some fabled beast to that of a supreme being so we can remove the issue of God from the conversation.
Why talk about something and not talk about it?
I didn’t come here to fist fight: RELIGION, POLITICS dangerous stuff!
Coming into this thread would be like walking into the octagon and saying “hey I don’t want to fight”. This thread is about arguments.
Ronin x/MGTOWER: So true. I have seen and heard a lot of this. +1
<span style=”color: #005cab;”>@MG-Tower</span>, I appreciate what you said about gynocentrism in churches today. I grew up in it. I always found it interesting in my old church that women have always taken great care to ensure that the ministers and elders are men. I remember when one of the elders decided to give women more of an authoritative role in the church. The church protested so much that it was almost torn in half. Many people left but what really surprised me was that the main antagonists were women. These women realized that true power lied behind the throne and were very happy to use the church to terrify children into obedience and enslave the men to servitude via marriage and fatherhood. These women didn’t want to be liberated, they enjoyed their covert control over men.
Wandersman.
Wait so first you say if God was limited he wouldn’t be God, then you contradict yourself by saying both personal and impersonal concepts of God are limited. Also why say “personal only” and “only impersonal” when they’re mutually exclusive? Then again according to you “A logical God could not be God because he would be limited to logic.” so this is kinda hopeless.
A God could not be limited to either or. I think you misunderstood me or I did not explain myself right.
Straw man since I did not claim that there’s no meaning whatsoever but that the term is open to multiple interpretations (aka ambiguous).
However, there is a meaning. That is not ambiguous.
Proving an impossibility/nonexistence is <span style=”color: #005cab;”>definitely possible</span> in mathematics, for example you can assume that there is an object with a certain property and derive a contradiction.
Contradictions exist, what is your point? Besides if that is your argument you would have to prove God is impossible, and you have not.
Radiometric dating has simply made the estimates more precise, and extended it into rocks barren of fossils and other stratigraphic tools.
You said geology as another example, however the article pointed out it is less precise than Radiometric dating which I stated was inaccurate to begin with.
It’s irrational and intellectually dishonest to blindly believe in concepts and base your life around them without evidence.
I would not be to hard on yourself. Just because you do not have evidence or a logical argument for you beliefs, as pointed out, does not mean you are completely irrational or intellectually dishonest. You are being to hard on yourself.
Atheism is an opium for the mind.
Why talk about something and not talk about it?
@gonegalt already explained it. You’re deeply invested in irrational faith in some God. It’s like arguing with a feminist who is invested in victim mentality patriarchy nonsense. We use the FSM to refute your arguments because we hope you can see the hypocrisy when God isn’t directly involved.
Which limits God. Not making him God. […] True, a personal only god is limited. However He would be limited if only impersonal also. […] A logical God could not be God […] God can be logical.
You’re getting caught up in contradictions. If you want to throw logic out the window this discussion is pointless.
However, there is a meaning. That is not ambiguous.
Did you even read what you quoted? “I did not claim that there’s no meaning whatsoever”. Look up the definition of “ambiguous”. I used it as in “open to multiple interpretations” which I explicitly pointed out after your first misunderstanding.
Contradictions exist, what is your point?
The point is that your claim “You cannot prove a negative.” (which I quoted) is wrong. You can prove a negative, for example by deriving a logical contradiction (there are many examples of this in mathematics, see the link in my previous response).
Besides if that is your argument you would have to prove God is impossible, and you have not.
I neither claimed I could nor tried to disprove God (which of the many concepts anyway?). I suggest you save us both time by not making baseless assumptions.
You said geology as another example, however the article pointed out it is less precise than Radiometric dating which I stated was inaccurate to begin with.
You’re still completely beside the point of the original argument to which the number 6000 is irrelevant because it’s just an example (as I already emphasized). Also if you seriously believe that we don’t have overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years you’re either uneducated or plain stupid. I won’t bother serving the evidence on a silver platter for you because it’s irrelevant to the argument (which you haven’t even addressed yet).
Just because you do not have evidence or a logical argument for you beliefs, as pointed out, does not mean you are completely irrational or intellectually dishonest. You are being to hard on yourself.
How is faith rational when it’s unjustified by evidence? As for intellectual honesty faith can interfere with the pursuit of truth, especially if one believes that it is justified despite a lack of evidence.
Atheism is an opium for the mind.
LOL are you trolling or completely deluded? Provide arguments. If anything religious beliefs are “opium for the mind”: life after death, ultimate justice, loving father figure, authority one can shift responsibility to, clearly defined values, purpose, …
You sure you didn’t mean “Religion is the opium of the people” (Karl Marx)?
I’m a Christian. I have studied Christianity, I’ve studied Christian Apology, and I’ve talked to ex-pastors. I find absolutely no problem with MGTOW.
My counselor is an ex-pastor. He married this gorgeous woman. Unfortunately, he was a typical mangina at the time, and let her walk all over him. She was narcissistic. Sadly, she was sexually abused when she was younger, which is why she turned to narcissism. He moved to this town in Washington State, but that church was seriously dysfunctional. It was also very gynocentric. Apparently, more than most places.
She slept around on him. She slept with all sorts of people in the church. He realized his marriage was in trouble and took her to see a counselor. The counselor told him in private that he was basically going to bash him for a while to gain her trust. One day, after that counselor decided it was time to challenge her, she ended the counselling. She’s not interested in being challenged.
Later she slept with a man who was just using her. She didn’t like how she got used (I don’t understand the details to this, but I don’t really want to know them either). She was mad, and actually expected her husband to comfort her. He decided to confront her on her behavior. That’s the end of that marriage.
After the divorce, his own church turned on him. They spurned him, and used some crap to kick him out. Now he’s divorced, alone, no job, and his career is ruined. He moved in with a friend and that’s when he decided to become a counselor. He studied psychology at some Christian universities. He has several degrees.
I was dating a girl who realized I had issues. We went to see him. I think she just wanted to turn me into her boyfriend/husband and change me, and really expected the counselor do that, but that didn’t happen. I come from a seriously dysfunctional home, went to several churches, and had a lot of issues. She was also from a dysfunctional home, but one that was in serious denial. She was a victim of neglect, and possibly other crimes. She used to be starved as a little girl just because her father wouldn’t feed her. She had to fend for herself. Her mother was a psycho-controlling woman, but she eventually got on with sorting out her business and divorced that man, though it would be sometime.
In Christian Apology and in my counselling, I’ve come to learn a great deal about Christianity. I’ve learned about how to identify safe people, about freedom, about thinking, and so on. Here are some of the highlights:
- Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Specifically, he’s the truth. Therefore, seek truth. Accept it, let it discipline you.
- The truth shall set you free.
- Safe people will not control you.
- Understand boundaries. Jesus told his father exactly how he felt about being asked to die on the cross. Jesus felt no shame in admitting this wasn’t something he wanted to do. He was sweating blood. That’s how honest he was with himself and with the father. That is, there are three persons who accept eachother’s unique identity and who have boundaries. They are not enmeshed, nor or they disconnected. They have healthy boundaries. We should model all of our relationships after this.
- My boundaries are mine. If crap falls onto my boundaries, that’s my problem not yours. You are not obligated to help. If you do want to help, I’m not obligated to accept. I’m not your slave, nor are you mine. Not even God is willing to enslave a human.
- There are five ways to approach a conflict. Jesus used all five:
- Aggression: Jesus made a whip and chased money-changers out of the temple. Think about this for a minute. This is a man who people believed had supernatural power. If this man gets a weapon and grins evilly at you, you run.
- Resolve: perhaps his most common tactic.
- Compromise: Jesus was challenged when asked if the Jews should pay taxes to Caesar. His response is a form of compromise. Give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Unfortunately, the questioner should have had a follow up question, “OK, wise-guy, what belongs to God?” and Jesus would have said, “Who’s image is on you?”
- Withdrawal: Sometimes there were hostile crowds. Jesus actually slept out of them. It’s not said how, but apparently he used super-natural power to do it.
- Concession: Jesus conceded to God, then to the Roman, then Jews, and finally was executed.
- Evil people tend to foist themselves by their own petards. You may get screwed over, but those people are setting themselves up for failure.
- There are four kinds of people, according to Proverbs:
- The sinner: this is your sheep. It’s a person who lives for comfort, the vast majority of all humans. This is a person who lies just to avoid change. This is also your blue pill taker. He never does anything particularly bad, but will move on to being a fool, and on to evil, unless held accountable. Only if this person begins to form patterns should you call them out. They are vulnerable to shame and guilt. Use them wisely.
- The fool: this person believes he has figured out God and is in control of the universe. This is absolutely why infantilizing women is sick and perverse. It turns them into fools. They repeat their folly, and are manipulative and controlling. They’re difficult. They will never apologize unless it’s to pacify you. To them, that’s honesty, even though there’s zero authentic change. Authentic apologizing is actually admitting they are not in control.
- The Mocker: this is the evil person. He or she hates god, and mocks the belief or attitude that supports good. They hate good and love to destroy. It’s like they made a pact with the devil, that if they commit evil, they will be free of guilt, shame, and loneliness. They spend a great amount of time lying to themselves and live in seriously delusional worlds. They are people of the lie. They see themselves as inherently good and all things they do cannot be considered bad, by virtue of their privilege. They get mad if you won’t agree.
- The wise person: he’s a person who fears God. Remember, Jesus claimed truth on himself, therefore, to fear God, is to humbly accept truth. A wise person will thank you if you point out his sin.
- Some of the best men were bachelors. Some of the worst were not. Take Ahab, who married Jezebel. God told the Jews not to intermarry like that, but Ahab did. It went as well as you could expect. Jezebel was nasty and her religion was Ashterah, the fertility goddess. Compare to our modern day New Ageism. When Ahab died, Jezebel was quartered. That’s how much people hated her. She was wicked, dialed up to eleven.
- Esther pulled her hoohaw and saved the Israelites. She influenced her husband, and had absolutely all of those who conspired against her own people utterly murdered. They died in the same gallows they made for the Israelites.
- Revelations warns of the great whore, the great false religion. Think about it: take a look at New Age and feminism. It’s taking root in Christian Churches. This is scary.
- The New Testament also warns that things will be just as they were before the Flood. Women were beautiful then. They are now. Nobody seeks God, they all lived for themselves. This is exactly how it is now.
That’s just some of what I have learned. Would you like a list of books?
Some thoughts gathered from reading all the foregoing posts:
I think many Christian teachers successfully impart their teachings without trying to prove that God exists. I think many Christians are taught to have FAITH that God exists. So there’d be no blue pill for these.I argue (among others) that to have faith that God exists is of value to the subject or the object only if both ACT on the belief (you know, how you live).
There is a ton of evidence that God exists. That someone does not acknowledge it as such does not change the evidence.I submit that belief in God must be learned, like how to build a fire, like physics, or rhetoric, or mathematics, or auto repair, or welding, or fishing; to my knowledge it doesn’t ordinarily descend on one. For example, there’s a story that someone asked Newton how he knew that “gravity exists”. Newton is said to have replied “Because I have studied the subject, and you have not.”
Here’s that FAITH thing again, indirectly. God is believed, by at least me, to be beyond human understanding. So as I believe that, my ability to conveniently corral all the elements or characteristics of God (if there are any) must be necessarily incomplete. Perhaps for those with limited imagination and/or limited energy for application to the subject, a personal God is convenient, but there’s no way of knowing what’s missing.
The concept of love just re-invaded my brain. Let’s say that God could make as many creatures as God wished. They would all love God because he made them that way. Let’s also say that God made a woman (she’s an outstanding HB10) to love only you, a particular individual. She told you this “I was made to love you. Sex included, anytime you want, for as long as you can hack it. No strings. I have an on-off switch (here) for Children, if you’re ever so inclined. I’ll age only as gracefully as you.” Question: are you happy? Are you In love with her? My bet is no; as men, we want to work for our rewards; we want the satisfaction of our earnings. You want a woman, conceptually, who has the choice not to choose you, but in fact does choose you, largely because of who you have strived to become, and are continually striving, to become. Could God want this circumstance also? What if God wanted this circumstance? What would it look like?There is a ton of evidence that God exists.
What concept of God are you talking about and what’s the evidence?
I submit that belief in God must be learned, like how to build a fire, like physics, or rhetoric, or mathematics, or auto repair, or welding, or fishing; to my knowledge it doesn’t ordinarily descend on one.
If there’s “a ton of evidence” why would belief in God have to be learned?
Evidence is subject to interpretation. In the Gospels Jesus freely admits to doing miracles not to make non believers believe but rather to strengthen the faith of those who already do.
Well, he said to give evidence for that which he claims he is. He demonstrated authority over nature, disease, and everything else. He was demonstrating deity because he knew he was up against a very tough audience. He wasn’t proving God exists with miracles, he was proving he was, because he was also saying he’s God.
Well, he said to give evidence for that which he claims he is. He demonstrated authority over nature, disease, and everything else. He was demonstrating deity because he knew he was up against a very tough audience. He wasn’t proving God exists with miracles, he was proving he was, because he was also saying he’s God.
True. However even with evidence, such as that state above, people still did not believe. Evidence is subject to interpretation in that people will “rationalize” for or against what they are seeing. Interpretation is an act of individual will in many aspects. In many respects in come to “accepting” or “denying” what one observes.
Sorry for the slow reply wandersmann, My bad.
<span style=”color: #005cab;”>@GoneGalt</span> already explained it.
And I pointed out his argument falls in on itself.
We use the FSM to refute your arguments because we hope you can see the hypocrisy when God isn’t directly involved
The FSM argument has nothing to do with God, so how can you apply it to an argument about God?
Also why say “personal only” and “only impersonal” when they’re mutually exclusive?
They can exist at the same time in different respects. I can be impersonal to a crowd but know some people personally.
You can prove a negative, for example by deriving a logical contradiction
No use are just not using logic, a contradiction is the lack of logic. A deficiency in logic.
I neither claimed I could nor tried to disprove God (which of the many concepts anyway?).
Than what was the FSM about?
Also if you seriously believe that we don’t have overwhelming evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years you’re either uneducated or plain stupid.
You are twisting my words. All I stated was how you determined the age of the earth is inaccurate.
How is faith rational when it’s unjustified by evidence?
If one studies people then one could come to the possible conclusion that faith is a natural part of the human condition. Everyone believes in something.
Provide arguments.
Your contradictory and pseudo-faith based argument should have already proved this.
The FSM argument has nothing to do with God, so how can you apply it to an argument about God?
For example you can point out that one cannot disprove the existence of the FSM, which is a concept of God, either but putting faith in it would be irrational. It’s perfectly suitable for refuting some religious arguments.
They can exist at the same time in different respects. I can be impersonal to a crowd but know some people personally.
Either you can relate to God as a person, making him personal, or not.
No use are just not using logic, a contradiction is the lack of logic. A deficiency in logic.
Dude just f~~~ing look at all the examples there are in mathematics of proving a negative (aka proving an impossibility). I’ve done it myself several times in university.
You are twisting my words. All I stated was how you determined the age of the earth is inaccurate.
I did not even f~~~ing try to determine the age of the earth in my original statement “A specific concept of God could be disproved if for example it included that God created the earth 6000 years ago.” but merely implied it’s definitely older than 6000 years and did not mention any method. Then you started to criticize radiometric dating out of the blue which was completely irrelevant and unnecessary if you agree that there’s overwhelming evidence that the earth is older than 6000 years. Replace 6000 with 60 if you will and get to the point.
If one studies people then one could come to the possible conclusion that faith is a natural part of the human condition. Everyone believes in something.
That’s not an argument for the rationality of blind faith but a logical fallacy known as appeal to common belief.
Your contradictory and pseudo-faith based argument should have already proved this.
LOL nice try to twist things while I’m debunking one of your weak arguments and logical fallacies after the other.
The problem with the FSM argument is that nobody trusts anybody who supposits the FSM exists. It’s really a critique on the definition of faith, but it’s an equivocation. It’s saying that blind faith is not evidence for anything. However, the Bible, which it attempts to criticize, agrees. The biblical definition of faith is trust because you have good reason. If Jesus really did perform all those miracles, then what he says about his nature and about God must also be accurate. If he’s good, then he’s not a liar, and if he’s not a lunatic, then he must be accurate and well informed.
So, the FSM argument works against the efforts of its author. It gives a mental model to use as a standard and it’s trying to play off the argument that religion is nothing but a labor in blind faith. This is commonly believed so the FSM becomes popular even though it logically fails.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
925069
924988
922113
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
