Christian/Religious MGTOW is it possible?!

[peterfaParticipant 833]

I believe you’re correct when you say that evidence is open to interpretation, that people will impose with will on the evidence. They sky is pretty tyrannical when it demonstrates itself to be blue. If you look at it, you’re forced to see that it’s blue. You’re given no choice. However, I can twist things. I can say that 95% of criminals believe the sky is blue. You’re not a criminal, are you? By putting off the decision onto others, I can force a reality in my mind or in the minds of others.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

The problem with the FSM argument is that nobody trusts anybody who supposits the FSM exists.

We obviously don’t believe in it but merely use it to refute some arguments for which it’s well suited due to its apparent silliness.

 

 

The biblical definition of faith is trust because you have good reason.

Well a good reason would be substantial evidence but we don’t have any, which makes faith irrational.

 

 

I believe you’re correct when you say that evidence is open to interpretation

When you draw conclusions from scientific evidence interpretation may be involved but it’s still completely different than faith in that it consists of observations and experimental evidence that can be verified.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

We obviously don’t believe in it but merely use it to refute some arguments for which it’s well suited due to its apparent silliness

Silly arguments are for children.  You already stated the intent of the argument: to be silly.  What type of answer would you expect?

Well a good reason would be substantial evidence but we don’t have any, which makes faith irrational

Evidence is subject to interpretation.  What would be substantial evidence exactly, because that is all atheists talk about, but they cannot give a clear definition.

Faith is irrational because faith is faith, not logic.  Math is also irrational because it is mathematical.

When you draw conclusions from scientific evidence interpretation may be involved but it’s still completely different than faith in that it consists of observations and experimental evidence that can be verified.

Scientist disagree with each other all the time and they still use the same method.  Do your research, the scientific method was an off branch of certain philosophers.  It is a philosophy to help understand the natural world, not a law.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

You already stated the intent of the argument: to be silly.  What type of answer would you expect?

You’re putting words in my mouth. The point is to refute fallacious arguments and the silliness can be helpful in doing that along with the fact that most people aren’t emotionally invested in the FSM. Would you support the argument that faith in the FSM is irrational because there’s no evidence for its existence?

 

 

Math is also irrational because it is mathematical.

Sure and grass is irrational because it’s grassy. You might wanna learn about mathematical proof.

 

 

Evidence is subject to interpretation.  What would be substantial evidence exactly, because that is all atheists talk about, but they cannot give a clear definition.

Empirical and measurable evidence. See my previous response: “When you draw conclusions from scientific evidence interpretation may be involved but it’s still completely different than faith in that it consists of observations and experimental evidence that can be verified.”. Do some research on scientific evidence for a better definition.

 

 

All of this has little to do with the original topic by the way, you’re getting lost in flawed arguments against your misconception of atheism.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Refuting a fallacious argument using a fallacious argument is fallacious.

In regards to being “emotionally” involved, many atheists are just as emotionally involved in Atheism.  After all you are one of the last guys on this thread still trying to defend it.  You are not “emotionally” involved at all?

In regards to scientific evidence:

Empirical means: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.  Which would, by definition, have to include all experience, both religious and irreligious.

In regards to measurable:  We cannot measure abstract thoughts.  We can measure the number of guys “wronged” by a system, but we cannot measure how or why they were wronged.  A lot of things cannot be measured, does that mean they are to be ignored?

You are following a strict philosophical system as a set of beliefs.

All of this has little to do with the original topic by the way, you’re getting lost in flawed arguments against your misconception of atheism.

Actually it does have to do with the original topic.  I am proving, through you, that atheists have no free will.  You will argue for your point regardless of the arguments pointing out how you are wrong.  You say you have no faith, fair enough.  You have no reason either.  At least a Christian or Muslim can lose his and change his position.  However you can’t no matter what you do.

Why should you worry about conceptions?  You obviously don’t believe in those either, since they can’t be measured.  I am not misconceiving you at all, I just know your argument and position better than you do.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

Refuting a fallacious argument using a fallacious argument is fallacious.

How is the FSM “fallacious”? It isn’t even an argument but a concept of God. By the way, you can win a million bucks if you can produce empirical evidence which proves that Jesus is not the son of the FSM.

 

 

In regards to being “emotionally” involved, many atheists are just as emotionally involved in Atheism.  After all you are one of the last guys on this thread still trying to defend it.  You are not “emotionally” involved at all?

The reason I respond is that I care about truth, which is not a prerequisite for being an atheist, rather than being invested in my lack of belief in gods.

 

 

In regards to measurable:  We cannot measure abstract thoughts.  We can measure the number of guys “wronged” by a system, but we cannot measure how or why they were wronged.  A lot of things cannot be measured, does that mean they are to be ignored?

Straw man since empirical evidence includes observations.

 

 

You are following a strict philosophical system as a set of beliefs.

I’m not and it’s irrelevant anyway because the only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods.

 

 

Actually it does have to do with the original topic.  I am proving, through you, that atheists have no free will.

All you’ve proven so far is that you don’t understand what atheism means. The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods. Belief in free will or science is optional and thus you cannot refute atheism based on it. For example an atheist could believe in subjectivism and reject science. Or believe in free will. Or disbelieve in free will. Or wear a hat. It’s IRRELEVANT.

 

 

At least a Christian or Muslim can lose his and change his position.  However you can’t no matter what you do.

Of course I can change my position to align it new evidence (just like our scientific understanding evolves constantly).

 

 

Why should you worry about conceptions?  You obviously don’t believe in those either, since they can’t be measured.  I am not misconceiving you at all, I just know your argument and position better than you do.

Your posts are plastered with misconceptions and faulty reasoning. Let’s take this particular paragraph for example. “You obviously don’t believe in those either” is nonsense because empirical evidence includes observations. Don’t confuse your misconceptions about my position with better knowledge. Try asking next time instead of making assumptions.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

I believe Tim Minchin put it best when he said…

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

You guys can argue about proof versus belief until we all evolve back into monkeys but you’ll get nowhere because you’re speaking fundamentally different languages.

A fish and bird would have an easier time deciding where to spend the night together than the faithful and the scientific will ever have of convincing each other of the error of their respective ways.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

+1 doc

 

I know we won’t reach a consensus here but don’t want to leave misconceptions unchallenged. Maybe I’ll just let it go, after all it’s pointless.

[peterfaParticipant 833]

Tim is bluffing himself. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. History doesn’t change. It’s a special kind of science.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Wandersman:

It isn’t even an argument but a concept of God.

To argue about a concept is to argue about a concept, to argue about God is to argue about God.  A concept is not God.  God can be concieved, but cannot be a concept.  A concept is a concept.

The reason I respond is that I care about truth, which is not a prerequisite for being an atheist, rather than being invested in my lack of belief in gods.

The lack of the belief in the divine is the lack of belief in truth because all real unchangeable truths are fundamentally divine.

Straw man since empirical evidence includes observations.

Only those made by the senses.  It fundamentally cannot observe an abstract idea without contradicting itself.

<span style=”font-family: Thread-0000834c-Id-000004fa;”>The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods.</span>

Why?  Because if science is not mandatory to be an athiest, one cannot argue it is rational.  Reason does not bind athiests together.   If free will is not necessary than Athiests do not have that it common either.  The athiests does not believe in a Diety/Dieties, fair enough.  Than an atheist cannot claim man is anything more than an animal either, and is to be treated as such.  If their is no Diety/Dieties, than man himself is not and cannot be one.  If he is an animal than he doesn’t need rights.  Has no free will.  Nor can he speak any truths.

“You obviously don’t believe in those either” is nonsense because empirical evidence includes observations.

Empirical knowledge is dependendant on sense expierence.  Only through the sense we can observe, is the premise of Empiricism if I am correct.  A “concept” cannot be empirically observed because it is abstract and uses none of the physical senses.  However it still is observed.  Empiricism limits the ability to observe, it does not help it.  The whole argument for empiricism (what helped define the scientific method) is abstract, thereby contradicting itself.

So far your argument, as I am interpretting it, is that you do not believe in a Diety/dieties.  You also do not seem to believe in anything else either.  I am guessing the only priority an athiest can truly have are the base desires (food/sex/etc.)?

Maybe I’ll just let it go, after all it’s pointless.

So much for “truth”.

Doc:

I believe Tim Minchin put it best when he said…

 

Science adjusts its beliefs based on what’s observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved

Faith and reason actually work real well together.  To say people do not use both is hypocritical.  They don’t contradict eachother, but rather work in seperate but equal ways complimenting eachother.

People have beliefs whether they admit to them or not.  It is natural to believe.   Of the many things you believe one of them is in Tim Minchin.  You cannot say you are only rational and admit to a belief.  You cannot say you only belief and not attempt to reason why you do.

In regards to Tim Minchin his statement is contradictory in that science is not based on beliefs at all, therefore it cannot adjust them because to adjust them would mean to have believed in something. Observations are observations, beliefs are beliefs.  If science had beliefs it would not be science, but a faith/religion.  Faith is a true act of free will in that it is one of the only things we can really choose.

 

[bullwinkle_tnParticipant 0]

I’m brand new to this site, so please forgive me for jumping in rather late.  I came here because I asked the same question in Google.  This was the first result in the list.  I have just a few comments.  I did not read through this whole thread basically because it started to p~~~ me off as most of it was pointless and off topic.  So, if this has been said by someone else, I apologize for repeating.

Worshiping a higher being without substantial evidence for its existence is as blue pill as it gets (blissful ignorance of illusion).

I believe this is a shaming tactic almost as bad as anything I hear coming from feminism.  Whether or not I am a Christian is really none of your business and this also does not answer the original question.  The question was not whether he should be a Christian or not.  It was whether MGTOW and Christianity are inherently incompatible.  At least that is how I interpreted the question.

Whether or not there is a God, you can not go God’s way and go your own way at the same time, in my opinion, even if you convince yourself that God’s way and your way are the same.

Going your own way means using your mind and your gut to choose to do what you think is best for you. This, I believe, is in fundamental opposition to any system of belief or action wherein you submit your will to that of someone else… including marriage, religion and active duty military, among others.

I reject this statement again, because it’s none of your business.  How I go my own way is, by definition, my business.  If I have determined, for myself, that following the teaching of a man, whether or not you believe he was God, who treated all people (except for the religious leaders of the day) equally and did not bend to pressure of any group, and that I believe it is best for me and society in general, it is still none of your business to tell me I’m wrong.  I do believe in civic duty, though not the way feminists would portray it.  I believe ALL people in a society have a civic duty because it improves things for everybody in the society.  I don’t believe marriage or religion is a civic or any other kind of duty, but protection of the society at large is a duty for every member of the society equally.  For one class of people to be removed from these obligations or to twist them to their advantage is abhorrent.

In the end, I determined, for myself, the question is inherently flawed.  If I am MGTOW, it is up to me (again, by definition) what that looks like for me and it’s nobody else’s business.  Nor is it for me to tell anyone else what MGTOW should be fore them.  I believe this is the essence of being MGTOW.

Peace

[Mr. XParticipant 20]

With respect to the notions of proving God exists, Christians, or theists for that matter, are not proposing to prove that God exists.  Rather we are suggesting that the overwhelming evidence suggests that a creator does in fact exist.  There are many different forms of evidence to consider.  I will present one for your consideration.  First, to assume that there is no God, we must consider that the universe was created by nothing, from nothing, and for nothing.  In other words, the argument is that no one, times nothing, equals everything.  But we know that this is both scientifically and philosophically absurd.  Scientifically, matter is neither created nor destroyed, and philosophically something does not come from nothing.  From nothing, nothing comes.  We take this truth for granted daily.  We do not walk down the street expecting a boulder to suddenly appear in the road.  We do not sit in our living rooms knowing at any moment something might suddenly materialize.  Things to not come into being from nothing.  Yet, the overwhelming scientific community now believes in the big bang, as do many theists.  Prior to the big bang there was nothing…no time, no energy, no space.  But with an explosion of light and energy the universe came into being.  Since we know both from science and philosophy that something does not come from nothing, something that exists outside of time and space as we know it would have to have caused this.  Whatever “it” is would have to be extremely powerful, not subject to the normal rules of physics, timeless, and able to create a universe.  This meets the definition of God.

[…Spectator 1165]

YO: Christians: ListenUp! here.  I haven’t posted on this thread since I was explaining my own personal view that has nothing to do with this website, any community, now or hereafter known, communicated by any means possible etc etc etc. in no way coerced with any intention, rational or sane, that since i last spoke on this thread RE St Paul.

I now want to share something from my afternoon today.

You see guys, I think any religious view can be supported with enough evidence and I respect everyone to have their opinion and I hope this website will still be allowed to continue the great service to its community whether people agree with it or not, and I, as an open minded individual, completely embrace being a Christian. and as a mgtow, I today went back to my roots and christian upbringing for help. I remember as a kid my mom giving me bibles which i read with great excitement when I saw truth in there. one truth that has stayed with me forever all my life is that PRAYER works.

Look, i don’t know the reason, but it does. has also not worked at all. I feel like the symbol of the cross of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is a sacred icon that should not be defiled. EVER. PERIOD. I cling to the cross in times of dire need, and today for a couple hours, i had to go back to the 20th Century, get on my knees, pray to God, contact a prayer group and focus completely of the spirit of the universe. you see, all of us are just portals of thought. a lot of thoughts come out of me from many sources. it isn’t that i have a disorder, unless you consider open mindedness a mental illness.

regardless, five, count them, five major major things in my life were hanging in the balance in my life today and at one point this afternoon, things went darker than the most potentially offensive, yet obviously ludicrous in intent things posted over at the attempt at comedy thread where i mostly live now when i’m here at mgtow which strongly encourages listening to yourself over all (correct me if i’m wrong anyone).

so i got a christian prayer team involved. 30 seconds after i made the contact point, the phone rang with one problem person on the other end of the line. everything back to normal in 3 minutes. ten minutes later, a text, 2nd problem solved. five minutes after that two email situations solved. then, came on here, and my closest friends at this website were making me laugh so hard that fixed the last remaining problem when i relaxed enough to call someone and apologiz

In conclusion, ad nausem for some, and speaking for no one other than myself. Prayer still works for me. Do what works for you. Thank you everyone for letting me post. See you later.

[CPT ObviousParticipant 2781]

@ListenUp!’s post shows an obvious example that answers the question originally posed — yes you can be religious and a MGTOW.  For whatever it’s worth, I consider myself to be in that same category as well.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled debate.

"You don't know a woman till you have met her in divorce court."

[Governor Megachris%Participant 3584]

Is it possible?

Absolutely it is.  Consider me one.  A very strong Christian MGTOW.

For me, I see nothing un-Biblical about it.  In fact, wasn’t it Paul who said it was better not to marry anyway?  That guy was pretty bold on a lot of things, that being one of them.  I think he knew something a lot of people didn’t.

[Terminal MemeParticipant 57]

To Pascal in Pastels,

I think it’s cool that you like MGTOW. But I wanted you to know that I found your post extremely annoying. You cut and pasted a Sermon straight on to MGTOW.com dude. What the f~~~? The thread is about the duality of MGTOW/Christian people, not an invitation for you to dump ten paragraphs of some side project about Jesus.

What Key Master said earlier about not talking about Politics or Religion should apply doubly to you who obviously will veer off topic and start preaching all kinds of s~~~.

At least stay on topic and spare us the intricacies of your strange dogma. Jesus is not the way, my own way is the way so maybe you need to do some critical thinking about the titanic assumptions you’ve built your mind around.

 

[Governor Megachris%Participant 3584]

 

[Terminal MemeParticipant 57]

Doc, Thanks for the quote! Golden.              “It’s work’s without that assumption.” -Laplace         No doubt you’ve read that before.

[Terminal MemeParticipant 57]

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” -Hitchens     “God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.”

-Hitchens  God is not Great

A Christian MGHOW? Sure, happens all the time. Shows us that you can wise up to being a sucker in one domain but still be entirely duped in another one.

It’s been amusing for sure but there we’re only a few here that had something worthy of reading. The rest is the writing of people who’ve clearly not read much philosophy or literature on the matter. Pascal’s Gambit was the only named, but useless addition.

No mention of many pertinent topics, authors, debunked/retired Crustian apologist arguments, and philosophers to really grind in the win for atheism! Some people here really need to read more and then come back and aimlessly comment on:

Pantheism, Anthropomorphic delusion, Spinoza, Kant, Voltaire, ontological argument (defeated), intelligent design (defeated), biblical inaccuracy/immorality/contradictions/impossibilities, teapots in orbit, Chris Hitchens “God is Not Great,” Sam Harris “Freewill” “Letter to a Christian Nation” “The Moral Landscape” “The End of Faith” Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” Susan Blackmore “The Meme Machine” A discussion about Memetics or the Illusion of freewill or Determinism and it’s sociological implications seeing as it’s as proven a fact as Evolution. I could go on about what this thread is missing.

Don’t be fooled for one minute that there’s a negative that can’t be proved. We’ve already proved all the Abrahamic religions to be false- you guys just haven’t read books beyond The Wholly Babble and “A Purpose Dribble Life.” lol Don’t let the Crustians peddle the same old tired apologetic fails. I’ve watched Dinesh D’Souza and William Lane Craig excuse their ridiculous faith better y’all tried.

Apart from all scripture (Tanakh, New Testament, Koran, Hadith) being useless, edited, translations of hearsay of hearsay, of plagiarized non-events, the entirety of all religious models fail at deductive logic and reason. Their whole show has no credibility and the only way it can survive round after round of being bullied with reason through 500 years of Science beating it’s ass; it’s lost so much ground that it’s only “gawd” left standing, is so vague, indifferent and void of meaning, that it’s confused with reality itself. Pathetic piety and human vanity!

The people who don’t already know, either don’t read, don’t want to know or are too stupid to understand. The illusion of freewill; pointed out indisputably over a decade ago and re-verified since then, should have been the last hole in Faith’s ship sinky ship but the suckers are in endless supply, afraid of death, ready for bloody sacrifice and empty promises.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Terminal Meme wrote:

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” -Hitchens

What constitutes proof?  Because as far as I have observed and read that is very subjective to men who want “hard evidence.”  Better yet, what is the scientific standard for proof for these men?  Because if it is the ability to be measured, than God could not exist according to these men.  Because if he could be measured, he would be subject to human control and observation and therefore not God.  However if he can’t be measured then the first thing these scientists say is that their is no God because He cannot be measured.  So the standard is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario, which in itself is not very scientific or open minded.

That and to talk about “God” would require one to have a “definition” of what they are talking about otherwise one cannot disprove something they are not talking about.  The athiestnever offer that definition.

Terminal Meme wrote:

Religion has run out of justifications. Thanks to the telescope and the microscope, it no longer offers an explanation of anything important.”

Justify what exactly?  Giving a brief explanation to things?  Because if that is the case than science has come very short of its intended goal.  In regards to the “telescope/microscope/technology” giving us answers, they barely have.  If more than anything they gave us more questions.  Technology has helped us acquire information about the natural world, but it has not shown us what to do with that knowledge.  This is obvious because their has been more war, poverty, famine, death in the 20th century than any century prior.

Terminal Meme wrote:

Pantheism, Anthropomorphic delusion, Spinoza, Kant, Voltaire, ontological argument (defeated), intelligent design (defeated), biblical inaccuracy/immorality/contradictions/impossibilities, teapots in orbit, Chris Hitchens “God is Not Great,” Sam Harris “Freewill” “Letter to a Christian Nation” “The Moral Landscape” “The End of Faith” Richard Dawkins “The God Delusion” Susan Blackmore “The Meme Machine” A discussion about Memetics or the Illusion of freewill or Determinism and it’s sociological implications seeing as it’s as proven a fact as Evolution. I could go on about what this thread is missing.

This is a lot to argue and would take some time and space.  Also some of these points are vague.  For example, biblical inaccuracy/impossibilities/etc.  What are you pointing to exactly?  Give examples.  Also you have to point out why intelligent design and the ontological argument are “defeated”.  Also evolution is far from “proven”, in actuality it is misinterpreted or contradicts itself.

Coming in here spewing dogma without explanation might have worked in the middle ages but not here.  I can tell you lack the critical and scientific thinking, that “rational” people such as yourself pride themselves in having, because all you do is quote the thoughts of others without even a brief explaination.  So, for the sake of brevity, I will start with the last point  “The illusion of freewill and determinism”.

Here is a brief counter argument.   An illusion, by its very nature, deceives.  Deception requires a choice, either one can believe or interpret one thing in one way or another.  The fact that there is a choice requires free will.  Free will cannot be fundamentally material otherwise it would be bound by the laws of physics and cease to be “free” will.  This observation means that the material world is not the only dimension.

Terminal Meme wrote:

Don’t be fooled for one minute that there’s a negative that can’t be proved.

You cannot prove a negative, because that would fundamentally mean 1=-1 which is unmathematical and illogical.

Terminal Meme wrote:

Apart from all scripture (Tanakh, New Testament, Koran, Hadith) being useless, edited, translations of hearsay of hearsay, of plagiarized non-events, the entirety of all religious models fail at deductive logic and reason.

But that is what your authors are: “useless, edited, translations of hearsay or hearsay, of plagiarized non-events, the entirety of all [“rational” athiests] fail at deductive logic and reason.”

You know what I don’t understand?  All you atheists do is call “believers” stupid and give no explanation why.  You quote a bunch of memorized names in order to prove your “intelligence” but not one time did you explain why you thought that way or how.   You just preached a bunch of dogma and expect it to be taken on faith.  This is hypocritical.  I doubt you even understand what you are talking about.  Anyone can memorize a name, but apparently you cannot even memorize an argument.  Not once did you explain why you were right or we were wrong.  You want to explain the truth or debate it?  Fine, bring up your explanation/argument.  Just don’t be a hypocrite and preach a bunch of dogma that claims to be “rational” but is entirely dependent on faith and following a select group of people.

Let me see what you really know besides a few cheap names.  Give us your best, oh “enlightened” one that is above us believers.  Seriously, explain why you are right and we are wrong, if you are that smart.

I gave my argument in regards to the “illusion of free will/determinism”.  You can either give a retort or pick another subject entirely. Prove it man of faith, otherwise you are just another of a million lunatics screaming insults and damnation.

If this was not clear enough for you this will be:  I am challenging you to a debate.  You want to insult us fine, let me see what you got.  You pick any of the subjects you currently listed above or we can continue with the “free will/illusion/determinism” argument I refuted.

 

[Author]

Posts