Conjoint Gaming [Game On]
CG Main => Debate Forum => Topic started by: Skieski on January 28, 2010, 02:51:03 AM
-
Oh yes, I went there.
Tell me your thought´s on the matter!
Necessary? Good, bad? Expand!
-
Screw you, I so made a religion thread, spent 10 minutes typing, just to see you made one. Oh well I guess I can just paste it here...
Here we go.
So.
I don't believe in religion. I understand it's importance in the dark ages and how it came to be, seeing as the human race was primitive and feeble minded still. They couldn't understand anything and people felt that perhaps there were deities controlling the weather and whatnot. I mean when I was five years old, the belief that a god put the world here was so believable. I was always asking questions on the limits of gods power and was amazed by it. As I grew older and payed more attention at Sunday services I started asking more questions that started my doubt in the christian god I believed in so avidly up until then. At the age of thirteen I was so full of doubts I stopped believing. It wasn't until me and my friend Kiyka started talking again and got into an argument with a few Christians online two years later, that I had the new belief of atheism. When a girl about a year or two younger than me tried to explain the creation of the grand canyon and mountains/valleys with the argument that the Noah's flood created them, the argument persisted. She had never even heard of plate tectonics, because her private christian school didn't teach it to her. I mean really? All the mountains, valleys, canyons, caves and rest of the worlds topography created by a 40day flood? And there was no rain ever until that flood? How was life supported with no precipitation? Where the hell did all the water that just came out of nowhere, go? It covered the entire world then just disappeared? If the only people alive in the world were on Noah's boat, wouldn't the worlds population(5-50 people I guess) die out in the next century from inbreeding? I mean.. aifjadigajgi
Now I know that there are more enlightened Christians out there than the 14 year old girl who had an IQ of a fish, but seriously, how do people believe such silly things?
Religious Topics to be argued:
Free Will
Afterlife
Creation of the World
Existence of Jesus
How the story of Jesus is the same of other messiahs throughout time
How much war has been caused by religions
Why believe?
How do we know the people who wrote the bible weren't just hopping on the religion bandwagon and made everything up?
What the fuck is Scientology about anyway?
-
Umm im confused. Do we just give our opinions of religion in general or is there somthing more specific?
-
The problem i see a stagnate sense of stupidity towards the promises of science. Science vs Religion is more like it, I think that could be the demise of christianity, because science can either support or demolish it completely. In the case of modern day christianity, they spend more of an emphasis on the bible then actual reality, which is fine in their sensibility. However, the basis of their arguments became an actual assumption of pure belief of word for word on ancient book of stories and history. The entire belief is structured in faith, the only way you will truly be success is to have unrelenting faith. Sounds preposterous especially when science tells us otherwise so what is their to believe?
Some people put their trust in confirmed belief of others around you who strongly agree with your claim and validate your beliefs. But in retrospect this isn't belief at all, this is a naively concept that I personally have been struggling with for years. My entire perception of the religion was based on ideals of others, never the feelings of my own. This is due to my fustration and the perplexing idea that an absolute being created me to do his work. Now at the time, this made me and everyone around me feel special and right as rain... As i matured is saw the cruel underlining fact that my voice was going unanswered, i felt devoid, empty and withdrawn. How could i have spend my entire life speaking to someone who never answered or comfort me in times of distress?
I humbly came to conclusion, that i could never truly comprehend the vastness of the idea of God. As a finite being bonded to a mixture of elements how could i separate logic from spiritualism? To this day, its been a struggle tug of war between belief and doubt and the time is ticking. From the day of first belief, they institute fear of damnation one of sheer methods of compelling those to believe now so you would be spared from this ultimate fate. With these a bunch of other fear driven talks, to force you to live your life with expectation of being left behind and face Apocalypse. A convicting claim and even more obvious decision making, the magnitude of such a lifestyle is inconceivable enough. But then try to accomplish and even more near impossible duty of self purification, when in fact were are an impure being incapable of such a statue.
So until certain events depicted in the bible occur i dont think i could fully believe or even begin to understand whats going on.
-
Is religion any more silly then believing that we evolved from a small rodent millions of years ago?
-
No priest that isn't religion that is science and evolution.
-
I'm not trying to be rude but do you speak english fluently Juke?
-
Believing that we evolved from other creatures as did other animals, is way more plausible than believing we were just spawned from dust. The only thing religious people have against nonbelievers is that argument exactly. It's rather annoying really because yes. It is more believable than all the fiction packed into a novel that we wouldn't expect to see outside of a fantasy novel. If you read the same stories put in different context in a different book, and we're asked if it were fact or fiction, a person with a functioning brain would say it's fiction. When you read and understand evolution, it actually does make a lot of sense. Religious people think we we're put here for a purpose, and I think that is just silly. We weren't created, we were practically accidents. An accident in science that had positive results and was repeated. Kind of like the solar system. It wasn't made so earth would be at just the right distance from the sun to support life. It was just a really fortunate happening that resulted eventually in life. So I believe that's a gift indeed. Science put us here, not a deity who was just like "I think I'll make a universe because I'm bored doing nothing."
-
Everything is a theory. Whether it comes from the Bible or from a textbook makes no difference. These books are just ideas. Nobody really knows about our origins. But if it makes people feel better about their world to have a shared theory about existence, then who am i to say that they're wrong?
-
I'm not trying to be rude but do you speak english fluently Juke?
I wrote it kind of quickly before going to class, english is my native language i dont know where you came up with that :P
Not that it matters since this is the internet, no one has perfect english not even you :P
My ideas may be fragmented but they are clear if you analyze them and not just read them :D....soooo i do apolgzie for that statement up there.
If you believe that human beings evolved from small rodent millions of years ago that pertains to the evolutionary theory.
-
Everything is a theory. Whether it comes from the Bible or from a textbook makes no difference. These books are just ideas. Nobody really knows about our origins. But if it makes people feel better about their world to have a shared theory about existence, then who am i to say that they're wrong?
Actually the bible is valid source of history. Without the bible, fragments of the past and morals as we know it would be non existent. Everything clearly isn't theory obviously since we can validate theory from assumptions and thus make them law.
-
Certain theories are way more plausible than others, Priest.
-
I'm not trying to be rude but do you speak english fluently Juke?
I wrote it kind of quickly before going to class, english is my native language i dont know where you came up with that :P
Not that it matters since this is the internet, no one has perfect english not even you :P
My ideas may be fragmented but they are clear if you analyze them and not just read them :D....soooo i do apolgzie for that statement up there.
If you believe that human beings evolved from small rodent millions of years ago that pertains to the evolutionary theory.
Yeah i wasnt trying to be rude. It just sounded strange like English wasn't your native language.
-
I don't believe in religion. I understand it's importance in the dark ages and how it came to be, seeing as the human race was primitive and feeble minded still.
Humans were neither primitive nor feeble minded a thousand years ago. It was not as if the entire species devolved just because the Roman Empire collapsed, and Rome was an clever, enterprising, innovative civilization. So were Greece, Egypt, Carthage, China, Japan, the various Persian states, Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, India . . . and just about every other civilization before the Dark Ages. The enterprising and innovative aspects carried right the fuck over through the Dark Ages; progress was simply hampered by (and this is a gross oversimplification) a slew of political/military catastrophes beginning with and focusing on the fall of the empire that was holding together the entire known world west of the Silk Road. If the entire United States got overrun by a bunch of third world countries, would you blame the people living in following generations for stagnation in cultural, societal, and technological progress?
That's setting aside the debate of whether or not there was a definitive amount of stagnation; a huge amount of advances were made in the Middle Ages, many of them financed, planned, and led by the Church.
Which reminds me, I just love the way so many proudly iconoclastic atheists (who, frankly, are so moronic that they haven't earned the intellectual right to be as full of themselves as they are) badmouth Christianity for the Crusades while refusing to give Christianity any credit for the advances it generated throughout its history. I don't run around giving you and other atheists shit for how your brother in arms Stalin killed millions of Christians and deported fuck knows how many more. We all know Stalin's harebrained tendencies have little in common with the prevailing atheist school of thought. Same goes for Christians who have committed atrocities. And while you're at it ("you" addressing no one in particular), rudimentary study of war policies in the Middle Ages would show that many of the so-called atrocities committed in the Crusades were not atrocities at all by contemporaries' standards.
They couldn't understand anything and people felt that perhaps there were deities controlling the weather and whatnot.
Until very recently, the human species did not possessed the technology to develop many scientific theories that we find so basic. Don't get me wrong; they weren't completely helpless (Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Pythagoras, Heraclides, Aristarchus—the list goes on and on). But they simply didn't have the gadgets you need to figure out how the universe works. They needed gods to fill in the gaps. There was no other logical explanation. It's the same way with us. There are a number of aspects of the universe that we are fairly clueless about, and there are aspects that haven't even occurred to us.
The issue isn't that we can't "understand anything." It's that we just haven't found everything yet. In a couple hundred years there will be people saying that those guys in the twenty-first century "couldn't understand anything"—and they'll be full of shit.
. . . I grew older and payed more attention at Sunday services . . .
When a girl about a year or two younger than me tried to explain the creation of the grand canyon and mountains/valleys with the argument that the Noah's flood created them, the argument persisted. She had never even heard of plate tectonics, because her private christian school didn't teach it to her. I mean really? All the mountains, valleys, canyons, caves and rest of the worlds topography created by a 40day flood? And there was no rain ever until that flood? How was life supported with no precipitation? Where the hell did all the water that just came out of nowhere, go? It covered the entire world then just disappeared? If the only people alive in the world were on Noah's boat, wouldn't the worlds population(5-50 people I guess) die out in the next century from inbreeding? I mean.. aifjadigajgi
Now I know that there are more enlightened Christians out there than the 14 year old girl who had an IQ of a fish, but seriously, how do people believe such silly things?
Well, sir, if you really did pay attention to your Sunday services, you'd know Christianity—or at least, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and almost every Protestant sect—doesn't teach what that girl was arguing. There are a lot of atheists around who are so stupid they boggle my mind. I don't hold their idiocy against atheism as a whole (which I realize is largely the point of your last sentence).
-
She was trying to argue that's what she was taught. I had never heard that from the church, they tried not to touch too much on the subjects.
Regardless, I understand all of what you're saying crypto. And nor was I just speaking of christianity/cathocalism. I meant religion in general. Thank you for basically restating the second thing you quoted from me by the way, for that is what I meant.
I'll argue more later, my brain is dead atm. Bring up shit to argue about
-
wow. Just wow. chalupa, nobody has been flaming because there hasnt been a post like yours yet.
like. why do you exist.
-
rofl satan didn't make anyone do anything its sin that causes you go against God. Obviously you didn't read the good book lol. Satan can't make you do anything its free will after all that determines everything. I read this anticipating a good speech about christianity then boom it crashed horribly. Good try though thanks! :D
Here s some quote you good old christian read up
1
John 5:19 (“the whole world is under the control of
the evil one”) and Matthew 4:8, where Jesus did not
dispute Satan’s claim to the kingdoms of the earth,
how do you square that with God’s sovereignty? Satan
had to ask God’s permission to afflict Job.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God, causing them to lose dominion over the Earth to Satan. Reversing those consequences cost God the life of His Son (Romans 8:19-21) and the Book of Revelation is partly about God’s move to repossess that which He has redeemed.
-
I do believe in God and all, if not most, of the stuff in the bible
LORD God's prophecy: The people of Jerusalem will be massacred: (Ezekiel 9:4-11) "Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary."
"Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.
10
If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
11
If a man disgraces his father by lying with his father's wife, both the man and his stepmother shall be put to death; they have forfeited their lives.
12
If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death; since they have committed an abhorrent deed, they have forfeited their lives.
13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
14
If a man marries a woman and her mother also, the man and the two women as well shall be burned to death for their shameful conduct, so that such shamefulness may not be found among you.
1. In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.
2. In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn.
3. In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
4. In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.
5. In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.
6. In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them.
Source: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=682 (http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=682)
I suggest changing the statement to "I believe in the bible, excluding quite a few passages from the Old Testament"
-
From Douglas Adams "The Restaraunt at the End of the Universe"
Hesitantly, Arthur picked up one of those things that looked like pears.
“I always thought that about the Garden of Eden story,” said Ford.
“Eh?”
“Garden of Eden. Tree. Apple. That bit, remember?”
“Yes of course I do.”
“Your God person puts an apple tree in the middle of a garden and says do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise, surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting`Gotcha’. It wouldn’t have made any difference if they hadn’t eaten it.”
“Why not?”
“Because if you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Never mind, eat the fruit.”
-
W h a t t h e F u c k
-
"Why does God let people die?" God was kind enough to give us free will and because of that Satan is able to influence and change people and other organisms.
Oh so people die because satan changes people? And he causes other animals to kill one another?
So you're saying it's not a primal instinct to eat to live that causes them/us to eat other organisms, but it's the devils work?
So if there was no sin, we would all starve and die, correct?
Now you may wonder what I mean by influence and change other organisms, well, you know that animals kill other animals right? As well as bacteria and viruses (their organisms if you didn't know, just in case) Well, because God gave everyone free will, including organisms, Satan was able to make certain animals, bacteria, and virus have a natural instinct to kill other organisms and act more self centered.
Virus's aren't currently depicted as living organisms actually. And once again, so you're saying satan influences bacteria and animals to have a natural instinct to kill? Please elaborate and make what you said make sense. Because so far, it doesn't make any.
He was also able to make certain plants poisonous to us, and make us feel pain.
Right. Pain is the devil's work. You spearheaded it. Poisonous plant's? Devils work. Burger King? The Devil. Fat people? The devil. Human existence? The Devil.
Damnit this is exactly why I hate having Insomnia and only getting about a hour of sleep, I take sleeping pills but they don't work well and I feel weird after I take them, I don't think at all and I constantly swear, which is obviously does not make it a good day at school or when I am talking to someone. I was half asleep when I wrote that and I still am because I wrote that like, 30 minutes ago. Arrgh motherfucker I can't believe I wrote that and I propblay won't remember why I am writing this statment thinymabob and I am jsut kind of rambleing on here and I really want to go to sleep but I can't so I think I should just stop rambling on before I make myself look like a bigger idiot and I don't fucking... ahhh fuck I forgot was I was rambleing on about, anyway I am really fucking tired right know and I think I just repeated myself and I'm suprised I am able to spell most things well, I think... anyway I'm done writing and... damnit I need to get more sleep, fucking weak sleeping pills. I think I took more than the recommended dose and I'm still awake, I feel really weird right now and I am rambling on so I am ending this post. MOTHER FUCKERS!
Excuses imo.
Unless you take serious drugs that make you hallucinate and shit. There is no excuse. I don't think one can truly make that kind of shit up that you wrote, you had to of believed it somewhat.
We'll forgive you if you drop your religious beliefs and give us 20 bucks though.
Each.
-
R O F L
this concludes it...
-
Yeah this is why you don't talk about religion or politics on the internet.
It devolves into a bitchfest
-
rofl satan didn't make anyone do anything its sin that causes you go against God. Obviously you didn't read the good book lol. Satan can't make you do anything its free will after all that determines everything. I read this anticipating a good speech about christianity then boom it crashed horribly. Good try though thanks! :D
(still tired and feeling weird because of sleeping pills as I am typing this, hopefully it wont sound stupid) Ummm, *in a sarcastic voice* Thanks for respecting my opinion and not being a dick face about it, well I guess I should take the blame for writing that, note to self, don't talk about religion when really fucking tired and after taking to much weak sleeping pills then feeling weird afterwards. Man I should stop taking those, obviously taking more just makes it worse.
Here s some quote you good old christian read up
1
John 5:19 (“the whole world is under the control of
the evil one”) and Matthew 4:8, where Jesus did not
dispute Satan’s claim to the kingdoms of the earth,
how do you square that with God’s sovereignty? Satan
had to ask God’s permission to afflict Job.
Adam and Eve disobeyed God, causing them to lose dominion over the Earth to Satan. Reversing those consequences cost God the life of His Son (Romans 8:19-21) and the Book of Revelation is partly about God’s move to repossess that which He has redeemed.
....
Try writing something without using the f word lol. You sound uhhh less christian bro. Then try uhh going to bible school :D or don't post on internet post either like chris said either other is fine xD
-
I'm pretty sure those verses aren't being literal but ok chalupa. You believe what you want. I suggest you stay out of this thread though.
You're a fire hazard.
-
lmao
-
I'm tolerant to people's opinions. I'm not tolerant to nonsense. If someone told me they believed a giant shoe created the world, I would tell them their ideals are fucking stupid. Just in case they didn't know.
Seriously dude. Just stop. Get some sleep or something, you aren't helping at all.
-
@chapule
lol what are you talking about man, first off you are not knowledgable of the bible at all, secondly we did respect your viewpoint but the viewpoint was absolutely wrong contrary to the very thing you were defending(the bible), thirdly you obviously are the only one who can't handle correction nor be the "christian" your supposed to and drop f bombs like firecrackers. Lastly the more you post here the more you open yourself to a gigantic swarm of opinionated criticism for your demise. We did asked you nicely to leave lol.
-
I have everything chalupa said saved to my hard drive for later lulz.
-
Deleting it doesn't help bro cause well, we got the epic power of quotes!
Nice try tho :D
-
Truthfully, I've had no idea what I have been talking about this hole time, when I see a topic about religion I turn into a idiot, religion is not my best subject in, actually its my worst subject, I was going to type something that would make me look like a bigger dumb ass but I saw it coming, I'm getting better at doing that, ^^.
I have everything chalupa said saved to my hard drive for later lulz.
I do too, this conversation is possible internet gold, you never know ^^.
I'm avoiding this thread from now on... and try to get better sleep.
-
'at a boy
-
(http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz311/garretdrees/motivator6985c517ed038fe8db1dc41e86.jpg)
like my poster? Last and final post on this thread
-
W h a t t h e F u c k
Come on. I said I had just finished reading the entire Hitchikers Guide series. And it seemed relevant. LOL
-
W h a t t h e F u c k
Come on. I said I had just finished reading the entire Hitchikers Guide series. And it seemed relevant. LOL
I was actually referring to Chalupa´s post. When he deleted it, it seemed like I was staring jaw open at your post lol
I loved the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy quote xD
-
. If someone told me they believed a giant shoe created the world, I would tell them their ideals are fucking stupid. Just in case they didn't know.
WTF PILLZ BRO THIS IS NOT KEWL THIS IS AGAINST MY RELIGION
OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)
which has some history about pirates and shit
anyways they tried to argue their ways into teaching their religion in school and the whole thing is a giant prank basically that has tricked followers into believing and i think it goes to show ppl can be easily manipulated
-
It's just as believable as scientology imo.
-
Dude i love scientology. It's hilarious. Their creation story and their Original Sin story always crack me up. Atom bombs exploding in volcanoes. Aliens riding around the galaxy in 747 jets. And alien parasites living inside your soul. Lol. If Michael Bay directed a movie based off this, I'd go see it.
-
Here's my general "fuck you" post, where I just spew out my ideals and opinion on the topic completely irrelevant as to where the conversation is because the thread is tl;dr.
There has not been a single thing on this fucking planet that has killed more people than Religion. Religion is for people who can't rely on themselves and thusly have to believe that some higher power will make everything better. There is nothing beyond this as there was nothing before this. Shit just happened to go right in an odd sense. You should make the most of the time you have here and just fuck all the guidelines that religion puts forth and the enemies it makes from the fanatics.
-
You may want to check out the whole Bubonic Plague thing. Or the smallpox pandemic in South America. Or the Spanish Flu in the early 1900s. All of these combined killed close to a quarter billion.
Religion has killed maybe a few million.
-
Here's my general "fuck you" post, where I just spew out my ideals and opinion on the topic completely irrelevant as to where the conversation is because the thread is tl;dr.
There has not been a single thing on this fucking planet that has killed more people than Religion. Religion is for people who can't rely on themselves and thusly have to believe that some higher power will make everything better. There is nothing beyond this as there was nothing before this. Shit just happened to go right in an odd sense. You should make the most of the time you have here and just fuck all the guidelines that religion puts forth and the enemies it makes from the fanatics.
I'm glad this merely opinion and no facts. Pathologically religion has been known to do both generic good then bad throughout history. It's a simple minded attitude to attribute every natural disaster and occurrence on religion itself. People who base this argumentative excuse, generally are projecting their own undermined depravity for themselves.
Things didn't just spawn into existence and never did, matter is conserved last time i checked. Religion provides the moral fabric for societies needs without them people would be animals.
Speaking in this manner even if they are atheist is rather disturbing, since there is no actual meaningfulness to their words at all. Sorry its just unnecessary :(
-
Religion provides the moral fabric for societies needs without them people would be animals.
I digress. Yes, religion provided men with most of the morals with which society's exist. However, I believe that men would have created them without religion too. We are social creatures, its only natural that we would develop an intricate moral system to sustain a social environment.
-
We weren't always a social species, i should say it aided mankind became a more moral society.
-
We weren't always a social species, i should say it aided mankind became a more moral society.
How so?
Even as primates we joined together in packs...
-
Men didn't create all religions some were inspired by other means. Men neglected the any morals in first place so how can they miraculously create them?
-
On another note, what religion created such rules you speak of in earlier posts?
People say the 10 commandments layed down the laws we use today, but didn't they have rules like don't kill don't steal and such in other society's beforehand? One may find it easier to belief that such ideas were borrowed. Just like the story of Jesus was something that had already happened many times before in other religions...
/whistles
-
Men didn't create all religions some were inspired by other means. Men neglected the any morals in first place so how can they miraculously create them?
And you know this, how?
-
All robots go to heaven.
-
Men didn't create all religions some were inspired by other means. Men neglected the any morals in first place so how can they miraculously create them?
And you know this, how?
I don't lol thats the thing most religions are based on faith alone so your right you got me on that.
-
On another note, what religion created such rules you speak of in earlier posts?
People say the 10 commandments layed down the laws we use today, but didn't they have rules like don't kill don't steal and such in other society's beforehand? One may find it easier to belief that such ideas were borrowed. Just like the story of Jesus was something that had already happened many times before in other religions...
/whistles
They weren't borrowed, unless by borrowed you mean borrowed from themselves.
-
Okay, the laws were not borrowed. The law that means you don't kill nor steal. They were there, but expressed as laws through common sense. The ten commandments were from God not to be enforced but to be a way of living life. This was also the beatitudes were used for. A way of living life, not law.
-
It doesn't matter.
Cuz all robots go to heaven.
*THREAD LOCKED*
-
or not
-
A soul, at most, is chemical compounds stored in neurones inside the brain.
-
Epic revival!
First off @the reply to my comment
All religions are not based off of man, you nor any one knows the definite origin of any particular religion unless its completely fabrication(easily discernible as false).
@the bible comments
Yet another person basing mainly on opinion rather then facts. The bible has different versions so it is easier to read, there is no different except for language differentiations and improved dialect of word content. Your opinion does not justify or disprove of your view of religion since you are speaking of religion in general. To one specific religion, your opinion is more down to earth, religion can be easily discussed since it refers to that particular religion. The idea that of what you think the bible is or what it represents is clearly opinion, the point is know your facts. The bible is viewed more then some moral list of laws and fairy tales. Its a foreshadowing of impending events and occurrences. Think I'm wrong? Take the bible code for instance. Its like a mathematical code that deciphers almost every major event in history with a near precise timeline. Heres a excerpt from an article i read :
For example, Michael Drosnin's Bible Code volumes
of 1997 and 2002 suggest that by examining
sequences of letters—every sixteenth letter, say—in the
text of Scripture, we can discover prophecies of contemporary
events. (This idea is actually quite old; it was
practiced, for instance, in thirteenth-century Spain by
Rabbi Bachya ben Asher.) Among much else, Drosnin
discovered that the Bible Code prophesied the attacks
of September 11,2001—which would, of course, have
been much more impressive if he had discovered it
before the bombings rather than after
The significance of the bible itself is important to those or seek it or are oblivious to its wisdom. Having an opinion is one thing but having a completely wrong and unjustified one is a problem.
If these laws or morals were so important why after the first inscribing did Moses smash them when he saw gods chosen people worshiping an idol and being sinful. how can any man destroy the supposed word of god like that. It would be the equivalent to burning the bible.
If you read the bible its explained clearly. The Jews were worshipping a false idol. Moses broke the torah so that the Jews weren't condemned to death for false idol worshiping. This is symbolic martyrdom was a classic example throughout the bible of prophets sacrificing themselves to save others. Moses in turn by breaking the tablets decided he would be destroyed as well if God decided to annihilate the Jews, but God in turn forgave them.
The story of Jesus is not borrowed there are indeed many version of Jesus's(HORUS of Egypt,MITHRA, Sungod of Persia, KRISHNA of India) tale or interpretation but he differs from most because he has historical records backing him told in different views. You have to remember that although there is alot of stories in the bible that cannot be backed up with historical documents, there was actually a man named jesus who indeed was crucified because he claimed he was the messiah.
But I cannot say with any true evidence that anything in our existence is true for that matter. Our perception and knowledge is based on our minds(soul) if you want to call it that. We merely walk through our lives believing everything we see or believe to understand must exist but when you think about even color is just interpretations from our brain. How can we know something 100% if we can even trust our minds. We can only see through our perception now what is "true reality" when your mind does all of the processing can you know something, truly know something. these kinds of ideas make people want to believe that there is some all powerful being who made things in true reality and that our minds can understand it. (yes i know it sounds like a matrix paradox but Im a history major with a minor in philosophy so I have debated alot about religion e.t.c e.t.c.) so feel free to disagree or break down my post I dont mind, ill find away to cross your rebuttal.
p.s. robots dont have souls so how do they go to heaven. better yet here's something to talk what do you define as a soul. how do we determine what soul is. if its the understanding and use of emotions(thought e.t.c. e.t.c e.t.c) isn't that the brain. god gave us souls but what are souls?
This is a classic example from Russel's Problems with Philosophy.
He talks about how if a tree fell would it make a sound if no one was near it?
The answer came with complex and perplexing arguments of previous philosophy due to prove that it does make this sound. Before i venture into that void, i would summarize it in a clear and collective phrases. Human beings live their lives based on what there perceptions and experiences bring them. However Russel proved that we must understand that the color we see and the sounds we hear are interpretations made by the brain translated within our minds. Just because something we can't see doesn't exist. How do we know that theres a emperor of Japan? How can he exist if i never seen him? We learn that our perceptions not only come from personal experiences but experiences validated by others. Our relationship between apperances and reality is called sense-data. Just because you haven't seen him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Logic tells us that yes he existed, if we based all our facts on perception and knowledge we wouldn't believe anything really exists? Its logic, mathematics, wisdom(untainted knowledge) that has solved and prove most of the worlds mysteries and dilemmas.
Sparknotes:
To be acquainted with something is to be directly and immediately aware of it, without the action of an intermediary. When you sit on a red plastic chair, you become acquainted with lots of sense-data associated with that chair. You know its redness, its smoothness, its coolness, and its hardness. But to know that this thing is called a “chair” and that it’s often found in the company of other “chairs” and something called a “table” requires more than just direct, immediate acquaintance with the physical object. To know all that requires us to make inferences, based on our general knowledge of facts and on our acquaintance with other similar objects. This kind of knowledge is derivative, and Russell terms it “knowledge by description.” For instance, most of us know only by description that Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. Few of us have actually been there, so we have to rely on the testimony of others to “know” that fact. Indeed, to truly be acquainted with the fact of Everest’s superior height, one would have to visit and measure all the mountains in the world. It’s probably safe to say, then, that no one is truly acquainted with that particular piece of knowledge.
And to sum up the last portion since it does it better:
Just as we can know objects either immediately or derivatively, we can also know truths immediately or derivatively. Russell defines immediate knowledge of truths as intuitive truths. These are concepts that, to Russell, are so clearly self-evident that we just know they must be true. “1 + 1 = 2” is an example of such a self-evident truth. Derivative knowledge of truths involves deduction and inference from immediate, self-evident truths.
All knowledge is, in Russell’s view, built on acquaintance. Without knowledge by description, however, we would never pass beyond the limits of our own individual experience. Thus, just like perceptual and a priori knowledge, knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description work together to create a totality of human knowledge.
Any questions class?
Ok read chapters 3-4 for the next time!
-
The ten commandments were from God not to be enforced but to be a way of living life. This was also the beatitudes were used for. A way of living life, not law.
Right, so . . . ? They are theoretically enforced in the sense that you go to hell if you act against them too much, but they also parallel the usual "Don't murder," "Don't steal," etc., laws that had always existed in Jewish nations, among others. So, yes, they are law, practically speaking; it's just that your actions aren't rewarded or punished until you die, which makes most people—atheists as well as theists who just don't take religion too seriously—think of them as less forceful than earthly law.
I don't think I understand what you're saying. :|
-
Don't even bring that History Channel documentary bullshit in here. The bible code was disproved immediately after it was "discovered." Any book of sufficient length can be inputted into the cypher and you'll get plenty of awesome "predictions." http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm)
First off, I do agree that the bible can be a tool for improving acceptable behavior. But only in societies that have had prolonged contact with it. To say that every person in the world would benefit from following the teachings of the bible is extremely ignorant. Different cultures have different values and they may not apply to the bibles value system.
I like how you say that its okay to have an opinion as long as it's not wrong. Lol. You're either crazy or stupid.
And just because I have never seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean that he doesn't exist either. What makes your idea of a god so much better then mine?
-
Don't even bring that History Channel documentary bullshit in here. The bible code was disproved immediately after it was "discovered." Any book of sufficient length can be inputted into the cypher and you'll get plenty of awesome "predictions." http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm (http://www.nmsr.org/biblecod.htm)
First off, I do agree that the bible can be a tool for improving acceptable behavior. But only in societies that have had prolonged contact with it. To say that every person in the world would benefit from following the teachings of the bible is extremely ignorant. Different cultures have different values and they may not apply to the bibles value system.
I like how you say that its okay to have an opinion as long as it's not wrong. Lol. You're either crazy or stupid.
And just because I have never seen a Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean that he doesn't exist either. What makes your idea of a god so much better then mine?
What i meant when i said that you can have a opinion as long as its not plainly false. What it means is simply a nice way of saying i respect your opinion without prejudice as long as it isn't so offensive and wrong that i would prevent me from excepting it. Why is that a problem to you whether or not i respect someones opinion? Are you crazy or stupid because clearly you are by saying that someones opinion is subjective not objective?
Why can't a bring history into this, no history no reason to talk about this at all. I probable shot the gun with the bible code thing but don't be rude enough to say i can't put a little skepticism into it.
Have you even read anything i put down? Clearly you didn't Russel pointed out that we can can't clearly dispute what is real or illusion because we aren't acquainted with everything. Read what it says ffs. Its so clear and basic, i thought you would at least spotted it immediately. There is no idea I'm presenting of God. I never said anything of the sort. I used a valid source to support my statements. Thats all. Yet you attack me for having a opinion and attack others because there opinions don't align with yours. That is a clear indication of someone who only values themselves and not others. My comments were merely to educate myself and others.
To be acquainted with something is to be directly and immediately aware of it, without the action of an intermediary. When you sit on a red plastic chair, you become acquainted with lots of sense-data associated with that chair. You know its redness, its smoothness, its coolness, and its hardness. But to know that this thing is called a “chair” and that it’s often found in the company of other “chairs” and something called a “table” requires more than just direct, immediate acquaintance with the physical object. To know all that requires us to make inferences, based on our general knowledge of facts and on our acquaintance with other similar objects. This kind of knowledge is derivative, and Russell terms it “knowledge by description.” For instance, most of us know only by description that Everest is the tallest mountain in the world. Few of us have actually been there, so we have to rely on the testimony of others to “know” that fact. Indeed, to truly be acquainted with the fact of Everest’s superior height, one would have to visit and measure all the mountains in the world. It’s probably safe to say, then, that no one is truly acquainted with that particular piece of knowledge.
-
Ok now that I'm home(finally) and my computer just fucked me over by startup reparing a non-existent problem...I can refocus a bit. First off if anything i said offended you let me take this time to apologize because I myself am not perfect and i have made some mistakes. So don't view me as a crazy person for having a opinion. Generally speaking the comment about whether a opinion is at least listenable as long as its true was a statement to allow everyone to have a voice. If i would go as far to be tyrannical douchebag i would object to every comment posted in forum. Considering this isn't a official debate website, why take it that serious. Realistically you don't take opinion for its validity since anything can be viewed to be arbitrary . I started at that particular phrase to develop my argument in the simplest form. I built up from that moment to elaborate further.
If it offended you again I apologize. However I won't apologize for plain ignorance and obviousness for reading information that i kindly provide to support my claim. It makes the conversation move more smoothly and makes everything more clear. Plus I don't like going back and forth about the same topic over and over when i even when out of the way to show you the facts. Facts are legit reprehensible knowledge that are undeniable tools to confirm validity.
Human knowledge is composed of two things: acquaintance (*Things we are directly acquainted with experiences, process, etc) and descriptions (details about or relating to an object or thing). These work together to prove that lets say everst exists, we use our logics, common sense, and intrincistic knowledge to disprove something irrational as a spaghetti monster since it doesn't exist or at least no one has seen it(sounds stupid but that it makes perfect sense) No one is directly acquainted with everything thus you can disprove or prove something exists.
There i said it are we done? Lets get back to life.
-
Thank you. Healthy skepticism. That's all I really wanted.
-
YAY :D
-
*thread fixed* im done with the rage wars, I apologize juke for getting out of hand and to everyone else on the server
-
Can someone explain to me what Rastafarianism is?
-
Well thb I don't believe in any gods, but I think the idea of religion is good. It can rebirth inspiration and confidence in a person and sometimes fear. With the fear of going to hell I believe the crime rate would drop and for confidence and inspiration just read around a bit maybe the bible?
-
I am against religion to be honest i have even had arguments at school with other people (religious and no religious) about this very subject and even in lessons and i always end up coming up top with my point that religion did help man kind evolve but is rather stupid and silly now that we can explain a lot better of how the universe began and how we evolved.
Wasting time on unanswered prayers and spending time and energy doing things that will not help you or others seems a little pointless.
(And on i go)
Now when it comes to god i as well find it very hard to accept that someone just thought "i am bored lets make a world" and that people seem to think that he in some way had to be like a human and not a flying spaghetti monster. If someone can bring me cold hard facts that he existed and that he made the world then i will accept it. The same goes for Jesus since there are no other sources of information on this subject other then the bible and that regards him too highly to be trustworthy. Why i do not believe in the bible thats simple i can explain it with an example.
There are 2 men in a room. The first one is me and the second one is a random person. I just go mad or for some other reason i kill him, lets say that i did so by shooting him and then picking up the gun and the bullet i shot and hiding them. Then i will write a book of how he disagreed with me and my God and then God in all his shine came down into the room and shot a blast of light trough the other guys chest killing him. Then i leave the room show the book to everyone and there you have the holy proof of god.
-Thank you for reading this have a nice day and feel free to reply back.
-
Rereading this thread is very funny because I just went atheist yesterday.
-
I am a Christian. I personally believe in God and such things. Sure there is science but what brings people together as humans is religion, not so much common interests.
-
Who's seen Bill Maher's Religulous?
-
I have, and I've found that even though my beliefs in a higher being (what others might perceive as a god) is little to none, I do not like to be considered a Atheist.
My reason being is for the pure reason that one summer when I was sixteen, I entered a conversation with a older co-worker about her being a Atheist. The sophist in me was already flooding to the surface.
I questioned her about it and was shocked to find out some Atheists actually meet in groups........... Sometimes even in a building................. Sometimes on sundays....................LOL mainly because its the one day a lot of people have off I guess she said.
So to avoid being a Religion of non-believers I choose to be a Non-affiliated Observer or perhaps a Curious mind. My scientific rationale overwhelms me too much to ever consider the real possibility of a higher power.
Let's just say I have more faith in Stephen Hawking, hell I'll even buy the alien shit he just crapped out of his super huge brain. Why? because there is a method of sanity that goes along with it.
Who's seen Bill Maher's Religulous?
I own it :)
-
So in some terms you would be Agnostic?
-
No thats more of a skeptic, and they are usually still some type of believer. I have never been baptized, nor ever a member of a church. I was born into a world where I discovered religion of many different cultures on my own. Actually I started reading Philosophy before I ever read the bible.
I am a observer to this religious conflict between sects and believers. Even defected believers could be considered Agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>
— ag·nos·ti·cism \-t?-?si-z?m\ noun
It's not even so much that I question it, because I'd have to of actually believed in the start. Really I'm taking an objective approach. My stance is, prove it to me first and if it's true I'll believe it.
It's just scientifically I couldn't accept the thought of no higher forms of intelligence. By that I don't really even mean GOD.
But it would be dumb to assume we are alone in this vast universe of space, but to believe there is some figure hovering above us. Watching his creations go through torture and pain for a little bit of happiness ? No I think not.
My commitment is to life itself. Add up the amount of hours your people speak to their imaginary people, and you'll realized all those hours in prayer and church, and groups add up to quite a bit of time spent.
Then add the 5-8 hours of sleep most people get a day, and your life is short usually by at least 10-11 years if I remember correctly. I'll edit this and add it up later I'm tired now.
1. Nothing is true without scientific proof.
1- A.There is no scientific proof that the magical fairy god exists, regardless of what you say about his lackey's and their epic shroom adventures here on earth.
2. Explain the dinosaurs, no one can
Did god also create all these other sustainable planets found on the other end of the universe? if so he should incorporate.
I find it all too amusing what people believe, but religion has done wonders for others, so I will never knock it like the Atheists might. They commit to the idea of there being absolutely no god. (So even if you said see here scientific proof - there is none- but if there actually was they'd reject it still) I guess kind of like how religious people refuse to accept many aspects of science.
I'm at least open to theories, even if i think your a nutbag, at least I listened. Because everyone deserves to believe in what they want. You respect my belief to analyze your beliefs and study them from an outside perspective, great!
Because I have no problem with holy rollers, just don't knock on my door, don't sell me anything, know your faith better than me, and don't be a hypocrite (too bad that's impossible for most people who claim to be Christian).
So for those truly devoted few, I respect and honor your beliefs because it's important to you.
To all you, 50/50 believers, hey you heard the words of god, you've read Jesus's words I'm sure. You are no longer innocent after hearing the word of god, if your faith is true, and you believe, know that if you do not heed the warning of your idols that you will suffer because of it. So don't turn your back unless you are def sure. Because he takes children and dumb people who have never been subjected to religion, but once that ignorance is gone you need to make a choice.
So says the "book" by the way.
Good luck with that.
-
god.... WHY PENGUIN .... WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
-
Woah Crypto, why'd you go atheist?
-
Woah Crypto, why'd you go atheist?
He must of read the latest announcements here!
-
Global: You have to read Ayn Rand, if you have not already.
Crypto: FUCK YEAH.
-
Well, agnosticism, not atheism, but I guess with a slightly atheist default.
This, more or less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism.)
@Pillz, there too many religious stances I couldn't reconcile with my own stances. I don't think life is about taking a side and then mindlessly following that side's doctrine; I think it's about taking a side while retaining a fully functional brain.
-
Iam an Athiëst altho i believe in aliens ;)
-
Snarf snarf.
-
The most common problem for believers to stumble upon is the "Problem of Evil", found some examples of it online:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Or:
1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)
-
I don't think evil exists any more then good does.
-
I don't think evil exists any more then good does.
Good exists, there are many nice people
-
What ever happened to yin and yang and the balance between good and evil, and the whole lucifier is a fallen angel of god? so technically it's all god's divine plan?
Not enemies but rather partners playing chess moving the pawns and the world is what they are actually playing against? (free will) So according to that book thing evil and good can exist.
-
"Good" is just socially accepted behavior. And every society has their own moral codes. Do you think that someone who has another set of beliefs in another society is evil? Simply because their morality does not correlate with yours?
-
Some values overlap across many, many societies. Please don't spew relativist garbage.
-
Some. But not all.
-
"Good" is just socially accepted behavior. And every society has their own moral codes. Do you think that someone who has another set of beliefs in another society is evil? Simply because their morality does not correlate with yours?
"The absolute good is not a matter of opinion but of nature.--Cicero"
-
crpto goes both ways................. *pause for a few seconds .........with religion
-
The most common problem for believers to stumble upon is the "Problem of Evil", found some examples of it online:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Or:
1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)
I just want to say, that kind of conclusion didn't match for me. There is no point where it will say that your perfectly good being WILL prevent the evil, it is only assuming that the deity will follow those circumstances.
And, if an all powerful 'good' god does exist, then wouldn't you assume than an evil god does not? Rather than evil itself, for the matter.
From that, you have to assume all types of "good" for behavior, I'll say. Although there may be evil, the good god assuming,w ill be merciful, the good god will not do things to hamper his creation, will not destroy like an 'evil god."
But. if you really want to cheese this, you can just read parts of the old testament, where, is very generally summarized earlier in the post; there is judgement, condemnation, etc. So the logically conclusion isn't needed to begin with with the logical analysis of what has occurred, if you really want to look at the bible.
By the way, I'm not trying to be an asshole, I'm just looking at it from another standpoint.
And much love to everyone.
The Dead Sea Scrolls also have some information during the era that you would say Jesus was living.
And also, science has killed, maimed, tortured, ruined, hampered many more lives than religion could ever hope to do.
My 2 cents.
-
Science has also saved more.
-
What i THink is why does everyone make a big deal about religion. Why does everyone have to kill each other over what religion they are. Well anyways i think that everyone should not make fun of a persons religion and be friends with them .....XP
Hmm i sould like a hippie for some reason XP......not a hippie
-
The most common problem for believers to stumble upon is the "Problem of Evil", found some examples of it online:
1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
Or:
1. God exists.
2. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
3. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
4. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
5. An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
6. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
7. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
8. Evil exists (logical contradiction)
I just want to say, that kind of conclusion didn't match for me. There is no point where it will say that your perfectly good being WILL prevent the evil, it is only assuming that the deity will follow those circumstances.
And, if an all powerful 'good' god does exist, then wouldn't you assume than an evil god does not? Rather than evil itself, for the matter.
It´s only logical Simplex. If a good God exists, then it wants to prevent evil. If it wants to prevent evil, and knows how, then this being would indeed prevent it. God does not prevent evil, because evil exists, therefore, he must lack one of the following characteristics, if he exists:
*Omniscient
*Omnipotent
*Perfectly Good
And no, I do not see why an Evil God should exist as the counterpart of the Good God. Why? Because the GOOD GOD created the Universe, not Satan. So, theoretically, if he had known of another Evil God that would inflict pain and misery in our lives, he wouldn´t have created us in the first place.
And also, science has killed, maimed, tortured, ruined, hampered many more lives than religion could ever hope to do.
I completely disagree. Please try to support this statement with evidence.
-
skieski he is refering to science creating shit as the atom bomb...
which is simple to say no to though, because science did not choose to use the atom bomb for evil, people did.... as for dynamite several religious extremeist are behind many of the deaths caused by what you call science =)
that's it, i'm out
-
That kind of modern science has only been around for a few hundred years. Religion has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. I think the killing done by Religion over time may just be greater. But that's just speculation.
I just wish religion was dropped around the world altogether. People could spend more time trying to progress forwards instead of dwelling upon this illogical nonsense. I don't think there would be a drastic change if people did so, but I think things may be better. Then again they may not. Without people thinking they need to be good to get into heaven, there may be an uprising of "evil" and crime. Like there has been over the years.
Hmm.
-
Only thing i'd wish to see is a world without the stupid phrase, who cares about school or science, none of that will matter when you are in heaven or hell anyways.
-
Ah, yes. People try so hard to prove things that don't matter. Let people live their lives how they want. In Heaven or Hell it won't matter as Jorgen said. Religion helps bring people together and can comfort others. At the moment in my life I really am starting to look towards Religion more than I ever have. I have lied and faked many things for the past couple months. Within those months I have had my life come crashing down due to things turning around on me. Now, I am working on making things better. Well I guess I'm going a little off topic here. Anyways point is, let people believe what they want for help. Beliefs and strong will is what makes people who they are.
-
But it all goes down when beliefs interfere with our lives...Which tends to happen an awfully lot.
-
i think you guys have a lot to learn from a certain song, that i don't know if i should post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovMN-eGUn_A
not to be taken racist
-
I love debating religion!! yay!
*ahem*
The one thing I cannot stand is when people say "religion." It is NOT all the same. Thus it cannot all be grouped together. If you are going to talk about religion, talk about a specific religion. That is like grouping monkeys and catapillars, sure they both are living beings but they are completely differant. Also, don't use a "monkey" example to argue against "catapillars." (For those who are slow, you cannot make a valid point against Christianity causing misery by saying some Muslims kill people for their religion)
With that cleared up,
Well since Atheists are allowed to try to argue against religion, it is only fair that I, as a Non-Denom Christian, may do the same to Atheist. If you are going to say I am going off topic, then I will logically justify myself right now.
Just like Buddhist, Atheist lack a god/creator and follow a common belief (No, Buddha isn't a diety, he was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who founded the idea of Buddism.) Buddhism is still grouped as religion, so atheism can be too.
As far as atheism is concerned, I've seen nothing but negativity from the belief. The word "atheist" used to be an insult in the mid 17th century. I really think that meaning should come back. Atheist are easily comparable to modern day racists. They have nothing better to do than offend religious beliefs all around the world. I've seen atheist tear up bibles and other christian symbols. I think atheism should be considered a hate crime. In Sweden and Norway atheists burned down churches. I do no see where they have the right to try to talk about religion being violent when they have commited such offensive and violents acts. They are a bunch of hypocrites. At least Christianity and other religions help people more than hurt them.
-
lol ill debate on anything HOLY :D and i bet ill WIN!!!! LMAO
-
Hmmm, I see what Holy is getting at.
Saying Atheism isn't hateful towards other religions is like racism almost?
I dunno, I thought I had it for a second there.
-
Dude im not an atheist nor an agnostic I just live my life and let all the jihad holy rollers kill each other . ENJOY!
-
/End Trolling
-
Welcome to the forum, Holy. That was one of the worst informed posts I've seen in this thread.
Just like Buddhist, Atheist lack a god/creator and follow a common belief (No, Buddha isn't a diety, he was a man named Siddhartha Gautama who founded the idea of Buddism.) Buddhism is still grouped as religion, so atheism can be too.
Religion is worship of a deity. Atheism is defined as rejecting worship of a deity. Atheism is not a religion.
As far as atheism is concerned, I've seen nothing but negativity from the belief. The word "atheist" used to be an insult in the mid 17th century.
Autocracy, rigid social hierarchies, slavery and slave trade, preindustrial squalor, colonial atrocities, innumerable scientific misconceptions, and plenty of other super awesome things also existed in the seventeenth century. I might also say that Christians were thought to be total clown heads and were crucified and fed to the lions in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. That doesn't make those actions correct.
I really think that meaning should come back. Atheist are easily comparable to modern day racists.
Lol, no.
They have nothing better to do than offend religious beliefs all around the world.
You're right. Benjamin Franklin, Steven Pinker, Julius Axelrod, William Bateson, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, Julian Huxley, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, Joseph Weber, James D. Watson—those guys have done nothing other than offend religious beliefs all around the world.
I've seen atheist tear up bibles and other christian symbols.
Christians have waged holy wars, orchestrated lynchings, resisted scientific and social progress, etc. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is also the top charity organization in the world. Don't generalize.
I think atheism should be considered a hate crime.
There's nothing hateful about not believing in God.
In Sweden and Norway atheists burned down churches.
How many atheists were involved in that? What percentage of the global population of atheists do they make up? Crusades, religion's vital role in modern terrorism, mumble, mumble, mumble.
At least Christianity and other religions help people more than hurt them.
That may or may not be true. Regardless, I challenge you to visit the Vatican, look at the gilded churches, shrines, etc., and ask yourself whether or not all the money spent on pretty buildings like that might've been better off going to feed some starving African villages.
-
I love you Crypto. I completely skipped Holy's post but ended up reading it anyway when I read your post. :) Good job! For that post, I'll make you two sandwiches! :D
-
Thank you for the welcome, I look forward to debating with you.. Now this is where you're wrong. ^_^
Religion is worship of a deity. Atheism is defined as rejecting worship of a deity. Atheism is not a religion.
Buddhist do not worship a diety either. If you read in my post, Buddha is not considered a diety. Yet people consider buddhism a religion when all it is is a common practice of beliefs, just like atheism. Atheism believes such things as that government and religion should be seperate.
Autocracy, rigid social hierarchies, slavery and slave trade, preindustrial squalor, colonial atrocities, innumerable scientific misconceptions, and plenty of other super awesome things also existed in the seventeenth century. I might also say that Christians were thought to be total clown heads and were crucified and fed to the lions in the first, second, third, and fourth centuries. That doesn't make those actions correct.
If you are saying those actions were 'incorrect' as a person looking at them from the present. What's to say that, theoretically, a person from the future wouldn't look back at what you are saying now is incorrect too? Time has nothing to do if an action is correct or not. Popular belief does that. Even then, popular belief doesn't make something right or wrong either. In reality, there cannot be a human made right or wrong, because humans are ignorant and flawed. That's why only God's definition is acceptable. That is one reason why religion is very well needed in the lives of people, including government.
Lol, no.
That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.
You're right. Benjamin Franklin, Steven Pinker, Julius Axelrod, William Bateson, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Sigmund Freud, Stephen Jay Gould, Julian Huxley, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, Joseph Weber, James D. Watson—those guys have done nothing other than offend religious beliefs all around the world.
You have a point in that they accomplished something, there is no denying that. Hell, even I can pull out some great Christians who contributed to humanity. Naming popular people doesn't help your arguement at all. Also, you've named a lot of, to my knowledge, dead people. I believe you said a comment disreguarding the past.. yet you argue with the past. I find that to be a hypocritical arguement. To clear things up, my statement was directed to the average modern day atheists.
Christians have waged holy wars, orchestrated lynchings, resisted scientific and social progress, etc. On the other hand, the Catholic Church is also the top charity organization in the world. Don't generalize.
Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake. Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.' I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.
There's nothing hateful about not believing in God.
There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.
How many atheists were involved in that? What percentage of the global population of atheists do they make up? Crusades, religion's vital role in modern terrorism, mumble, mumble, mumble.
If you do your research, around 80% of Sweden is atheist. Crusades were Catholics, not all religions. "Don't generalize."
That may or may not be true. Regardless, I challenge you to visit the Vatican, look at the gilded churches, shrines, etc., and ask yourself whether or not all the money spent on pretty buildings like that might've been better off going to feed some starving African villages.
1) Starving children in Africa was not a trendy issue back when most of those buildings were made. Now if that were a proper arguement which addressed the present church with the present issues instead of the past churche with the present issues. Then I would tell you that there are plenty of mission trips to Africa as well as around the world that feed those kids, build them shelter and churches (for the people,) give them clean water and clothing.
2) Look at all the money the government takes from people just to go to war and hurt people when it could be used to 'feed some starving African villages.' Corruption (which is what I believe you were aiming at with the arguement, disreguard this if I am wrong) is everywhere, not just the Catholic church. When you give an decietful and untrustworthy person power, they will abuse it.
3) To say that spending money on a church is a waste of money (if you implying that) is an insult. It just goes to show the discrimination atheists display. You can build a skyscrapper in New York which costs more than churches, that isn't a problem. When you make a church for worship, then the problem begins?
4) I honestly don't blame people for wanting a nice church to worship in. Churches are for the public. I believe they should be nice and should be a tribute to God. If you were of a faith, would you not want to worship in a nice looking place instead of a torn down shack? I'd say making nice looking churches isn't selfish at all, the church should be able to treat itself to be more appealing for the people who follow it.
-
That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.
Religion is something you are in control of changing, race isn't. If discriminating against race was illegal, discriminating against who you voted for on American Idol could be too.
There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.
I will agree with that, but when sharing my beliefs with Christians, I sometimes find them getting very angry at me for not believing in God. I don't know if they hate me, but they almost look down at me for not believing, which I will admit, causes some anger on my part.
I usually don't find myself slandering and hating people who believe in God. I do wish we shared the same beliefs but I know that isn't my decision, and just try to stay off the subject. It's not like I find someone who believes in God and persecute them for it, by beating them to death or whatnot. There is hate on both sides, you can't pin it on one side or the other.
Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake. Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.' I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.
Once again, there are religious people who are the same way. I think we can split these people you speak of, and the religious people I am thinking of, into a single group. Let's call it ignorant people. Even though we are all ignorant on our own levels, some people tend to be seriously ignorant when it comes to religion. They usually know hardly anything about what they believe, and fight for it. Like when a Christian hears you're an Atheist, and just keeps yelling at you angrily how you're going to hell, or when an atheist encounters a Christian or, anything for this matter, Scientoligist, Jew, Muslim, whatever, and calls them an idiot for what they believe.
So like I said, this shit happens on both sides of the argument. Trying to pin it one side of the argument is pointless.
-
Buddhist do not worship a diety either. If you read in my post, Buddha is not considered a diety. Yet people consider buddhism a religion when all it is is a common practice of beliefs, just like atheism. Atheism believes such things as that government and religion should be seperate.
Mahayana Buddhists consider the Buddha a deity. Pali Buddhists do not. You are treating philosophy as a subset of religion, which is not the case. Just because you have some philosophical conviction or other doesn't mean you're religious.
If you are saying those actions were 'incorrect' as a person looking at them from the present. What's to say that, theoretically, a person from the future wouldn't look back at what you are saying now is incorrect too?
Nothing, but that's an impractical argument because (1) anyone could say it in response to any opposing stance, (2) neither of us is from the future, and (3) scientific and technological advances are occurring exponentially faster than they were at that point in time.
Time has nothing to do if an action is correct or not.
Which was my point.
Popular belief does that.
You are condoning cultural relativism, which is sad. It's also hypocritical of you, since atheism is itself popular belief and you are condemning atheism.
Even then, popular belief doesn't make something right or wrong either.
What was the point of the prior sentence again?
In reality, there cannot be a human made right or wrong, because humans are ignorant and flawed. That's why only God's definition is acceptable. That is one reason why religion is very well needed in the lives of people, including government.
That is a circular argument. It assumes God's existence. We do not assume God's existence, so you are not arguing on the same plane of logic as us. Humans are made neither right nor wrong because existence precedes essence. It's impossible to have a objective philosophical truth set in stone prior to existence, because without existence there would be no literal boundaries in which to cast those truths. We come into existence, and then we define for ourselves right and wrong. Our stances are inherently subjective (and therefore arguably flawed), but there's nothing we can do about it. And that doesn't necessarily invalidate them.
That, hands down, is the worst counter-arguement I have ever seen. If it is a crime to discriminate against someone for race, it should be a crime to discriminate against anything, including religion.
I hate to smash my head through the wall of your ignorance, but atheism does not by any stretch of its definition indoctrinate discrimination toward believers.
Hell, even I can pull out some great Christians who contributed to humanity.
Of course.
Naming popular people doesn't help your arguement at all. Also, you've named a lot of, to my knowledge, dead people.
Some people who have been dead for centuries, some who have been dead for decades, some who have been dead for less than a decade, and some who are still alive.
I believe you said a comment disreguarding the past.. yet you argue with the past.
No. I am demonstrating that throughout history there has been a huge number of advances made by atheist intelligentsia. You were just throwing out the idea that atheism was once considered a derogatory term and implying that as a result atheists are wrong. That's like condemning blacks because the word Negro has been ascribed derogatorily to them.
Don't generalize? Is that a joke. That is what a majority of atheists do. They general all religions by grouping together and then blame them all for one's mistake.
I question use of "most" in that sentence. Regardless, you are making an irrelevant ad hom attack. I wouldn't be surprised if most religious people generally discriminated against atheists. My point was that both theists and atheists have done plenty of awful things. You should focus primarily on the principles, not on the people, though I admit the crimes of the people should play some role in your judgment since those crimes are sometimes the practical result of the principles.
Besides, what I said was not a generalization, 'I've seen atheists' was not written as 'All atheists.'
Thank you for conceding the petty and meaningless nature of your attack.
I did not say every atheist does that, however there are a hand full that do. I am simply turning the tables on how atheists commonly argue against religion and redirecting it to atheism to mabye open their eyes in that most of atheist arguements are horribly composed.
Most religious arguments are horribly composed, etc.
There is, however, hatefulness in how most atheist slander and disrespect religion.
Again with "most." I'd like to see some statistical evidence. I could say there is hatefulness in how most theists slander and disrespect atheism.
If you do your research, around 80% of Sweden is atheist. Crusades were Catholics, not all religions. "Don't generalize."
The Crusades were instigated by Catholics and involved heretical Christians, the Greek Orthodox Church, Islam, and various pagan groups. Modern terrorism is primarily an Islamic product. I was pointing out how atheists were involved in neither of those projects.
1) Starving children in Africa was not a trendy issue back when most of those buildings were made. Now if that were a proper arguement which addressed the present church with the present issues instead of the past churche with the present issues. Then I would tell you that there are plenty of mission trips to Africa as well as around the world that feed those kids, build them shelter and churches (for the people,) give them clean water and clothing.
So tear down some superfluous religious structures and use the resources to supply starving children in Africa.
2) Look at all the money the government takes from people just to go to war and hurt people when it could be used to 'feed some starving African villages.' Corruption (which is what I believe you were aiming at with the arguement, disreguard this if I am wrong) is everywhere, not just the Catholic church. When you give an decietful and untrustworthy person power, they will abuse it.
I agree. But just because corruption is everywhere doesn't mean you should cut the Church, or any other institution, slack.
3) To say that spending money on a church is a waste of money (if you implying that) is an insult. It just goes to show the discrimination atheists display. You can build a skyscrapper in New York which costs more than churches, that isn't a problem. When you make a church for worship, then the problem begins?
You're an idiot. Now I am discriminating. I do discriminate against idiots. This is very simple and it's pathetic that you're so violently missing it. Arguing that it's a waste of money is not discrimination. It is opposition to the values that the Church exhibits. Disagreement and discrimination are not remotely synonymous. Do not construe them as such.
4) I honestly don't blame people for wanting a nice church to worship in. Churches are for the public. I believe they should be nice and should be a tribute to God. If you were of a faith, would you not want to worship in a nice looking place instead of a torn down shack? I'd say making nice looking churches isn't selfish at all, the church should be able to treat itself to be more appealing for the people who follow it.
I was referring more to the sheer number of grossly decorated religious buildings in Rome. You certainly don't need that many, and you shouldn't have too much trouble worshiping in a building that is plainer to some degree.
-
WTF TOO MUCH i didnt read anyones shit
fuck all yall
i got my tacos ............................
/end succesful troll
-
That was a terrible troll job, you are being not funny, and I doubt you are even high right now as you are trying to insinuate.
-
Also, I'm having my period today.
-
MMM maybe you should give the blood to a charity event? OH OH OH GIVE IT TO THAILANDS RED SHIRTS =D =D =D =D
-
u just said epic fail to urself john?
-
NO, FOOL, TO WHOLEGRAIN.
-
crypto remodel your picture make him say HALP! that is more TTT XD
-
The lack of religious debate is making me sad.
-
u just said epic fail to urself john?
READ WHAT CRYPTOP SAID :|
what? we all get our period once a month, thats why its calles a period duh
-
I don't think people should care about religion much. It's like fighting over if you like something or not. If you believe in whatever, discuss it. If you don't, well then don't. The reason why most religious people do not like atheists is because they are often the ones who go out to try and prove others religions wrong and they often go into topics related to religion and bash it. Now I'm obviously not saying every atheist is like that, I'm just saying atheism seems to be full of negativity and no tolerance of other religions.
-
The lack of religious debate is making me sad.
We blew him out of the water and into the stratosphere.
And Jorgen that would take way too much effort. :D
-
Well a debate lasts as long as one's stubborn mind allows it to.
-
Im not sure what you all are fighting about cuz i was too lazy to read 7 pages, but here are my beliefs:
I have no actual religion, I am a libertarian, i believe in god but not heaven, so some call me atheist because they think god needs someplace to "live". I beleive in rebirth, as in when you die you are reborn as a baby. I don't beleive in evolution either, it doesnt seem bery beleivable that one animal is going to change into another that is almost completely different. Some science makes a lot of sense like platetectonics and cells. But some of our science could be wrong, science seems to change a lot, you never know what we could find next.
-
i sense flaming in the air DX looks if krolin, pillz, skieski, crypto or global is gonna come on XD
-
Libertarianism is not a religion.
I don't beleive in evolution either, it doesnt seem bery beleivable that one animal is going to change into another that is almost completely different.
(http://starlightincentive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/palm-tree-face.jpg)
-
Dust to human, vs monkey to human.
Which will make more sense?
We'll find out, next time, on...
MYSTERIOUS OF LIFEEEE
-
when is that show?
-
I beleive in rebirth, as in when you die you are reborn as a baby.
Why do you believe that?
Also wow Vinny simulpost.
-
yep its cruel, atleast my post is first
-
Billy Ruben knows religion. This is what he has to say about it:
You're either a Theist, or an Atheist.
You're either Gnostic(Knowing), or Agnostic(Unknowing).
You MUST be a combination of the TWO choices.
Gnostic Theist = There is a God, and I KNOW this. (Hardcore biblepushers.)
Agnost Theist = There is a God, and I believe this is true. (Your average Christian/religious person.)
Gnostic Atheist = There is no God, and I KNOW this. (Scientifically illogical, this is what most posers claim to be. Then again, they just say atheist because they don't really know /shit/.)
Agnostic Atheist = There may or may not be a God. I am unable to prove either case, and thus go with the latter - which has more 'soft' evidence - and say there is no God. (tl;dr, most logical "religion". Can't fuxx wittit.)
I myself am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if there really is a God or not, but tbh, I couldn't care less.
That is all.
-
i'm atheist.... big shocker :-)
-
REFER TO MY POST
-
I my self am an agnostic athiest. I can't go out there to say that I have full confidence in the big bang theory, but I know Evolution is a solid idea in itself and makes plenty of sense.
-
oh yes i have bumped this mothafucker
-
Don't belive in religion. I am an atheïst. I am just sayin'.
Cuz this would be an endless debate, if god exist.
-
lol.gif wanna make a flaw in religion, the bible.
and that's it, i mean have you read it "God created the heaven and the earth" doesn't even go into detail
-
it doesnt seem bery beleivable that one animal is going to change into another that is almost completely different.
Apes and humans are actually very similar minus the hair straighter back bone and more developped brain
-
oh yes i have bumped this mothafucker
NECRO! (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=155983&stc=1&d=1282248052)
-
i actually want to know how a T-rex evolved into a chicken...
-
Agnostic Theist here.
-
So I heard that hating on religion is a cool thing for teenagers to do.
BE ONE OF THE COOL KIDS, QUESTION YOUR FAITH BLINDLY!
^^ c wut i did thar?
-
So I heard that hating on religion is a cool thing for teenagers to do.
BE ONE OF THE COOL KIDS, QUESTION YOUR FAITH BLINDLY!
^^ c wut i did thar?
Don't you know all the cool internet kids are atheists.
-
Well yeah....
That's kinda what I said. ._.
-
Cool internet kid is an oxymoron. 90% of the people who claim atheism have no idea what they hell they are talking about and what atheism really is. It's mainly people trying to be trendy and excepted among the majority so they can finally be excepted at something. Atheism is not being able to come to the final conclusion that there is or isn't a god and sides on the side that there is no god. Me, a Christian, knows more about atheism than poser atheists do. laughface That's pathetic.
God, not bound by time or space, making the universe makes WAY more sense than matter creating itself from nothing, which is impossible according to science... oo I see a contradiction. Nice fail at trying to explain our existence science. Silly naive science will never be able to explain everything. It should stick to numbers and building blocks.
lol.gif wanna make a flaw in religion, the bible.
and that's it, i mean have you read it "God created the heaven and the earth" doesn't even go into detail
Obviously you haven't even picked up a bible and bothered reading ALL OF GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (the first thing you read in the bible) which is 31 verses going into detail of how heaven and earth was made. To denounce the bible without opening to the first page or even reading it speaks your level of intelligence on the matter loud and clear.
Billy Ruben knows religion. This is what he has to say about it:
You're either a Theist, or an Atheist.
You're either Gnostic(Knowing), or Agnostic(Unknowing).
You MUST be a combination of the TWO choices.
Gnostic Theist = There is a God, and I KNOW this. (Hardcore biblepushers.)
Agnost Theist = There is a God, and I believe this is true. (Your average Christian/religious person.)
Gnostic Atheist = There is no God, and I KNOW this. (Scientifically illogical, this is what most posers claim to be. Then again, they just say atheist because they don't really know /shit/.)
Agnostic Atheist = There may or may not be a God. I am unable to prove either case, and thus go with the latter - which has more 'soft' evidence - and say there is no God. (tl;dr, most logical "religion". Can't fuxx wittit.)
I myself am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if there really is a God or not, but tbh, I couldn't care less.
That is all.
Billy is a wise person. What he says is true. This is what I was talking about above.. poser atheists are all over the internet trying to be cool and fit in with the crowd.
-
Cool internet kid is an oxymoron. 90% of the people who claim atheism have no idea what they hell they are talking about and what atheism really is. It's mainly people trying to be trendy and excepted among the majority so they can finally be excepted at something. Atheism is not being able to come to the final conclusion that there is or isn't a god and sides on the side that there is no god. Me, a Christian, knows more about atheism than poser atheists do. laughface That's pathetic.
God, not bound by time or space, making the universe makes WAY more sense than matter creating itself from nothing, which is impossible according to science... oo I see a contradiction. Nice fail at trying to explain our existence science. Silly naive science will never be able to explain everything. It should stick to numbers and building blocks.
lol.gif wanna make a flaw in religion, the bible.
and that's it, i mean have you read it "God created the heaven and the earth" doesn't even go into detail
Obviously you haven't even picked up a bible and bothered reading ALL OF GENESIS CHAPTER 1 (the first thing you read in the bible) which is 31 verses going into detail of how heaven and earth was made. To denounce the bible without opening to the first page or even reading it speaks your level of intelligence on the matter loud and clear.
Billy Ruben knows religion. This is what he has to say about it:
You're either a Theist, or an Atheist.
You're either Gnostic(Knowing), or Agnostic(Unknowing).
You MUST be a combination of the TWO choices.
Gnostic Theist = There is a God, and I KNOW this. (Hardcore biblepushers.)
Agnost Theist = There is a God, and I believe this is true. (Your average Christian/religious person.)
Gnostic Atheist = There is no God, and I KNOW this. (Scientifically illogical, this is what most posers claim to be. Then again, they just say atheist because they don't really know /shit/.)
Agnostic Atheist = There may or may not be a God. I am unable to prove either case, and thus go with the latter - which has more 'soft' evidence - and say there is no God. (tl;dr, most logical "religion". Can't fuxx wittit.)
I myself am an Agnostic Atheist. I don't know if there really is a God or not, but tbh, I couldn't care less.
That is all.
Billy is a wise person. What he says is true. This is what I was talking about above.. poser atheists are all over the internet trying to be cool and fit in with the crowd.
Atheism never said anything about matter spontaniously coming out of nowhere, it simply sais energy has always existed much like your god has always existed, and that matter is created out from energy given what einstein proved trough mathematics.
There are many theories however on how energy came to be here in this universe trough the big bang, for example M theory (membrane theory) which involves several membranes splitting one universe from the next. One of theese 2 theoretically bumped into eachother and created a energy surge, which then went on to create Hydrogen, which turn into a hydrogen fog. that then again starts fusing when it gets concentrated enough and creates a star. this was the scientific birth of the universe. (however flawed my version of it is, given 1. i am not a physicist and 2. i am tired)
out from this we will continue towards the scientific birth of earth, comets bombard a molten sun trapping its molten core, after long bombarding earth comes out. with a magnetosphere and so forth, i am to tired to write anythig more elobrate seriously.
out from this carbon bindings are born, with first several really simple ones, which then become longer and more elobrate carbon strings, binding in alitle NH3 and COOH into it weaving the first amino acid, which can naturally occur. after millions of years theese carbon strings, were binded into a primitive bacteria which then could get more properties trough "digestion" of other primitive cells (once again i am not fully eduacated on the subject as of yet i can not write the full story) primitive cells then bound together and so forth until you got the first very primitive fish or something similar. which then acording to where it were born and so forth were breeded on according to what the fishes of its same species needed in that area. for example if a mutation were to make it's mouth longer (and this was usefull for feeding or so forth in it's natural habitat) it would be somewhat an alpha male/female. so forth evolution took its toll.
this is what some of us believe.
besides I hate both kinds of people in this thread, honestly why do any off you need to push your beliefs on the other?
so people rather than taking jabs a eachother take a chill pill and relax
-
I have a quote that I live by "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius
-
you people make no sense AAAAAAAH *jumps out window*
-
First of all being an Average non-church-going Christan I believe that there is a god and that he wtches over us, though he doesn't often touch our lives unless he feels that we really need it. Anyway Jorgen I have found a flaw with your theory and it is this, It counts on the fact that another Universe already existed for the membrane to split from, thus if the universe in it's entirety came from this theory at the very start of the universe trillions and trillions of years ago (because noone can scientificly prove just how old this universe is and I believe that Humankind itself would take up a meer eyeblink in the vast timeline of the univserse as a whole) Then what started the first universe for such a theory to exist? That in my mind is the Million dollar question for those that don't believe in God in any form (Buddism, Christanity, Non-extremist Islam, Etc.)
Also Kwuartz that is a nice Quote you have :O
-
Just want to say you guys used the word Gnosticism wrong. Just because it looks and sounds like Agnostic does not mean it's related to it.
Gnosticism is a very...strange belief to say the least. Now if one of you were to theoretically read "Against Heresies"(or at least just Chapter 1) by Irenaeus you might understand, not just what a Gnostic is, but how crazy and far fetched their creation story is.
-
First of all being an Average non-church-going Christan I believe that there is a god and that he wtches over us, though he doesn't often touch our lives unless he feels that we really need it. Anyway Jorgen I have found a flaw with your theory and it is this, It counts on the fact that another Universe already existed for the membrane to split from, thus if the universe in it's entirety came from this theory at the very start of the universe trillions and trillions of years ago (because noone can scientificly prove just how old this universe is and I believe that Humankind itself would take up a meer eyeblink in the vast timeline of the univserse as a whole) Then what started the first universe for such a theory to exist? That in my mind is the Million dollar question for those that don't believe in God in any form (Buddism, Christanity, Non-extremist Islam, Etc.)
Also Kwuartz that is a nice Quote you have :O
it is hardly a flaw it is just me not telling it corectly, i did not go far enough into the membrane theory. it is a part of string theory the most believeable part of string theory if anything. anyways it builds on the fact that it can be as long as it is but very thin, once again i am not good at explaining M theory. so i will let theese chaps do it
Part 11: M-theory (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB6lW-8CwpM#) it is old and it is part 11. but it is still better at explaining it than i will be.
-
ALL THESE THEORIES BURN, IT BURNS.
Guys, This is just endless. Everyone is trying to convince each other. And thats not GOING to work, EVER!
Kthxbai.
Instead. I believe in raptor jezus /troll
(http://motivateurself.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/raptor-jesus.jpg)
-
I'm not out to convince anyone just point out what seems like a fact. Also for those that don't want to waste nine minutes of their lives watching the above clip here's the basics, though this Assesment is incomplete since I obviously havn't seen the entire PBS show.
1. That String theory believes that there is an extra dimension and that (according to what I peiced together from Jorgen) Vibrating strings and 'membrane' float from that side to this side to create matter in this universe.
2. That also according to String theory Lighter Particles (Like Gravity etc.) have a heavier counterpart (which has not been found yet as far as I know)
3. String theory still does not answer the question of where da hell Everything came from in the beginning, But that is to be expected as it is a new theory and has not yet been proven or disproven (to my knowladge) Thus refer to my Earlier question, if in the very beginning of time (which must exist though there is no way in heaven or hell that we'll find it in any of our life times or even our species lifetimes.) what started the ball rolling?
Also Finnie I'm sorry to say but Raptor Jesus is just your form of Worshiping God, though he may look different from another's God >:3
-
YAAAY for a logical mind =D
but i did somewhat explain the begining of life in my other post. it is just incomplete ofcourse, seeing that m-theory is a begining theory of everything.
I am neither in no way trying to force this upon you i am just trying to counterbalace the last of what holy said, which was in basics "science shut the fuck upp, i have religion" which is not debating it is claiming.
anyways, it is my belief if i can say that. So taking a dung on that is as if i were to take a dung on your religion =P
gravity in string theory comes from a quart called a graviton, it is a massless particle that can travel trough theese so called membranes. if string theory gets proven it also is the reason for early suns and so forth.
-
Also Finnie I'm sorry to say but Raptor Jesus is just your form of Worshiping God, though he may look different from another's God >:3
Aw :-\
Hehehe *rubs his hands while laughing very evil*
I have nothing to religion, But a JEZUS camp? you with all those kids getting their brains washed. Or that if you belive in god, your hip WIL INSTANT heal... all that is complete BULLSHIT.
kthxbai off to my school projects nao
-
yay for Logical minds still functioning at 2 in the morning ;D
Anway What you say is right in the fact that just because a man has religion doesn't mean he should forgo Science at all...I mean look at Medieval Europe and the Catholic church...they had to get Gunpowder from the Chinese for a while there before they figured out they could make it on their own...which was after they made it into a weapon but I believe that's beside the point now.
Also this would explain early suns (depending on the area in this vast Universe that we have yet to even explore the tiniest dust particle of) but only if String Theory in itself were to be proven true since it was String theory itself that first posed the idea of these membranes, thus if String theory were to be disproven then that would mean that the weightless Gravition (which seems a bit ironic to me, a Weightless element creating a force which in itself is a form of Weight) did not pass through these Membranes to create suns but would rather have to either come together (if possiable) to form a gravitation pull in a certain area. This field of gGravity (which to me would look something like a black hole...not entirely sure why) would then attract any other atoms together until you get a sun. Also according to this theory that I have just brought up (please note I'm not sure if it would work) then that would mean that there would have to be some force that would attract these Gravitions together to form a center of mass in the first place so that they could acually stick together to begin to form the center of the sun. After that then the normal cycle would then have to take palce with Coments and asteroids being pulling in by the Gravitation field to strike the sun and add their 'nutreints' to the sun until it was fully fledged so to speak....Damn my head hurts x.x
Also Finnie completely agree with you on the instant healing, only way I'd believe in that was if I was touched by said miracle, also I think Bible Camps are for Sunday school and if your in Sunday school then your already Religious x.x
-
Also Finnie completely agree with you on the instant healing, only way I'd believe in that was if I was touched by said miracle, also I think Bible Camps are for Sunday school and if your in Sunday school then your already Religious x.x
What I meant is, Those kids who are like in a wierd "trance" and goes all crying dancing like its a rainbow or rain dance, kneeling and rolling over the flour, that just sickens me. Things you see on 4chan and stuff. With the guy whom got a photoshopped raptor head. Same as what they do to homeless people, only giving them food if they believe in god, and brainwash them with some bread.
-
Well I'v never see that or heard about it (before you) so I can't comment and I don't go to 4chan...I prefer fchan >:3
-
i should never have bumped this frogsiren
-
Atheism never said anything about matter spontaniously coming out of nowhere, it simply sais energy has always existed much like your god has always existed, and that matter is created out from energy given what einstein proved trough mathematics.
this is what some of us believe.
besides I hate both kinds of people in this thread, honestly why do any off you need to push your beliefs on the other?
so people rather than taking jabs a eachother take a chill pill and relax
I never said anything about atheism and the big bang theory... paragraphs are for separating ideas, which is why atheism is in one paragraph and science + big bang is in the other paragraph. Assumptions = bad.
Also, this is a debate thread, no one is pushing anything on anyone. If you are going to be Mr. Sensitive about the subject then this isn't your place to post.
YAAAY for a logical mind =D
but i did somewhat explain the begining of life in my other post. it is just incomplete ofcourse, seeing that m-theory is a begining theory of everything.
I am neither in no way trying to force this upon you i am just trying to counterbalace the last of what holy said, which was in basics "science shut the fuck upp, i have religion" which is not debating it is claiming.
Actually this is what debate means:
de·bate
/dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3.
deliberation; consideration.
4.
Archaic . strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6.
to participate in a formal debate.
7.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8.
Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9.
to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13.
Archaic . to contend for or over.
You made a fail attempt to summarize what I said. The proper summary would be "Most self-proclaimed atheists are posers trying to fit in with other poser atheists. God as a creator makes more sense than nothing creating everything. Science can't explain everything and is naive to attempt such a feat."
I am voicing a proposal of what I know as well as believe. That is debate. It's very closed minded of you to consider only people who agree with what you agree with logical.
M-string theory could potentially be correct, however, there is no substantial evidence to support or contest it. In this instance it should not be discounted. In the same respect, God should has no substantial evidence to support or contest Him other than the bible. This being said, God should not be discounted. It is closed-minded to discount anything without proof.
I have nothing to religion, But a JEZUS camp? you with all those kids getting their brains washed. Or that if you belive in god, your hip WIL INSTANT heal... all that is complete BULLSHIT.
Perfect example of closed-minded mentality. You don't actually know if it is real or not, you simply assume so you can be content with yourself, thinking you have found an answer. There is most definitely a possibility of injures being healed. My grandfather had sleep apnea. Those of intelligence would know that medical science would claim that "had sleep apnea" is impossible since it is for life. My grandfather suffered from sleep apnea for his whole life and one night stopped breathing in his sleep. He felt himself shaking, however my grandmother claims his body was still the whole time as she was pounding on his chest for dear life to save him. As my grandfather was dying, he saw himself ascend 30 feet over his house, through roof and all. He felt himself get thrown back into his body. Ever since that night, he never had sleep apnea again. God took His sleep apnea away.
-
yay for Logical minds still functioning at 2 in the morning ;D
Anway What you say is right in the fact that just because a man has religion doesn't mean he should forgo Science at all...I mean look at Medieval Europe and the Catholic church...they had to get Gunpowder from the Chinese for a while there before they figured out they could make it on their own...which was after they made it into a weapon but I believe that's beside the point now.
Also this would explain early suns (depending on the area in this vast Universe that we have yet to even explore the tiniest dust particle of) but only if String Theory in itself were to be proven true since it was String theory itself that first posed the idea of these membranes, thus if String theory were to be disproven then that would mean that the weightless Gravition (which seems a bit ironic to me, a Weightless element creating a force which in itself is a form of Weight) did not pass through these Membranes to create suns but would rather have to either come together (if possiable) to form a gravitation pull in a certain area. This field of gGravity (which to me would look something like a black hole...not entirely sure why) would then attract any other atoms together until you get a sun. Also according to this theory that I have just brought up (please note I'm not sure if it would work) then that would mean that there would have to be some force that would attract these Gravitions together to form a center of mass in the first place so that they could acually stick together to begin to form the center of the sun. After that then the normal cycle would then have to take palce with Coments and asteroids being pulling in by the Gravitation field to strike the sun and add their 'nutreints' to the sun until it was fully fledged so to speak....Damn my head hurts x.x
Also Finnie completely agree with you on the instant healing, only way I'd believe in that was if I was touched by said miracle, also I think Bible Camps are for Sunday school and if your in Sunday school then your already Religious x.x
actually what i said about gravitons were they are a part of a atom, so if the a bunch of hydrogen atoms colect in a fog of hydrogen they will be trapped in a gravitational pull creating fusion, this in terms create the early suns.
i will answear holy separatly
-
Atheism never said anything about matter spontaniously coming out of nowhere, it simply sais energy has always existed much like your god has always existed, and that matter is created out from energy given what einstein proved trough mathematics.
this is what some of us believe.
besides I hate both kinds of people in this thread, honestly why do any off you need to push your beliefs on the other?
so people rather than taking jabs a eachother take a chill pill and relax
I never said anything about atheism and the big bang theory... paragraphs are for separating ideas, which is why atheism is in one paragraph and science + big bang is in the other paragraph. Assumptions = bad.
Also, this is a debate thread, no one is pushing anything on anyone. If you are going to be Mr. Sensitive about the subject then this isn't your place to post.
YAAAY for a logical mind =D
but i did somewhat explain the begining of life in my other post. it is just incomplete ofcourse, seeing that m-theory is a begining theory of everything.
I am neither in no way trying to force this upon you i am just trying to counterbalace the last of what holy said, which was in basics "science shut the fuck upp, i have religion" which is not debating it is claiming.
Actually this is what debate means:
de·bate
/dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3.
deliberation; consideration.
4.
Archaic . strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6.
to participate in a formal debate.
7.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8.
Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9.
to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13.
Archaic . to contend for or over.
You made a fail attempt to summarize what I said. The proper summary would be "Most self-proclaimed atheists are posers trying to fit in with other poser atheists. God as a creator makes more sense than nothing creating everything. Science can't explain everything and is naive to attempt such a feat."
I am voicing a proposal of what I know as well as believe. That is debate. It's very closed minded of you to consider only people who agree with what you agree with logical.
M-string theory could potentially be correct, however, there is no substantial evidence to support or contest it. In this instance it should not be discounted. In the same respect, God should has no substantial evidence to support or contest Him other than the bible. This being said, God should not be discounted. It is closed-minded to discount anything without proof.
I have nothing to religion, But a JEZUS camp? you with all those kids getting their brains washed. Or that if you belive in god, your hip WIL INSTANT heal... all that is complete BULLSHIT.
Perfect example of closed-minded mentality. You don't actually know if it is real or not, you simply assume so you can be content with yourself, thinking you have found an answer. There is most definitely a possibility of injures being healed. My grandfather had sleep apnea. Those of intelligence would know that medical science would claim that "had sleep apnea" is impossible since it is for life. My grandfather suffered from sleep apnea for his whole life and one night stopped breathing in his sleep. He felt himself shaking, however my grandmother claims his body was still the whole time as she was pounding on his chest for dear life to save him. As my grandfather was dying, he saw himself ascend 30 feet over his house, through roof and all. He felt himself get thrown back into his body. Ever since that night, he never had sleep apnea again. God took His sleep apnea away.
this all has to do with perception. A word will never have a complete meaning, it depends on how you say it.
besides, it is an exchange of thoughts yes, it is not a debate if i do not see any other opinion than my own and just say something like "science is useless, religion is the only way". however you say that doesn't really matter in my opinion, if you are going to force an opinion and not listen to other options, a debate would never work.
no matter what wikipedia might say, this is social interaction which lets just say is defined mostly my common norms in a specific group rather than one view only. basically what i am saying is that, it will be different where ever you go how you will discuss with some1.
i should most likely not have taken your whole post into my quote, i actualy only talked about your last part.
also i don't know where you got the part that i hate religion from, because in fact i was a Christian until 1 year ago. but the way you talked about science in your latter part (previous post) just made me do the same thing just the other way.
anyways i might go in more detail and also bring your previous racism thread into this, with the social interaction vs wikipedia thing. Social interaction makes things different from place to place. so yes, do take in consideration that your close friends do not have the same discussion pattern as the rest of the world.
-
trollface
-
My brains just got exploded...
-
Fuck gravitons, Isaac Newton is where it's at.
-
God, not bound by time or space, making the universe makes WAY more sense than matter creating itself from nothing, which is impossible according to science... oo I see a contradiction. Nice fail at trying to explain our existence science. Silly naive science will never be able to explain everything. It should stick to numbers and building blocks.
Science is by definition skeptical about everything, demanding proof for everything. By definition, "naive" directly and completely clashes with the entire concept of science. Evidently you don't even know what science is, so you should just shut up and educate yourself on premises understood by your average nine-year-old and I shouldn't even bother to answer you, but I'll bite anyway.
On to the good stuff. From the dawn of recorded history gods have been used to explain phenomena not yet explained by science. Over the last millennium or two, scientific advances have explained more and more phenomena and use of God, or gods, as a means of explanation has gone into drastic decline. Your argument abuses a huge, huge, huge logical fallacy:
>Science may or may not be able to explain natural phenomena w, x, y, and z
>Science and God* are the only possible explanations of any given natural phenomenon
>We know that science explains w, x, and y
>Previously, our understanding of science lacked the capacity to explain w, x, and y
>>Currently, our understanding of science has the capacity to explain w, x, and y
>>>Currently, we know that science explains w, x, and y
>Currently, our understanding of science lacks the capacity to explain z
>>In the future, our understanding of science may or may not gain the capacity to explain z
>>>In the future, we may or may not know that science explains z
>>>>Currently, it is impossible for us to know whether or not science explains z
>>>>Currently, it is impossible for us to know whether or not God explains z
* God being shorthand for whatever supreme entity tickles your fancy.
We cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not science are will ever explain z, ergo we cannot eliminate science as an option, ergo faith is not the logically superior option (i.e., it makes no more sense than science), ergo your stance that God explains z is purely a preference, ergo Nicolas Cage deserves to die in a goddamn fire.
-
Come to think of it, not on only is your stance an illogical preference, but inductive reasoning says that it's extremely unlikely that God and not science is the correct explanation.
You don't actually know if it is real or not, you simply assume so you can be content with yourself, thinking you have found an answer.
Standard procedure—and by golly is this a shocker!—is to disbelieve something that you don't know is real. Answer me this, Holy: Why do you believe in the Christian God instead of Allah or karma or nature spirits or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity or supernatural force that's ever been dreamed up in the two hundred thousand years since anatomically modern humans showed up?
And it's ridiculously hypocritical and irrational to moronic proportions that people who have blind faith in something, by definition being unable to prove it, expect people who do not have blind faith to prove them wrong. Guess what, fuckers: A theory is impossible to disprove until it is proven. You have a hypothesis (untested and unproven), not a theory (proven). We have no obligation whatsoever to ignore your randomly preferred superstitions.
-
Triple post :o
Just modify that first post >_>
-
Semi-fixed. It wouldn't register two block quotes in one post. And what the hell difference does it make to you?
-
I like to look at things from both perspectives. I personally, am Roman Catholic, but that doesn't mean that science has no place. Both arguments presented on the forums have holes. We are not professionals in these fields, not should any of you be foolish enough to think that you are. You should be knowledgeable enough to know WHY you believe your own personal beliefs at minimum. Most of us, if not all have us, don't really have sufficient knowledge to tell others what to believe at 100% worked out EXACT opinion of religion.
Now, if you really are interested in studying theology and the existence of a higher power, you're not actually going to learn it from online forums :/ what you should do if you are really interested is go enroll in theology classes over the summer at a local religious university. If this is unavailable, just look at theologists' writings on your own. Some good authors to look at are Alister McGrath, St. Anslem of Canterbury, St. Thomas Aquinas (A major figure if you are unfamiliar), Ignatius of Loyola, or even writings from Pope John Paul II (you should know who this is...).
If you're already a believer, these will enlighten your religious experiences many times over, adding to why you believe your faith.
If you don't believe, this should enlighten you both on proofs of God and the like, or give you sufficient fuel to light your anti-christian flames.
Now, this is just specifically for christianity. There are other documents out there for the other major world religions (Judaism, Islam, etc.). I have read sever and have reached my own conclusions on these religions and choose not to follow them for a plethora of reasons.
The worst thing you can do is become angry with fighting over religion, as it defeats the purpose of religion to begin with :/
-
The worst thing you can do is become angry with fighting over religion, as it defeats the purpose of religion to begin with :/
That is one of the biggest things of why Im not so religious since it seems to cause a lot of wars heck my country is split in two because of this and I have been seperated from my friends (Going to different religion schools)
I may look at religion in a few years time and decide if I am a religous person (maybe not christian) or an atheist.
-
i am gonna quote my self in fact "the one who rages over religion is not the one strong of faith, he has problems with his faith and needs to rain it down on others for their approvel" XD
besides, crypto here lends me the social part of science, i am merely good at it not good at explaining it :)
-
Good arguements one and all and I agree with what Jorgen has said (since I did indeed spend the time to read it all) which is basically that God was used to explain anything we didn't know (or witches in one sad story which you all know or should know) and as science explains more about the universe man will slowly begin rely on god as a substitute for the unexplainable in the future. This does not mean that god him(or her)self will just fade into the background as faith has often gotten me through the (thankfully) few rough spots in my life.
And on Bjork's note yes Religion has played quite the role in war, both anceint and modern. the Crusades are the best example of two religions duking it out since the Islamists controled Jerusalem (The Christan Holy City) and thus did the Pope command the Christan kings to band together to retake the city. For a more modern example let us look at the War on Terror. Though this war isn't all about religion it was started by it in the form of Radical Islamists hijacking some planes to smash them into the Twin Towers meerly because we DID NOT have all of our population follow Radical Islam but rather let our people worship who they wanted when they wanted.
And with DirtyLaundry's Referances to Christan texts for enlightenment I would like to ask that someone put up referances for the Science side of this Debate, then I would like to ask an admin to come and lock the thread for we have fufilled the purpose of a debate. This being that three parts have come together with these sides being, 1. The Believers of God whatever form and name he may take, 2. The Nonbelievers who do not believe in God no matter what evidance is placed before them and 3. Those who are inbetween and meerly came to see what would appeal to them more. Now while we could contiue on we will do nothing more then bring up the same arguements that we have all heard before, even if they be clad in a different skin.
-
the referances/sourcec for the science part of this can mainly be found in educational books, i would recomend either eduacating yourself if want info on it, or you could read some of stephen hawkings books it would grant insight 2 =)
yes this thread was destined for a lock seeing that religion is something that comes to one persons perception not, which is not something i could force changed =P
-
Come to think of it, not on only is your stance an illogical preference, but inductive reasoning says that it's extremely unlikely that God and not science is the correct explanation.
You don't actually know if it is real or not, you simply assume so you can be content with yourself, thinking you have found an answer.
Standard procedure—and by golly is this a shocker!—is to disbelieve something that you don't know is real. Answer me this, Holy: Why do you believe in the Christian God instead of Allah or karma or nature spirits or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or any other deity or supernatural force that's ever been dreamed up in the two hundred thousand years since anatomically modern humans showed up?
And it's ridiculously hypocritical and irrational to moronic proportions that people who have blind faith in something, by definition being unable to prove it, expect people who do not have blind faith to prove them wrong. Guess what, fuckers: A theory is impossible to disprove until it is proven. You have a hypothesis (untested and unproven), not a theory (proven). We have no obligation whatsoever to ignore your randomly preferred superstitions.
Easy answer really to why I picked Christianity:
-As I said before, my grandfather, a catholic, was cured of sleep apnea.
-I have been attacked and paralyzed by demons twice before.
-One night my mother prayed i'd get a job, next morning two different companies that i sent resumes to months ago sent me mail to be interviewed. I started working the following week.
-I've witnessed possession and exorcism.
-I have spoken to 4 different demons in one of my possessed friends who showed, by personality, to be 4 completely different beings.
-I've spoken in tongues while being full of the Holy Spirit. Not aware of that I was doing so.
-Upon praising and thanking Jesus I know that angels are around me even as I type this. I feel them touch me as chills go down my spine, even when it is hot in my house.
-A lady at my mother's work (my mother being a nurse) died for a few minutes, the lady was normally a well tempered woman. The doctor my mom's boss is friends with managed to save her life. Upon coming back she was furious and demanded he send her back right now and that it was the most beautiful place she had ever been.
-I've seen a bible verse in one of my dreams that i've never seen. When I woke up, I looked for it and found it word for word in my dream.
There are more experiences i've had, however, that should be enough to make the point. I've experienced all that following God, not some fictional spaghetti monster or other false deity.
You don't seem to know what a theory is. So here is the definition from dictionary.com. Look at definition 2.
the·o·ry
/ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Show Spelled[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.
1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.
contemplation or speculation.
7.
guess or conjecture.
As you can see, theories are not absolute fact as you make them appear to be in your post. Theories can be disproven at any time. M-string theory, for example, is no exception to this rule. In the video posted on page 10 of this thread the people who are researching it even say that it can lead to a dead end. Science defines theories to be capable of being disproven so blind fools don't go around saying things that aren't necessarily true.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
-
Concurred. Although I disagree that religion has ever directly been the cause for any war. Economic and political reasons, I believe, are much more likely then religious divisions. Jerusalem, during the times of the Crusades was a major port city that accumulated vast amounts of wealth. Whoever controlled the city could control that wealth. During the reign of the caesars in Rome, it was common for a new emperor to wage a campaign against neighboring territories in order to gain their tributes and political repsect.
-
Oh dear and christianty can't lead to a dead end?
besides it all depeds on if it is a new theory or an old one, but a scientific theory can't get beyond the name theory, it can only get more hypthesises that either disprove or prove said theory. it is like evolution, it ain't gonna get past the theory part, but it is still next to fact.
you know what i can't help my self but your life sounds kind off like an acid trip at times XD
-
Concurred. Although I disagree that religion has ever directly been the cause for any war. Economic and political reasons, I believe, are much more likely then religious divisions. Jerusalem, during the times of the Crusades was a major port city that accumulated vast amounts of wealth. Whoever controlled the city could control that wealth. During the reign of the caesars in Rome, it was common for a new emperor to wage a campaign against neighboring territories in order to gain their tributes and political repsect.
Well if you lived in Ireland you would think differently.. it was practically civil war about catholic and protestants.
(Not saying that there werent political reasons behind the other wars just I cant see anything other than religion cause the Troubles in Ireland)
-
And yet Priest the wars to take Jerusalem and the surroundings cities were called CRUSADES, which is, as defined by Dictonary.com
cru·sade /kruˈseɪd/ Show Spelled
[kroo-seyd] Show IPA
noun, verb, -sad·ed, -sad·ing.
–noun
1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
2. any war carried on under papal sanction.
3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.
Now the Defientition we wish to examine closer is the second one which is, Any war carried out under Papal sanction. Also The first Defenition explains what I was just talking about. But like I said earlier, this debate has run it's course and has now run down into people bickering about what they said and why they said it. So I would like an admin once again, Please lock the thread and end this debate which hath outlived it's life.
Also Bjork I know hat your talking about with the Irish civil war, tis a terriable thing that's happening over there, which ironicly occured after the Irish rebelion liberated the Protestants section from Britian (or at least I think it was the Protestant section...could be wrong)
-
The war itself is over but the adults who are secterian (however you spell it) are teaching there children and Catholics and Protestants are seperated in schools etc
It also all started with English/Scottish settlers came and took a bit of land off the Irish causing war and still problems to this day -.-
It happened about 300 years ago maybe 400
-
ya it's sad when the past can't just be left to lie in peace...
-
ya it's sad when the past can't just be left to lie in peace...
We would have nothing to learn from then. The past is a valuable resource.
besides it all depeds on if it is a new theory or an old one, but a scientific theory can't get beyond the name theory, it can only get more hypthesises that either disprove or prove said theory. it is like evolution, it ain't gonna get past the theory part, but it is still next to fact.
The only things absolute in science are laws and mathematical theorems. Theories can get close to but never reach absolute fact. Laws, however, are facts which all things must follow. The definition given in college about theories is that they must be both testable and falsifiable (which means able to be proven wrong.) Something that can be proven wrong is simply not 100% fact. It may be close like you said, but it is not.
Now the Defientition we wish to examine closer is the second one which is, Any war carried out under Papal sanction. Also The first Defenition explains what I was just talking about. But like I said earlier, this debate has run it's course and has now run down into people bickering about what they said and why they said it. So I would like an admin once again, Please lock the thread and end this debate which hath outlived it's life.
This thread is about religious debate, I see no derailment from the original topic. Religion will never die out in the world of debate so I see no reason to lock this.
The Crusades are an iffy topic. I think it is a just cause to take back the Holy land if others are soiling it with blasphemy as well as disrespecting it. There may have been a better way to do it. Eh, in the end no one knows the whole story. With the victor goes the spoils as well as says how history will be written.
-
Holy I never said Religion wouldn't die out in the world of debate I said this debate has run it's course and you have just proven my point. We are no long debating about wether or not God Exists, which to me is what this whole thread was about at the start. Now it is just you and Jorgen sniping at each other from across your respective lines.
Also I said lie in PEACE, not Lie forgotten forever, there is a differance there and it isn't subtle. One must learn from past mistakes but do you really need to keep the fight going on in Domestic areas? (Schools workplace etc.)
-
1) I don't see how I proved anything of yours.
2) This thread wasn't made for you. The topic is religion is a very general topic, to narrow it down to what you want to talk about only is selfish.
3) We aren't fighting we are debating.
4) This is the internet not a Domestic area.
-
Typed out a long response to Holy's rebuttal. Thought I submitted it. Guess not. Summary form: Holy, I'm talking about scientific theories. You are simply wrong to resort to your precious Dictionary.com (an unreliable source across the board, let alone with respect to science) for some pathetic semantic argument. The rest of your post (unverifiable personal anecdotes—have you seen a psychologist/psychiatrist/therapist, by the way?—and ad hominem attacks unaccompanied by logical counterpoints to my case) is not relevant to the debate. Good job completely ignoring my refutation of your argument that the limits of our scientific knowledge demonstrate God's existence.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
Thanks for the irrational cheap shot but I'm going to one of the best colleges in the country, ranked first in best value by the Princeton Review in 2005. Only a rudimentary, not college-level, understanding of science is necessary for this debate. Note that you did not actually revise my description of science here; you implied my description was incorrect without pointing out what exactly was incorrect. Poor form. You can do better.
Well, I take back that last sentence. As someone who claims to have confronted demons and witnessed exorcism and spoken gibberish in Tongues and all that, maybe you can't.
Once again, you are blindly and illogically subscribing to an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Until you provide a compelling logical case for the existence of God, you are not worth taking seriously.
-
(http://verydemotivational.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/demotivational-posters-popemobile.jpg)
-
Holy we were not talking about the forums for the fighting in domestic areas we are talking about certain countries where certain religions and other religions are always going to have tension which is stupid saying we live in a modern world yet we cant except other religions races etc.
And the fact that we all seem to be sniping at each other just proves the point that this debate is stupid and has defeated its purpose of a debate its just a flaming session now.
Why o why was this bumped >:(
-
Exactly what I was talking about Bjork, thank you for backing me up on that....guess I'll just have to message Pillz...
-
Oh Lord, what have I created....
Gotta say, its pretty refreshing to see this level of reasoning going around the community.
"Theories can get close to but never reach absolute fact."
Oh rlly? Not a single, little absolute fact? Are you 100% certain of this?
-
Oh Lord, what have I created....
Gotta say, its pretty refreshing to see this level of reasoning going around the community.
"Theories can get close to but never reach absolute fact."
Oh rlly? Not a single, little absolute fact? Are you 100% certain of this?
Actually, yes. lol
theories are by defenition things that aren't 100% provable or correct.
If it was, it wouldn't be called a theory, it would be called fact
ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter
-
And yet Priest the wars to take Jerusalem and the surroundings cities were called CRUSADES, which is, as defined by Dictonary.com
1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims.
Now the Defientition we wish to examine closer is the second one which is, Any war carried out under Papal sanction. Also The first Defenition explains what I was just talking about. But like I said earlier, this debate has run it's course and has now run down into people bickering about what they said and why they said it. So I would like an admin once again, Please lock the thread and end this debate which hath outlived it's life.
A debate isn't over just because you say it is. And I wasn't denying that the Papacy was indeed resposible for the war. The reason for those wars was to secure the wealth that those cities contained. The Catholic Church would potray Jesus' homeland as being over-run with heathens in order to inspire religious fervor and gain conscriptions. Religion was the excuse, not the cause. And it also seems a little too coincidental that each Crusade was launched when the economy in Western Europe was in the shitter.
Easy answer really to why I picked Christianity:
-As I said before, my grandfather, a catholic, was cured of sleep apnea.
-I have been attacked and paralyzed by demons twice before.
-One night my mother prayed i'd get a job, next morning two different companies that i sent resumes to months ago sent me mail to be interviewed. I started working the following week.
-I've witnessed possession and exorcism.
-I have spoken to 4 different demons in one of my possessed friends who showed, by personality, to be 4 completely different beings.
-I've spoken in tongues while being full of the Holy Spirit. Not aware of that I was doing so.
-Upon praising and thanking Jesus I know that angels are around me even as I type this. I feel them touch me as chills go down my spine, even when it is hot in my house.
-A lady at my mother's work (my mother being a nurse) died for a few minutes, the lady was normally a well tempered woman. The doctor my mom's boss is friends with managed to save her life. Upon coming back she was furious and demanded he send her back right now and that it was the most beautiful place she had ever been.
-I've seen a bible verse in one of my dreams that i've never seen. When I woke up, I looked for it and found it word for word in my dream.
There are more experiences i've had, however, that should be enough to make the point. I've experienced all that following God, not some fictional spaghetti monster or other false deity.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
I lol'd......HARD
-
Easy answer really to why I picked Christianity:
-As I said before, my grandfather, a catholic, was cured of sleep apnea.
-I have been attacked and paralyzed by demons twice before.
-One night my mother prayed i'd get a job, next morning two different companies that i sent resumes to months ago sent me mail to be interviewed. I started working the following week.
-I've witnessed possession and exorcism.
-I have spoken to 4 different demons in one of my possessed friends who showed, by personality, to be 4 completely different beings.
-I've spoken in tongues while being full of the Holy Spirit. Not aware of that I was doing so.
-Upon praising and thanking Jesus I know that angels are around me even as I type this. I feel them touch me as chills go down my spine, even when it is hot in my house.
-A lady at my mother's work (my mother being a nurse) died for a few minutes, the lady was normally a well tempered woman. The doctor my mom's boss is friends with managed to save her life. Upon coming back she was furious and demanded he send her back right now and that it was the most beautiful place she had ever been.
-I've seen a bible verse in one of my dreams that i've never seen. When I woke up, I looked for it and found it word for word in my dream.
There are more experiences i've had, however, that should be enough to make the point. I've experienced all that following God, not some fictional spaghetti monster or other false deity.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
I lol'd......HARD
Trololol, it is quite funny.
-
Oh Lord, what have I created....
Gotta say, its pretty refreshing to see this level of reasoning going around the community.
"Theories can get close to but never reach absolute fact."
Oh rlly? Not a single, little absolute fact? Are you 100% certain of this?
Actually, yes. lol
theories are by defenition things that aren't 100% provable or correct.
If it was, it wouldn't be called a theory, it would be called fact
ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter
Still, it's not really relevant to most debates, this one included.
-
Oh Lord, what have I created....
Gotta say, its pretty refreshing to see this level of reasoning going around the community.
"Theories can get close to but never reach absolute fact."
Oh rlly? Not a single, little absolute fact? Are you 100% certain of this?
Actually, yes. lol
theories are by defenition things that aren't 100% provable or correct.
If it was, it wouldn't be called a theory, it would be called fact
ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter
Still, it's not really relevant to most debates, this one included.
Oh, the irony of that quite true fact
ironymeter
-
I think you're just saying that so you can use the irony meter animation.
-
I couldnt take anymore religion after years of insufferable people shoving a bunch of fucking made up crap down my throat thats why im an atheist and do not believe that we came from nothing when theirs better "theories" as people put it like evolution cause theirs a lot more proof we came from evolution instead of what some stoner back in the dark ages came up with and spread it like an infection spreading to the weak with no hope or people who cant have their only thing to live for and christians U MAD???
-
I couldnt take anymore religion after years of insufferable people shoving a bunch of fucking made up crap down my throat thats why im an atheist and do not believe that we came from nothing when theirs better "theories" as people put it like evolution cause theirs a lot more proof we came from evolution instead of what some stoner back in the dark ages came up with and spread it like an infection spreading to the weak with no hope or people who cant have their only thing to live for and christians U MAD???
Sounds like we got an edgy atheist kid here.
Also, to add to that. Your statements attack religion in a way that doesn't prove anything at all other than that you are fed up with "religious types".
-
Good save, DarkEmo.
-
Still, it's not really relevant to most debates, this one included.
It's only not relevant because you know he is right. lol.gif
Typed out a long response to Holy's rebuttal. Thought I submitted it. Guess not. Summary form: Holy, I'm talking about scientific theories. You are simply wrong to resort to your precious Dictionary.com (an unreliable source across the board, let alone with respect to science) for some pathetic semantic argument. The rest of your post (unverifiable personal anecdotes—have you seen a psychologist/psychiatrist/therapist, by the way?—and ad hominem attacks unaccompanied by logical counterpoints to my case) is not relevant to the debate. Good job completely ignoring my refutation of your argument that the limits of our scientific knowledge demonstrate God's existence.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
Thanks for the irrational cheap shot but I'm going to one of the best colleges in the country, ranked first in best value by the Princeton Review in 2005. Only a rudimentary, not college-level, understanding of science is necessary for this debate. Note that you did not actually revise my description of science here; you implied my description was incorrect without pointing out what exactly was incorrect. Poor form. You can do better.
Well, I take back that last sentence. As someone who claims to have confronted demons and witnessed exorcism and spoken gibberish in Tongues and all that, maybe you can't.
Once again, you are blindly and illogically subscribing to an untested (and currently untestable) hypothesis. Until you provide a compelling logical case for the existence of God, you are not worth taking seriously.
Dictionaries don't lie, unlike theories they are fact. Words ABSOLUTE definition. To use a dictionary in a debate is like using a proof in mathematics, it's undeniable support showing my point the be more valid. To go against what is absolute fact is a fool's game.
You are only 18 years old, so what are you, a freshman in college? Big deal, I am a Junior and been to way more sciences classes than you as required for my major. 2-3 years is a big difference when it comes to education. Also, I don't care if your college is the best in the world, that doesn't mean you are any more or less intelligent than you would be going to a rat hole college. If you really want to compare colleges I go to UNO which has the BEST (that's right, #1) biology program in the country. You may only need a basic understanding of science for this debate, that doesn't mean that a better understanding won't help. I think you are just saying that as an excuse for your level of education on the matter. If you read my whole post carefully you will see what I had wrong with your description of science. As much as I love getting into personal detail, this isn't religion, so I am stopping there. In fact, if you can't take me seriously then it is also a waste of my energy to move my fingers to continue to reply to you little one. Have the last word if it makes you feel better. I won't even bother to read it.
Easy answer really to why I picked Christianity:
-As I said before, my grandfather, a catholic, was cured of sleep apnea.
-I have been attacked and paralyzed by demons twice before.
-One night my mother prayed i'd get a job, next morning two different companies that i sent resumes to months ago sent me mail to be interviewed. I started working the following week.
-I've witnessed possession and exorcism.
-I have spoken to 4 different demons in one of my possessed friends who showed, by personality, to be 4 completely different beings.
-I've spoken in tongues while being full of the Holy Spirit. Not aware of that I was doing so.
-Upon praising and thanking Jesus I know that angels are around me even as I type this. I feel them touch me as chills go down my spine, even when it is hot in my house.
-A lady at my mother's work (my mother being a nurse) died for a few minutes, the lady was normally a well tempered woman. The doctor my mom's boss is friends with managed to save her life. Upon coming back she was furious and demanded he send her back right now and that it was the most beautiful place she had ever been.
-I've seen a bible verse in one of my dreams that i've never seen. When I woke up, I looked for it and found it word for word in my dream.
There are more experiences i've had, however, that should be enough to make the point. I've experienced all that following God, not some fictional spaghetti monster or other false deity.
Before claiming that I have no idea what science is, you should look into it yourself my hypocritical friend. ^_^ Actually better yet, why don't you start going to college where you start learning real science little one.
I lol'd......HARD
Trololol, it is quite funny.
Well the bible does say not to cast pearls in front of swine less they turn and snap back. Another truth to the bible.
-
I hate religion threads, everyone is always trying to prove the other wrong and it boils down to "if there is a god did he make himself?" and "u cant prove hes not real!" cuz u really cant prove if hes real or even if hes a he, she, or something in between or even exists ect. Personally i dont belive in god just because thats who i am, but i will never prove that hes real or fake so i tend to avoid these threads and let the people just screw with eachother. <======hint. But sense its teh CG i will just say this, accept what you think is true.
Religion = No comment
Oh and to go into detail on what i think will happen after death is, sense i belive that there is no afterlife i dont think we really have "souls" think about, we been told sense we grew up we have spirits or souls ect but thats not really true is it? So what i think is, is that when u die nothing happens, u just stop...hard to imagin right? not breathing not seeing not feeling ect ect. sense most people done these things all their life its hard to think that this will just stop in a blink of an eye but its logical. Basically a sad truth.
-
I hate religion threads, everyone is always trying to prove the other wrong and it boils down to "if there is a god did he make himself?" and "u cant prove hes not real!" cuz u really cant prove if hes real or even if hes a he, she, or something in between or even exists ect. Personally i dont belive in god just because thats who i am, but i will never prove that hes real or fake so i tend to avoid these threads and let the people just screw with eachother. <======hint. But sense its teh CG i will just say this, accept what you think is true.
Religion = No comment
Oh and to go into detail on what i think will happen after death is, sense i belive that there is no afterlife i dont think we really have "souls" think about, we been told sense we grew up we have spirits or souls ect but thats not really true is it? So what i think is, is that when u die nothing happens, u just stop...hard to imagin right? not breathing not seeing not feeling ect ect. sense most people done these things all their life its hard to think that this will just stop in a blink of an eye but its logical. Basically a sad truth.
Basically my thoughts on this.
-
Holy i am gonna have to dispute with dictionaries knowing only pure facts, because as i previously said social interaction is not just black and white.
-
I think whatever religion is fine. I mean don't believe what you don't want to just don't bug other people about ittt >.>
I'm a Wiccan ^_^
-
I think you're just saying that so you can use the irony meter animation.
ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter
god that animation is so useful
-
So Holy fails to counter the arguments posed against him and instead focuses on definitions that do not apply to the debate at hand, which he augments with irrelevant and meaningless personal attacks. Imaginative way to admit defeat. I'm done with this thread.
-
Nearly everyone is Crypto..
-
Well, I was taking him seriously even though he was making a moronic case, because he was the only one actually trying to defend religion from what he intended to be a logical perspective (failed miserably). I always bite.
-
I like being a christian kthxbai
-
I like being a christian kthxbai
Same here, it's much better than being a close minded atheist who is reluctant to accept written facts as well as have a logical answer to the existence of humanity instead of being a fool who believes that nothing created everything. Ah well, death is the ultimate truth teller. Non-believers may have many laughs, but believers get the last laugh. laughface
-
Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.
Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.
I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.
Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.
I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.
-
Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.
-
I'd have to agree about what crypto said
-
Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.
Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.
I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.
Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.
I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.
What fact? It's already been established that theories are not fact. Science is simply an attempt to answer questions. The only fact is that science is unable to prove or disprove God thus it puts aside the possibility of God existing due to it's flawed man-made system. I never said anywhere that you have to believe what I believe. I am simply conveying a thought process in reaction to what information/argument is presented before me.
You brought up time, interesting thing really, a good debate idea. Here is some logical thinking about time vs God through a mathematical thought process instead of science:
This unit you call time is also made by man. It is a measurement, nothing more, nothing less. The idea of time limits the brain's comprehension and is only used to help explain situations or calculate distance/velocity. To man, there is a beginning and an end. In a mathematical viewpoint, there is no start or finish unless otherwise defined. Everything falls between infinity and negative infinity. The universe is said to be ever expanding to negative infinity to positive infinity. Keep in mind that infinity is impossible to comprehend. Now since time is man made, God is not bound by such a thing. Since everything falls in between negative infinity and infinity:
let; negative infinity = past = a; infinity = future = b; 0 (origin) = present = c; God = x
Since God is omnipresent. Not only is He everywhere, He is every 'time' as well. So with the given info, this can be stated: [!= means not equal]
x = a
x = b
x = c
a != b
b != c
a != c
Now this does not make any mathematical sense. For it to make sense it would have to be:
x = a = b= 0
[God equals Past equals Present equals Future]
which is mathematically wrong.. or
x != a != b !=0
[God does not equal Past does not equal Present does not equal Future]
Mathematically this is correct, however, it does not meet the conditions of God. It can be concluded that:
1) Math as is, which knows no limits, cannot explain God's omnipresence.
2) God is able to do the mathematically impossible by being both equal to and not equal to something at the same time.
3) Time cannot limit God.
I would go more into this thought process but I'm exhausted. x-x
-
That entire post starts with the assumption that God exists. Ya can't do that, son. The point is to prove his existence, not assume it.
Also:
Now since time is man made
Not necessarily true.
-
Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.
Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.
I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.
Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.
I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.
TY someone who finally gets it
-
This thread isn't to force beliefs. It's a supposed to be a simple debate on your thought on religion and what you make of it and why you think that. If you take it for anything other than that you are either clearly reading an idiots post or taking too much offense to this subject.
-
Well God was created from nothing and unless you can time travel you cannot tell us if the bible is true.
Besides you are being a closed minded christian who is reluctant to accept peoples opinions and scientific facts.
I have nothing against Religion it is just annoying to see a Closed minded religous person attacking closed minded atheists.
Let people belive what they want to belive rather than simply sniping at those who dont follow your beliefs.
I wish people would understand this and let this thread die.
What fact? It's already been established that theories are not fact. Science is simply an attempt to answer questions. The only fact is that science is unable to prove or disprove God thus it puts aside the possibility of God existing due to it's flawed man-made system. I never said anywhere that you have to believe what I believe. I am simply conveying a thought process in reaction to what information/argument is presented before me.
You brought up time, interesting thing really, a good debate idea. Here is some logical thinking about time vs God through a mathematical thought process instead of science:
This unit you call time is also made by man. It is a measurement, nothing more, nothing less. The idea of time limits the brain's comprehension and is only used to help explain situations or calculate distance/velocity. To man, there is a beginning and an end. In a mathematical viewpoint, there is no start or finish unless otherwise defined. Everything falls between infinity and negative infinity. The universe is said to be ever expanding to negative infinity to positive infinity. Keep in mind that infinity is impossible to comprehend. Now since time is man made, God is not bound by such a thing. Since everything falls in between negative infinity and infinity:
let; negative infinity = past = a; infinity = future = b; 0 (origin) = present = c; God = x
Since God is omnipresent. Not only is He everywhere, He is every 'time' as well. So with the given info, this can be stated: [!= means not equal]
x = a
x = b
x = c
a != b
b != c
a != c
Now this does not make any mathematical sense. For it to make sense it would have to be:
x = a = b= 0
[God equals Past equals Present equals Future]
which is mathematically wrong.. or
x != a != b !=0
[God does not equal Past does not equal Present does not equal Future]
Mathematically this is correct, however, it does not meet the conditions of God. It can be concluded that:
1) Math as is, which knows no limits, cannot explain God's omnipresence.
2) God is able to do the mathematically impossible by being both equal to and not equal to something at the same time.
3) Time cannot limit God.
I would go more into this thought process but I'm exhausted. x-x
Their is always an end to everything nothing last forever and one day the universe will end also since the big bang the universe has been expanding but in millions /billions of years it will contract bag into 1 atom and will start another big bang this theory is called the big crunch theory and if u say "god" is ever lasting what happens everytime the universe resets itself? p.s. Fuck logic
-
Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.
Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless. You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias. There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded. Keep that in mind
FURTHER RANT!
regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself. Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice. you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god. It's still faith, and thus still technically theism.
it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices. If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian. doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out. OR, you might not be, there are exceptions. If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions.
On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead. I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives.
Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter. so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.
-
I think it's just adorable that the Christian is trying to defend his beliefs. They're so cute when they get all riled up. :)
-
E=MC^2
I am now perfect.
-
I think it's just adorable that the Christian is trying to defend his beliefs. They're so cute when they get all riled up. :)
I think its quite ironic your name is priest.
ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter ironymeter
god the ironymeter has so much use in the religion debate thread, or any debate thread for that matter.
-
Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.
Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless. You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias. There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded. Keep that in mind
Open-mindedness does not entail acceptance of all ideas. I have given theism fair consideration, found it wanting, and rejected it.
regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself. Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice. you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god. It's still faith, and thus still technically theism.
No, you are not. Atheism is lack of belief; it is not itself a belief system. It's the default. There's no leap. It's square one.
it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices. If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian. doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out. OR, you might not be, there are exceptions. If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions.
There's no reason not to separate Christianity's philosophy from its theology. A religion might have some admirable ethical stances; that doesn't mean that in order to take those stances you should also believe in its gods.
On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead. I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives.
Neither do I, until people start flying planes into dense population centers based on religious convictions. Well, that's not necessarily true. I'm highly intolerant of idiocy and I think it's vaguely immoral to just sit back and watch as people are led astray by irrational delusions. But still.
Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter. so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.
Okay. That's just not true. Atheist or not, I am open minded. I am receptive to religious arguments. Just because I am receptive of them, though, does not mean I accept them. Rejection of a worldview built on falsehood and superstition is not an exercise in close-mindedness.
-
Scientifically supported atheism is, by definition, more open minded than theism.
Technically, it isn't, because its just as much religion as thesim is. and since you're denying the existence of any god AT ALL, which then brings to discussion your loose definition of open-minded, which I don't care much to argue, because the term open-minded in itself is pointless. You're going to be biased in some way, shape or form, and saying you're open-minded really means you're just ignoring your own personal bias. There is NO person on this planet who is completely open-minded. Keep that in mind
Open-mindedness does not entail acceptance of all ideas. I have given theism fair consideration, found it wanting, and rejected it.
regardless of whatever "scientific evidence" there is, there is only one person who chooses what you believe, said person being yourself. Whichever faith you choose, whether you acknowledge there to be some sort of higher being or not, you are making a choice. you are choosing to believe in some fact, regardless of whatever you justify it with. You're still taking a leap of faith believing in no god rather than a god. It's still faith, and thus still technically theism.
No, you are not. Atheism is lack of belief; it is not itself a belief system. It's the default. There's no leap. It's square one.
it comes down to choosing with however you want to live your live, and whatever justifies/makes you comfortable with your life choices. If you live a life closely related to Christian ideals, chances are you might be a Christian. doesn't take brain surgery to figure that one out. OR, you might not be, there are exceptions. If you wish to live a life free of regret about any decisions/choices that might come into conflict with christian/any other religion's ideal's, chances are you won't be a part of those religions.
There's no reason not to separate Christianity's philosophy from its theology. A religion might have some admirable ethical stances; that doesn't mean that in order to take those stances you should also believe in its gods.
On that note, if for some reason, you need the explicit proof that there is no god so that way you don't feel wrong/bad about something, then go ahead. I don't really care too much about what other people do with their lives.
Neither do I, until people start flying planes into dense population centers based on religious convictions. Well, that's not necessarily true. I'm highly intolerant of idiocy and I think it's vaguely immoral to just sit back and watch as people are led astray by irrational delusions. But still.
Just don't say something is "open-minded" when its not, or neither is ANYTHING for that matter. so just saying the phrase is hypocritical.
Okay. That's just not true. Atheist or not, I am open minded. I am receptive to religious arguments. Just because I am receptive of them, though, does not mean I accept them. Rejection of a worldview built on falsehood and superstition is not an exercise in close-mindedness.
1. I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto. I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded. you got confused somehow
2.This is just a circle arguement, thus me responding would only continue the circle
3.I'm not saying there isn't, I pointed out there are exceptions, and a good number of them, if you cared to read my whole statement. While separating the 2 is fine, I was just stating from personal experience that this doesn't happen too often, if not at all. In your/others lives, this may be different. I wouldn't know
4.I agree. That's why I don't let myself become irrational or follow religions that advocate/celebrate that sort of behavior. and if you even bring up the crusades, I will point out to you that many catholics, including myself, believe that was horribly wrong.
5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal. I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded. I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life. However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness. Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.
-
1. I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto. I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded. you got confused somehow
No, it ISN'T. Some ATHEISTS may be close minded, but ATHEISM, as a worldview, is NOT close minded.
5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal. I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded. I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life. However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness. Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.
It's less an "understanding," a term which tries to tiptoe around the truth, than adherence to an assumption that has yet to be disproved. Regardless, "understanding" something does not necessarily equate with being close minded to alternatives. "Understanding" something while refusing to examine alternatives is close minded; "understanding" something after fairly examining and fairly rejecting alternatives is by definition NOT close minded.
-
1. I'm not saying you're not open-minded crypto. I'm saying that atheism itself is not open-minded. you got confused somehow
No, it ISN'T. Some ATHEISTS may be close minded, but ATHEISM, as a worldview, is NOT close minded.
5.Again, just look at my first rebuttal. I'm not saying you yourself are close-minded. I'd like to know that from knowing you these past few years you would take care in making decisions that affect your entire life. However, atheism, being an "understanding" that there are no gods or higher beings whatsoever, is pretty much the text-book example of close-mindedness. Again, not the people who follow it, but the "understanding" on its own.
It's less an "understanding," a term which tries to tiptoe around the truth, than adherence to an assumption that has yet to be disproved. Regardless, "understanding" something does not necessarily equate with being close minded to alternatives. "Understanding" something while refusing to examine alternatives is close minded; "understanding" something after fairly examining and fairly rejecting alternatives is by definition NOT close minded.
but once again I will argue that it is, from my personal perspective.
faith proves itself through theology, which I define as faith seeking understanding. it is not science based.
atheism sees itself proven through science, which looks at physical concrete evidence.
through this specific perspective, if you attempt to prove religion through science, it will neither be directly proved nor disproved. God true or not, is beyond physical comprehension.
If you look at atheism from a PURELY theological perspective, you see that it rejects higher powers not through faith, but through human philosophy. Higher powers, unable to be comprehended directly by humans without divine revelation, are not provable through just human philosophy, higher powers are above that, if they are to exist.
If atheism were open-minded, from either perspective, it would be uncaring whether gods existed or not. Though science, it is neither provable nor disprovable, since any God would be above worldly limitations. through theology we see that god is only perceptible through divine relvelation, which if you don't believe in these powers will not make sense to you anyways. Thus, another stalemate.
If atheism was uncaring, therefore, it would be open-minded. but most atheists, I'm not saying anyone here, just the ones I know personally, take the position that no god exists, which really isn't provable.
If you just choose to believe in no god for that perspectives own sake I have no problem. that in itself has no implied close-mindedness
the close-mindedness occurs if it is insisted that there cannot be gods, and that this can be proven. that in itself simply cannot be proven, unless you are completely closed to the possibility from the start.
-
are we really discussing close mindedness now?
I am sorry to say we can't say anything is close minded my dear boy, because that is like saying all afro americans are stupid, or like me saying religion is close minded. but i won't cus it is generalist and stupid-.-
besides, lets leave the bickering it has come down to nothing but forcing things upon eachother, one slinging shit the next only to get shit back. even though i would think the christians should have been better at this than us, seeing that dirtylaundry sais we are non believers because we are afraid of being punished.... lets just say "turn the other cheek" trololololololol hohohoho.
anyways this is not hardly a serious debate anymore-.- please just stop further embarasment and take a chill pill and let this thread lonely die.
-
are we really discussing close mindedness now?
I am sorry to say we can't say anything is close minded my dear boy, because that is like saying all afro americans are stupid, or like me saying religion is close minded. but i won't cus it is generalist and stupid-.-
besides, lets leave the bickering it has come down to nothing but forcing things upon eachother, one slinging shit the next only to get shit back. even though i would think the christians should have been better at this than us, seeing that dirtylaundry sais we are non believers because we are afraid of being punished.... lets just say "turn the other cheek" trololololololol hohohoho.
anyways this is not hardly a serious debate anymore-.- please just stop further embarasment and take a chill pill and let this thread lonely die.
Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.
If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.
Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.
-
actually i said it was generalist and stupid, not generalist is stupid.
I am more looking at you and crypto talking trash -.- some of your statements are hardly debating, they are trash talking. besides why bring in them jews, Israel - Pakistan need i say more?
If there was any usefull things being flung back and forwards i'd have no problem with it, but lately i don't feel like it hardly has to do much with the theme at hand.
-
Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.
If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.
Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.
I just came in my pants. What a racist comment. LOL
-
Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.
If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.
Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.
I just came in my pants. What a racist comment. LOL
lol i showed it to my black friends and they want to hurt u but they cant work a computer LOL
-
the close-mindedness occurs if it is insisted that there cannot be gods, and that this can be proven. that in itself simply cannot be proven, unless you are completely closed to the possibility from the start.
It isn't close minded to disbelieve something that you have no reason to believe in the first place. It's simply common sense.
If atheism were open-minded, from either perspective, it would be uncaring whether gods existed or not. Though science, it is neither provable nor disprovable, since any God would be above worldly limitations. through theology we see that god is only perceptible through divine relvelation, which if you don't believe in these powers will not make sense to you anyways. Thus, another stalemate.
Open-mindedness to an idea and tolerance of an unprovable idea are not the same thing. Tolerating an unprovable idea—an idea you have no reason to believe in the first place—is allowing people to fall prey to an idiotic delusion. There's no such thing as close-mindedness to something that is not possible.
-
the close-mindedness occurs if it is insisted that there cannot be gods, and that this can be proven. that in itself simply cannot be proven, unless you are completely closed to the possibility from the start.
It isn't close minded to disbelieve something that you have no reason to believe in the first place. It's simply common sense.
If atheism were open-minded, from either perspective, it would be uncaring whether gods existed or not. Though science, it is neither provable nor disprovable, since any God would be above worldly limitations. through theology we see that god is only perceptible through divine relvelation, which if you don't believe in these powers will not make sense to you anyways. Thus, another stalemate.
Open-mindedness to an idea and tolerance of an unprovable idea are not the same thing. Tolerating an unprovable idea—an idea you have no reason to believe in the first place—is allowing people to fall prey to an idiotic delusion. There's no such thing as close-mindedness to something that is not possible.
1. Now we see the beast emerge. You have a choice to make, to believe or not. there's no reason to involve reason. Don't look at religion expecting to disprove it on some other field of study. that's not valid. Again, common sense? common sense for CRYPTO. common sense is different across all fields of culture, and so is reason for that matter. Common sense and reason are not constants in this world, no matter how much we'd like them to be, and aren't effective or justified tools of arguement. it makes you sound naive.
2. They are the same thing. You can't truly tolerate something you don't leave open the possibility of truth to. If you don't give it a chance of being true, you don't tolerate it, you are a bigot.
that last sentence just digs your hole deeper.
did you even READ my statements. higher powers, while not provable, also aren't DISPROVABLE. there is NO evidence that god DOESN'T EXIST!!! you're just proving your close-mindedness/bigotry further.
-
Dirty, did you just state that reason is not a justified tool of argumentation?
If so, then what are we left with, to argument?
-
Dirty, did you just state that reason is not a justified tool of argumentation?
If so, then what are we left with, to argument?
I stated its not a justified tool of argument when dealing with theology, as that is what this thread is about. there are many, MANY places where reason is fine and dandy.
So then, you are left to argue religion on religion's terms, which can neither prove nor disprove itself.
Thus, it comes down to personal choice, which isn't debatable in the first place.
-
did you even READ my statements. higher powers, while not provable, also aren't DISPROVABLE. there is NO evidence that god DOESN'T EXIST!!! you're just proving your close-mindedness/bigotry further.
There's no evidence that any imaginary entity does not exist. That doesn't mean you should believe in those entities. Belief in the unprovable is irrational. Rejection of the irrational is not close minded.
-
Uhm this is starting to repeat itself - Person 1 :There is no proof God does not exist!
Person 2 : No proof he does exist!
But..
I do agree with crypto about it not being closed minded not beliving in God. And as Holy said (In a rather jerkish way) death will be the only way we shall ever know and since if we are dead we cant communicate with the living (unless you belive in ghosts etc)
And lately I have been thinking about how wise Buddisim is. :-\
-
y'all know that this is the question
Tell me your thought´s on the matter!
Necessary? Good, bad? Expand!
right?
-
Close mindedness varies from person to person. Saying all atheists are close minded is like saying all black people eat KFC.
-
So... now this thread is about generalization?
Can you guys please stop arguing? There's no real point in arguing over such strong matters, each side is just too stubborn to be persuaded otherwise.
Just agree to disagree, we'll all die one day anyway, so who really cares who's right or not.
kthxbai,loveulongtiem<3xoxoxo.
-
So... now this thread is about generalization?
Can you guys please stop arguing? There's no real point in arguing over such strong matters, each side is just too stubborn to be persuaded otherwise.
Just agree to disagree, we'll all die one day anyway, so who really cares who's right or not.
kthxbai,loveulongtiem<3xoxoxo.
its not an argument its a debate
-
did you even READ my statements. higher powers, while not provable, also aren't DISPROVABLE. there is NO evidence that god DOESN'T EXIST!!! you're just proving your close-mindedness/bigotry further.
There's no evidence that any imaginary entity does not exist. That doesn't mean you should believe in those entities. Belief in the unprovable is irrational. Rejection of the irrational is not close minded.
Again, irrational to whom? to you? believing in a higher entity sounds pretty rational to me, I'm not going to cit my reasons as more flames will erupt from your bigotry.
You can't argue with rationality on its own when dealing with religion because RATIONALITY IS NOT CONSTANT!!!! Different things are rational to different peoples. You need to accept this and come to terms with the fact that while you choose not to believe in a god, it isn't a bad thing that others choose to do so!!!
Rationality is a circle argument when dealing with religion, and its not going to take you and your now clearly bigoted point of view anywhere.
So... now this thread is about generalization?
Can you guys please stop arguing? There's no real point in arguing over such strong matters, each side is just too stubborn to be persuaded otherwise.
Just agree to disagree, we'll all die one day anyway, so who really cares who's right or not.
kthxbai,loveulongtiem<3xoxoxo.
its not an argument its a debate
and yes, unfortunately this is turning into an arguement razor, it wasn't one at first, but when you start to become "irrational" ( discofrog ) it turns into one, and I would like to see well-thought-out debate continue. Otherwise, I'd like this thread locked at the next un-thought-out statement.
I respect you as a person crypto, but your posts in this thread are starting to get ridiculous. I don't hate you, I really don't. I enjoy playing with you and even debating with you earlier. But now you're just starting to become protectionist for its own sake, which you were accusing others of doing earlier in the thread.
-
Generalizations are sometimes correct. For example, saying all black people have the greasiest hair when not washed for a day. That is an actual true statement as well as a generalization. To compare generalizing to stupid is a generalization in itself.
If you compare discussing in a debate thread forcing something on someone then tell that to the Jewish people enslaved in ancient Egypt for thousands of years. That is forcing something on someone. Words and no more than words. Turning the other cheek refers to not seeking out vengeance to whomever it may concern. Debating with words has nothing to do with violence of and offense of the sort.
Why the rush to end this thread? If you don't wish to see it that much you don't have to keep coming back. It's your option to click the link.
I just came in my pants. What a racist comment. LOL
Actually that isn't racist at all. Racism is hatred to another race. Races have obvious differences, I am simply point out a racial difference. It's called fact. Now if said all black people are nig nags (you know the word) who would be shot and killed then I would be racist.
lol i showed it to my black friends and they want to hurt u but they cant work a computer LOL
Oh no, assault over the computer... black people act like such victims when:
1) Black people sold black slaves to white man.
2) The confederate flag was only hung for 4 years during slavery, the remainer of the 100-200 years had the united states flag.
3) They act as if being slaves for 200 years is oppression. In reality they have no room to complain compared to the jews who were enslaved thousands of years, built the pyramids, and were murdered in WWII. But nope, picking cotton for 200 years is such a horrible thing.
4) Most black people alive who complain about black oppression didn't even experience it. There are those alive who have, they have the right to be upset, however, the younger generation needs to move on instead of smoking pot and dwelling on hatred from a time which they never experienced.
Tell them to go cry more. parrot "ya hurd me?" lol... so dumb.
anyway back on track:
So... now this thread is about generalization?
Can you guys please stop arguing? There's no real point in arguing over such strong matters, each side is just too stubborn to be persuaded otherwise.
Just agree to disagree, we'll all die one day anyway, so who really cares who's right or not.
kthxbai,loveulongtiem<3xoxoxo.
Well actually if you die one day and you are wrong about God and suffer the consequence I do believe you will care. I think it's way to risky to not believe in God personally. Eternal suffering doesn't sound to appealing.
-
then by that logic isn't it way to risky not to believe in everything? lol
the question is still not prove god existance or prove science, the thing we should do is talk about what we think of religion.
-
then by that logic isn't it way to risky not to believe in everything? lol
the question is still not prove god existance or prove science, the thing we should do is talk about what we think of religion.
Like it's been said before, it's not possible to explain God through science so it really is a circle argument which will never be satisfied. I agree about returning to opinions.
-
For the sake of my happiness, I don't even argue religion like that anymore. I don't waste my time trying to convince others that their beliefs are wrong, nor do I spend time explaining my own beliefs. In opinionated arguments, people just say what they believe, and then attempt to denounce the probability of the opposing sides beliefs. It just seems like a general waste of time then sitting here trying to understand what can't be understood. Plus, nobody is really going to leave this thread with changed beliefs, or anything of the such.. I mean maybe someone will, but you get what I'm saying.
Just.. believe what you want to believe.. and be happy.
Anyway, I'm thinking about locking this once it gets to about twenty pages or so. Maybe we could make a less vague religious thread next time and focus on certain aspects of religion, not the whole subject.
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
-
if you believe in jebis then believe
if you don't then don't smug
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
Don't need to be a disrespecting grumpy closed minded asshole atheist rude about it. :-X
I have a good religion debate idea I shall post to avert this one's life span. ^_^
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
Loved the statement you deleted before posting this one.
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
Don't need to be a disrespecting grumpy closed minded asshole atheist rude about it. :-X
I have a good religion debate idea I shall post to avert this one's life span. ^_^
Crypto used to be what I assumed as the most intelligent non-atheist I knew, then he changed to atheist. So calling him closed minded, would be a little, closed minded, because, Crypto, well, his mind, where it doesn't have as many commas as this post does, it's pretty open. I'm not saying he's not close minded because of that, and I doubt you seriously believe he is close minded because of the (rather humourous) post he made, but if you are, please swing your cock to the left with all the force you can then realize LIFE. Is only explainable by what you MAKE it. DONT FRONT.
Oh, hey guyz, I played 80oz to freedom tonight.
I won.
:)
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
Don't need to be a disrespecting grumpy closed minded asshole atheist rude about it. :-X
I have a good religion debate idea I shall post to avert this one's life span. ^_^
Crypto used to be what I assumed as the most intelligent non-atheist I knew, then he changed to atheist. So calling him closed minded, would be a little, closed minded, because, Crypto, well, his mind, where it doesn't have as many commas as this post does, it's pretty open. I'm not saying he's not close minded because of that, and I doubt you seriously believe he is close minded because of the (rather humourous) post he made, but if you are, please swing your cock to the left with all the force you can then realize LIFE. Is only explainable by what you MAKE it. DONT FRONT.
Oh, hey guyz, I played 80oz to freedom tonight.
I won.
:)
That in itself is a bias statement as you both are always humping each other with compliments. Especially in this thread I've noticed that. So of course you will take his side in the matter as he will yours.
In reality, everyone is closed-minded (yes, me too.) There is no such thing as a purely open mind with absolutely no bias. There are those who are more closed minded than others.
Now what he said was indeed closed minded because he is looking at religion as a delusion without hard evidence. If he has hard evidence he has yet to present it. He uses ideas and how he feels about the subject as a motive to label something he can never explain through his beloved science. That is a bias as he completely dismisses religious documentation. That is closed minded as he ignores religious experiences. If it was a joke, it wasn't funny. Rather offensive actually.
-
If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't.
Don't need to be a disrespecting grumpy closed minded asshole atheist rude about it. :-X
I have a good religion debate idea I shall post to avert this one's life span. ^_^
Crypto used to be what I assumed as the most intelligent non-atheist I knew, then he changed to atheist. So calling him closed minded, would be a little, closed minded, because, Crypto, well, his mind, where it doesn't have as many commas as this post does, it's pretty open. I'm not saying he's not close minded because of that, and I doubt you seriously believe he is close minded because of the (rather humourous) post he made, but if you are, please swing your cock to the left with all the force you can then realize LIFE. Is only explainable by what you MAKE it. DONT FRONT.
Oh, hey guyz, I played 80oz to freedom tonight.
I won.
:)
That in itself is a bias statement as you both are always humping each other with compliments. Especially in this thread I've noticed that. So of course you will take his side in the matter as he will yours.
In reality, everyone is closed-minded (yes, me too.) There is no such thing as a purely open mind with absolutely no bias. There are those who are more closed minded than others.
Now what he said was indeed closed minded because he is looking at religion as a delusion without hard evidence. If he has hard evidence he has yet to present it. He uses ideas and how he feels about the subject as a motive to label something he can never explain through his beloved science. That is a bias as he completely dismisses religious documentation. That is closed minded as he ignores religious experiences. If it was a joke, it wasn't funny. Rather offensive actually.
Yeah I know nobody can be purely open-minded. I figured I could never achieve that, so instead I just try my best to not be arrogant about my opinions.. Unless it's completely necessary xD
And of course I'm going to fuck the shit out of Crypto with my compliments. I love him! I'd hump you with compliments but we're not really cool like that. ._. We could try to be though? :D
Idunno.
+ Crypto was joking I believe. I'm sure he doesn't truly believe Religion is a delusion(though that has been argued on a neurological/scientific level I believe), and it was just a joke for the atheists to giggle at.
-
It was meant to be humorous but I do think that belief in any untested hypothesis, e.g., God, is delusional.
-
Why does it matter if we believe in god or not... We are still all humans who cares in what you believe in?
-
If you knew someone who was basing his views on falsehood and superstition, wouldn't you want to do something about it?
-
No as ignorance is bliss, let us be ignorant if we believe in god
-
Ignorance is not bliss, why would ever not knowing make you happy, or let me paraphrase, why would stupidity make you happy?
-
When you are "smart" you want to know more and more, you persue more and more. And you become less happy with the world around you as you discover more things
-
well i am actually studying to become a scientist within the field of biology, and during my years of studying i have not had my world fade to grey, just by discovering more things.
-
Thats why they say "sometimes Ignorance is bliss."
-
If you need ignorance in order to be happy then you're hopeless.
-
Not everyone needs to have everything proven to them for it to be real to them. And So what if we are hopeless atleast we are happy
-
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
-
I would like to point out a fallacy in your signature, Sir Crypto.
Christians believe that their God, Jesus, was crucified and killed. While Jesus was on this said cross, he bled. Therefore, God had bled, and people still believe.
-
It's a metaphor, and a movie quote. Now go remove two ribs and suck your own dick.
-
Actually Raunky im christian and its Gods SON Jesus bled and died so that our sins may be forgiven. So your both wrong. It depends on why the god is bleeding. If he is bleeding due to stabbing himself or falling or some shit like that without a noble cause. Yes people will stop believing.
-
Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was the Son of God and was God. You should look into your own faith some more.
-
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
So before fire/gravity/earth being round/other planets/deep sea creatures were discovered they weren't real? That statement is incorrect as I am pretty sure those things existed even before humans were around. You make it sound like humans are the center of the universe. Only what we deem real is actually real? PFFT! That is laughable. To the universe, our opinions mean nothing. It will continue to go on with or without us as it has for a long time.
-
Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was the Son of God and was God. You should look into your own faith some more.
No dude Jesus is not god he can not be the SON of god AND god. other wise he fucked his mom.
And why are you arguing to me about my own religion?
-
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
So before fire/gravity/earth being round/other planets/deep sea creatures were discovered they weren't real? That statement is incorrect as I am pretty sure those things existed even before humans were around. You make it sound like humans are the center of the universe. Only what we deem real is actually real? PFFT! That is laughable. To the universe, our opinions mean nothing. It will continue to go on with or without us as it has for a long time.
The properties of fire, gravity, earth, etc., can be empirically proven. God cannot be empirically proven.
-
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
So before fire/gravity/earth being round/other planets/deep sea creatures were discovered they weren't real? That statement is incorrect as I am pretty sure those things existed even before humans were around. You make it sound like humans are the center of the universe. Only what we deem real is actually real? PFFT! That is laughable. To the universe, our opinions mean nothing. It will continue to go on with or without us as it has for a long time.
That is true. Which is why most modern religions try to point out we were not here first. We do not have claim to earth. Even though our leaders and most people think we do, We can not claim it for our own. Dinosaurs were around before us and they have lasted longer than us. Why? Because they didnt claim it they just lived of it for food and shelter.
-
Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was the Son of God and was God. You should look into your own faith some more.
No dude Jesus is not god he can not be the SON of god AND god. other wise he fucked his mom.
And why are you arguing to me about my own religion?
In Chrisitianity, the Holy Trinity makes up God. You know, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
There were huge debates back in the early days of the church whether Jesus was God, and the Council of Nicaea was held. The Council decided that Jesus was of God, and that Jesus was God.
You should learn about the history of your church before yelling at me being wrong.
-
Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was the Son of God and was God. You should look into your own faith some more.
Actually God Himself said Jesus was His Son in Matthew 17:5
No dude Jesus is not god he can not be the SON of god AND god. other wise he fucked his mom.
And why are you arguing to me about my own religion?
Jesus is God and is not God. Philippians Chapter 2 says how Jesus is on equal footing as God and humbled himself to become man. He is hence God and man. Also, Mary was a virgin. If you are going to defend Christianity, use the Bible please. ^_^
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
So before fire/gravity/earth being round/other planets/deep sea creatures were discovered they weren't real? That statement is incorrect as I am pretty sure those things existed even before humans were around. You make it sound like humans are the center of the universe. Only what we deem real is actually real? PFFT! That is laughable. To the universe, our opinions mean nothing. It will continue to go on with or without us as it has for a long time.
The properties of fire, gravity, earth, etc., can be empirically proven. God cannot be empirically proven.
That's not the point. The point is saying that things that you don't know aren't real is a horribly inaccurate statement.
-
I am saying that belief in an untested hypothesis, or belief in something without any supporting evidence, is irrational and erroneous. This is a very simple concept. Stop trying to twist it into whatever best fits your inherently crippled argument.
-
Council of Nicaea decided that Jesus was the Son of God and was God. You should look into your own faith some more.
Actually God himself said Jesus was His Son in Matthew 17:5
No dude Jesus is not god he can not be the SON of god AND god. other wise he fucked his mom.
And why are you arguing to me about my own religion?
Jesus is God and is not God. Philippians Chapter 2 says how Jesus is on equal footing as God and humbled himself to become man. He is hence God and man. Also, Mary was a virgin. If you are going to defend Christianity, use the Bible please. ^_^
Truth is not subjective. Everything must be proven for it to be real.
If you'd rather deny reality and be happy than accept reality and . . . well, still probably be happy, then something is wrong with the way you see the world.
So before fire/gravity/earth being round/other planets/deep sea creatures were discovered they weren't real? That statement is incorrect as I am pretty sure those things existed even before humans were around. You make it sound like humans are the center of the universe. Only what we deem real is actually real? PFFT! That is laughable. To the universe, our opinions mean nothing. It will continue to go on with or without us as it has for a long time.
The properties of fire, gravity, earth, etc., can be empirically proven. God cannot be empirically proven.
That's not the point. The point is saying that things that you don't know aren't real is a horribly inaccurate statement.
Yah i know like I said even though it didnt send my post through. I am 40% Christian, 40% Scientific, 10% superstitious, 5% troll, and 5% douchebag. And maybe I should turn these percentages into a new religion and clasify them as teachings.
-
I am saying that belief in an untested hypothesis, or belief in something without any supporting evidence, is irrational and erroneous. This is a very simple concept. Stop trying to twist it into whatever best fits your inherently crippled argument.
Yah and douchebags like me due to having religion crammed down my throat think that ours is THE true riligion and every one elses is false. Although like the troll i am I dont really stick to my religion and like stuff other religions say. Like I WOULD LOVE IF I COULD BE REINCARNATED! But then im like ugghhh what if all these religions are wrong? What if there is no after life, no beyond, What If we just stop existing...
-
If you're gonna use some Bible quotes, Holy, then so am I. LET'S GOOO.
The beginning of the Gospel of Paul says that,
"In the beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God."
-
YEAH BUT SINCE SCIENCE HAS HUMILIATED US BY DISPROVING OUR SCRIPTURE WE JUST CALL IT A METAPHOR SO YOU CAN'T REALLY CRITICIZE CHRISTIANITY USING ITS OWN TEACHINGS!!!
-
Excuse me, Crypto, I am trying to have a conversation, could you please keep it down back there?
Could you go fill in your "i r intelligent questioning philosopher at age 18" stereotype somewhere else?
-
No.
Edit: Actually, thanks for the satire but it doesn't take an "intelligent questioning philosopher" act to realize how ridiculous theism is.
-
You are quite welcome.
Main reason I said that was, not because of your whole anti-theism thing, but it's because you act like you know how the world works. You're 18, you've probably only been truly aware of the world for 3 years at most. No one can develop a proper understanding of something that vast in just a handful of years.
-
So you're making a personal attack irrelevant to the thread. Awesome to admit.
I don't think anything I've said indicates a belief that I know more than a bare minimum of scientific methodology and such.
Edit: And I should add that I am pretty bad at science and math. But you don't need to know a lot about either to be equipped for this sort of discussion.
-
Actually, being good at science is pretty handy when you base your argument on science.
And the word attack isn't exactly best either, since you rudely interrupted us with your caps lock. If anything, you attacked us good people just trying to have a conversation.
And even before, you said
"If you believe in random delusion x then believe.
If you don't then don't."
Then you turn around and start yelling at every one for their beliefs. Hypocrite, much?
-
That statement was sarcastic. I made it to illustrate how ridiculous the idea behind the previous post was.
-
Then it would seem that the only remaining solution is fisticuffs.
(http://blackberrycool.com/wp-content/uploads/fisticuffs.jpg)
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
-
God damnit the thread was dying stop resurecting it DX
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
This completely random post is correct.
To not believe in the trinity is to not believe everything in the bible which means that person is not really Christian to begin with as you cannot pick and chose what to believe.
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
This completely random post is correct.
To not believe in the trinity is to not believe everything in the bible which means that person is not really Christian to begin with as you cannot pick and chose what to believe.
Well, technically you can, at least with the minor parts of religion, which explains the plethora of Christian denominations out there. But yes, the major parts are things you can't really ignore, like trinitarianism.
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
This completely random post is correct.
To not believe in the trinity is to not believe everything in the bible which means that person is not really Christian to begin with as you cannot pick and chose what to believe.
Lol every Christian picks and chooses what to follow in the Bible. I'm willing to bet Holy that you don't go around stoning adulterous women, as demanded by your god.
Deuteronomy 22: If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones,
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
This completely random post is correct.
To not believe in the trinity is to not believe everything in the bible which means that person is not really Christian to begin with as you cannot pick and chose what to believe.
Lol every Christian picks and chooses what to follow in the Bible. I'm willing to bet Holy that you don't go around stoning adulterous women, as demanded by your god.
Deuteronomy 22: If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones,
You are right, I don't stone people. That is not Christianity. That is the Old Testament. Christianity originated with Jesus in the New Testament after He died. The Old Testament shows how powerful God is, contains laws which are impossible to follow, and contains prophecies to support the New Testament.
-
I can see crypto came back for more, lol. I just hope I don't have to get back into this much...
I'm gonna ignore the flaming, and go back to saying if you're christian and you DON'T believe in the trinity, you're not really catholic or any form of protestantism, but you could be a variation of eastern orthodox.
This completely random post is correct.
To not believe in the trinity is to not believe everything in the bible which means that person is not really Christian to begin with as you cannot pick and chose what to believe.
Lol every Christian picks and chooses what to follow in the Bible. I'm willing to bet Holy that you don't go around stoning adulterous women, as demanded by your god.
Deuteronomy 22: If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel. "If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones,
You are right, I don't stone people. That is not Christianity. That is the Old Testament. Christianity originated with Jesus in the New Testament after He died. The Old Testament shows how powerful God is, contains laws which are impossible to follow, and contains prophecies to support the New Testament.
Okay. So someone isn't a Christian if they don't believe in all parts of the Bible. But doesn't that make you not a Christian since you don't follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
-
Stupid quote trains.....
Anyway, most of the teachings found in the OT are very knowledgeable, but at the same time must be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously, these were written more than 2000 years ago, and are not part of the same culture that we are, but some of the meanings are very well taken into Christianity. For example, the OT conceptions of forgiveness and divine authority.
-
So basically it comes down to using parts of the Old Testament, the useful ones, while leaving the ones preaching bloodthirstiness and murder aside. How exactly do you justify the transcendence of certain sections of the Old Testament into modern times? Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
-
So basically it comes down to using parts of the Old Testament, the useful ones, while leaving the ones preaching bloodthirstiness and murder aside. How exactly do you justify the transcendence of certain sections of the Old Testament into modern times? Do you believe the Bible is the word of God?
I do believe the Bible is the Word of God. The fact is that there isn't a part of the Bible that endorses any violent act. The only violent acts that come up are those that are created by the people themselves, and are mentioned, not created, by the Bible because of the necessity to react to these as certain parts of that ancient culture.
-
The Bible states that homosexuals should be killed. That you can sell your daughter into slavery. That you cannot wear clothes made of two different materials. And the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, God wants homosexuals killed, for example. God is ancient, all-seeing, all-knowing and all-capable. Why would some of his word be valid, and some of it not? Are you questioning certain aspects of God´s word?
The fact is that there isn't a part of the Bible that endorses any violent act.
And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
??
-
Okay. So someone isn't a Christian if they don't believe in all parts of the Bible. But doesn't that make you not a Christian since you don't follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
The Old Testament and Christianity are two separate entities. Christianity never existed in the Old Testament. Christianity is the teachings of new New Testament after Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is included in the bible as a historical viewpoint of the Jews.
The Bible states that homosexuals should be killed. That you can sell your daughter into slavery. That you cannot wear clothes made of two different materials. And the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, God wants homosexuals killed, for example. God is ancient, all-seeing, all-knowing and all-capable. Why would some of his word be valid, and some of it not? Are you questioning certain aspects of God´s word?
You are correct that the Old Testament is full of violence. I think it just shows how powerful God is and what authority He has. The way you are stating your points it seems (though you may not be) that you are inferring that God just randomly promoted killing and slayed people at random. The people only suffered violence and death because they could not follow God's law or challenged God directly. Every effect has it's cause after all. Think of it like our TTT server. Admins (God) don't randomly slay/ban people for nothing. If a person (sinner) is RDMing or breaks the rules then the Admin (God) takes charge and slays or banishes (damns) the RDMer / rule breaker (sinner.) In a nutshell, our TTT server is like the Old Testament.
When transcending from the OT to the NT the sin is the same and is still there. However, the punishment is different. You are not killed and damned upon committing a sin, instead, if you do not repent, you are damned to eternal suffering. There is also the ability to be forgiven out of the mercy of God in the NT. Even after Jesus died, he went to hell to take with him all the worthy damned people to heaven with him.
Simply put, all the word of God is valid. We are created in His image, if we feel emotion so must he. God is a jealous God whom should be feared and loved. From the OT comes fear, from the NT comes love. Christianity represents the NT, the love. Not to say the fear isn't there.
-
No man could ever follow the old testament, not possible.
that is all
same goes for the new testament, no1 can follow it completely.
it seems to me, that for a very wise god he certainly is dumb at times, giving rules he know we can't follow.
-
why o why do people keep responding to this,
If your part of any religious group or w/e, you have rules to keep and it sucks.
-
why o why do people keep responding to this,
religion sucks, if your part of any religious group or w/e, you have rules to keep and it sucks.
Begging to start the thread all over again.
-
take jew traditions for example, nuff fucking said
-
I'm calling for a lock on this thread due to bigotry. I'm just getting sick of this thread, I really am. We all have differences on religious perspectives, and we all need to accept that none of us are going to change our thoughts based on what is said here.
That said, a debate should really just be about people posting different perspectives on beliefs about religion. If you're here to just hate and flame, please don't post. This thing has outlived itself.
For all that is decent and good.....
-
No man could ever follow the old testament, not possible.
that is all
same goes for the new testament, no1 can follow it completely.
it seems to me, that for a very wise god he certainly is dumb at times, giving rules he know we can't follow.
this is not bigotry dirty so shut your face XD
-
No man could ever follow the old testament, not possible.
that is all
same goes for the new testament, no1 can follow it completely.
it seems to me, that for a very wise god he certainly is dumb at times, giving rules he know we can't follow.
this is not bigotry dirty so shut your face XD
Not you jurgen!!!! I was talking about Dino, lol
-
im allowed to be a bigot trollface
-
Okay. So someone isn't a Christian if they don't believe in all parts of the Bible. But doesn't that make you not a Christian since you don't follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
The Old Testament and Christianity are two separate entities. Christianity never existed in the Old Testament. Christianity is the teachings of new New Testament after Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is included in the bible as a historical viewpoint of the Jews.
Either everything in the Bible is the word of God or it's not. Make up your mind.
-
Okay. So someone isn't a Christian if they don't believe in all parts of the Bible. But doesn't that make you not a Christian since you don't follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
The Old Testament and Christianity are two separate entities. Christianity never existed in the Old Testament. Christianity is the teachings of new New Testament after Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is included in the bible as a historical viewpoint of the Jews.
Either everything in the Bible is the word of God or it's not. Make up your mind.
What are you talking about? I never mentioned the word of God in my response to you. Read my posts better. Of course it is all the word of God.
why o why do people keep responding to this,
religion sucks, if your part of any religious group or w/e, you have rules to keep and it sucks.
Nice trolling.
-
This thread has derailed way off of proper debating. Should either be locked or cleaned up!
**** Bashing a religion does not count as debating. It gets no were. Please try to keep a friendly manner when talking in the debating forum. Saying something sucks is not debating, its an opinion. Please leave your opinions for your self. ****
-
You guys are all frigging morons today. Obviously none of you have ever debated before. So lets set this straight.
Debate Suggestions And Rules:
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
Now lighten up you bucket of parrots and debate properly. parrot
-
LOCK!
-
You guys are all frigging morons today. Obviously none of you have ever debated before. So lets set this straight.
Debate Suggestions And Rules:
Advice on Debating with Others
1. Avoid the use of Never.
2. Avoid the use of Always.
3. Refrain from saying you are wrong.
4. You can say your idea is mistaken.
5. Don't disagree with obvious truths.
6. Attack the idea not the person.
7. Use many rather than most.
8. Avoid exaggeration.
9. Use some rather than many.
10. The use of often allows for exceptions.
11. The use of generally allows for exceptions.
12. Quote sources and numbers.
13. If it is just an opinion, admit it.
14. Do not present opinion as facts.
15. Smile when disagreeing.
16. Stress the positive.
17. You do not need to win every battle to win the war.
18. Concede minor or trivial points.
19. Avoid bickering, quarreling, and wrangling.
20. Watch your tone of voice.
21. Don't win a debate and lose a friend.
22. Keep your perspective - You're just debating.
You need to be very polite when disagreeing with someone in English, even someone you know quite well.
With someone you know very well, you can disagree more directly.
Now lighten up you bucket of parrots and debate properly. parrot
THANK YOU!!!!
parrot
-
Inject for the win. ^_^
-
The Bible states that homosexuals should be killed. That you can sell your daughter into slavery. That you cannot wear clothes made of two different materials. And the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, God wants homosexuals killed, for example. God is ancient, all-seeing, all-knowing and all-capable. Why would some of his word be valid, and some of it not? Are you questioning certain aspects of God´s word?
You are correct that the Old Testament is full of violence. I think it just shows how powerful God is and what authority He has. The way you are stating your points it seems (though you may not be) that you are inferring that God just randomly promoted killing and slayed people at random. The people only suffered violence and death because they could not follow God's law or challenged God directly. Every effect has it's cause after all. Think of it like our TTT server. Admins (God) don't randomly slay/ban people for nothing. If a person (sinner) is RDMing or breaks the rules then the Admin (God) takes charge and slays or banishes (damns) the RDMer / rule breaker (sinner.) In a nutshell, our TTT server is like the Old Testament.
When transcending from the OT to the NT the sin is the same and is still there. However, the punishment is different. You are not killed and damned upon committing a sin, instead, if you do not repent, you are damned to eternal suffering. There is also the ability to be forgiven out of the mercy of God in the NT. Even after Jesus died, he went to hell to take with him all the worthy damned people to heaven with him.
Simply put, all the word of God is valid. We are created in His image, if we feel emotion so must he. God is a jealous God whom should be feared and loved. From the OT comes fear, from the NT comes love. Christianity represents the NT, the love. Not to say the fear isn't there.
I never said that God randomly promoted killing people. There was a defined motive for each and every one of his violent actions.
What worries me is that the same God that is now seen as a lovely fatherly figure, warmly looking down at humanity is the same God that one day said "Ok, experiment gone awry. Time to reset" and flooded the entire earth. I simply cannot understand how he could once preach extreme violence, and now preaches love. What brought the change?
I can see however, where you have gotten yourself into. Changing the punishment has made God´s existence a "might be". Since we are all punished after death, and nobody can say what comes after death, there is no viable way, from your viewpoint, to disprove God´s existence.
-
I can see however, where you have gotten yourself into. Changing the punishment has made God´s existence a "might be". Since we are all punished after death, and nobody can say what comes after death, there is no viable way, from your viewpoint, to disprove God´s existence.
-
Okay, thread over. trollface
-
I never said that God randomly promoted killing people. There was a defined motive for each and every one of his violent actions.
What worries me is that the same God that is now seen as a lovely fatherly figure, warmly looking down at humanity is the same God that one day said "Ok, experiment gone awry. Time to reset" and flooded the entire earth. I simply cannot understand how he could once preach extreme violence, and now preaches love. What brought the change?
I can see however, where you have gotten yourself into. Changing the punishment has made God´s existence a "might be". Since we are all punished after death, and nobody can say what comes after death, there is no viable way, from your viewpoint, to disprove God´s existence.
I cannot answer for God unless He decides to speak through me. If I were to take an educated guess on the matter. I most likely wouldn't be correct. The change came when Jesus was born. What inspired the change is a mystery. Perhaps the world was too far gone and needed a savior. Perhaps it was all part of God's plan for it to go that way. To look at it in perspective, if Jesus never came, the OT would still be happening. If Jesus came and preached what He did and things in the OT still happened, God would be a hypocrite. If God loved for all eternity, there most likely would be no fear of Him or need for Jesus. People would blow God off more if He was always loving. In the end, only God knows the correct answer.
When you say nobody can say what comes after death. I agree. That is where belief sets in, not just for the religious, but the non-religious also. Some believe there is something after death, other believe there is nothing after death. To 'know' is arrogant. Since, after all, there is no way of knowing what happens after death. Well stated. ^_^
-
Okay. So someone isn't a Christian if they don't believe in all parts of the Bible. But doesn't that make you not a Christian since you don't follow the teachings of the Old Testament?
The Old Testament and Christianity are two separate entities. Christianity never existed in the Old Testament. Christianity is the teachings of new New Testament after Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is included in the bible as a historical viewpoint of the Jews.
Either everything in the Bible is the word of God or it's not. Make up your mind.
What are you talking about? I never mentioned the word of God in my response to you. Read my posts better. Of course it is all the word of God.
If your god is infallible and cannot be wrong then the Old Testament is true and you must do as your creator asks.
-
OMG DIRTY LOCK DIS SHIT ALREADY
-
OMG DIRTY LOCK DIS SHIT ALREADY
Just convert this into spam, And no-one will reply abou religion. But only spamming
FUCKYE FOR CAPS LOCL. WANNA KNOW MY WHOLE LIFE STORY.
NO YOU WONT WHY ARE YOU STILL READING THIS, STOPPIT GODDAMNIT.
AS WE CONTINUE, IAM STILL HAVING CAPSLOCK ON.
BITCHES LOVE CAPSLOCK.
END.
-
GOOD POINT, I MEAN IT IZ JUS SO AWESOME DOOD
-
*TOPIC LOCKED*
If a new religion debate wants to start please make a fresh one, since many people have requested this locked and ended