NationStates Jolt Archive

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

If you don't want to hear what people think about christianity, then don't go round starting a million threads on the subject. Seems simple enough. :rolleyes:

A. Just because many people believe it does not mean its valid, or true.

B. We must not do anything, contradictory to what you say.

C. There are plenty of atheists/agnostics on this forum who know lots about the bible. I don't know as much as them, but they have made some damn good arguments through the bible.

D. People who believe in christianity are not mentally retarded. Just most of them believe in it because their parents were, or because they are afraid of damnation, etc. Most christians are very bad christians in a strict sense.

E. Spell-check before you post. You need it.

I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

Hmm... could it be... SATAN????

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

Surely anyone who calls Christians mentally retarded can be reporterd to moderation. If they can't then you must be exageratting.

You try to force it on us, simple enough. That's not respecting our viewpoint, which is equally valid.

Oh for goodness sake, why not just ignore any of the threads that concern the matter.
It all just goes round and round and the same people say the same things and come to the same conclusions time after time.
The only reason I'm on this thread is because of the title and now that I have said my bit, I will ignore it.

A. Just because many people believe it does not mean its valid, or true.

No, but many people have analyised it, studied it, critisced it but in the end it is still here and it is still accepted.


B. We must not do anything, contradictory to what you say.

Funny, people must not insult racial groups, genders etc. I see no diffrence here.


C. There are plenty of atheists/agnostics on this forum who know lots about the bible. I don't know as much as them, but they have made some damn good arguments through the bible.

Yes, and those are fine but people calling Chrisitans mentally retarded is just wrong.


D. People who believe in christianity are not mentally retarded. Just most of them believe in it because their parents were, or because they are afraid of damnation, etc. Most christians are very bad christians in a strict sense.

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

You try to force it on us, simple enough. That's not respecting our viewpoint, which is equally valid.

Claiming this is just stupid. We expalin it to people and then they cry foul with the "forcing" argument. If people cant see the diffrence between explaination they need to be educated in the terms of discussion.

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

As far as I'm aware, most Atheists are of that mindset because they arrived at it on their own. Its not like they get taken to their anti-churches every week and are constantly told about God not existing. Most of the time, they have to resist a lot of pressure from religious groups to arrive at their views.

Be the bigger man and turn the other shoulder. Otherwise you are just asking for more abuse.

By starting this thread, for example, you are showing me that you just like holding up a "Confrontational Christian" sign.

Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded.

and what do you mean by "valid"?

As far as I'm aware, most Atheists are of that mindset because they arrived at it on their own. Its not like they get taken to their anti-churches every week and are constantly told about God not existing. Most of the time, they have to resist a lot of pressure from religious groups to arrive at their views.

What I meant is that they are not raised with any conept of God is the reason why many people are athiests. And the idea that they resist religious groups to arive at their conclusion is completly absurd as far as the UK goes. I dont know about the US though.

Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

Turn the other cheek.

Hmm... could it be... SATAN????

http://www.la.ngb.army.mil/205th/ChurchChatLady.jpg

Well, isn't that special.

and what do you mean by "valid"?

In the same way that the Conservative right wing perspective on politics is considered valid by the Socialist left wing perspective on politics but they disagree with each other. Conservatives diagree with socialists but they can see how it would work.

In the same way that the Conservative right wing perspective on politics is considered valid by the Socialist left wing perspective on politics but they disagree with each other. Conservatives diagree with socialists but they can see how it would work.

Not in the sense of 'logically valid' then?

Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

And I reserve the right to shove creationism, abstinence, and any other faith driven social program down your throat. Yeah, that was a great excuse. :rolleyes:

This is repetitive...

Christianity: "Don't tread on me!"

Atheism: "Why not? You're artificial."

Christianity: "$@%&!"

Atheism: "&$#%!"

In the same way that the Conservative right wing perspective on politics is considered valid by the Socialist left wing perspective on politics but they disagree with each other. Conservatives diagree with socialists but they can see how it would work.

I think most of the atheists/agnostics on this forum see Christianity like that. The few people who really hate Christianity never seem to stick around long.

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

I gotta agree here, though it is the opposite function of what you're replying to and we may be on the same page. I find many atheists to be as such out of rebellion against their parents.

Not all, mind you, but many.

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

1) Being compared to a form of mental retardation is harsh, is it? You realise, of course, that the traditional response to those NOT believing in your so-called 'god', was to be branded a Satanist (which is ridiculous, if you think about it) or heretic, or blasphemer - and punished in some suitable accord...

Like... being burned to death, or stoned.

In comparison - being called a 'dummy' seems pretty minor.

2) I do not think that Christianity is, in any way, 'valid'. Just because YOU believe in it... that doesn't give it ANY reality, significance, importance or validity.

3) I have studied Christianity... and a wealth of other religions. Neo, you KNOW I have far greater learning on this subject than you do - you have (as far as I know, STILL not finished reading the bible - let alone read ANY other religious texts... or the native tongue of the biblical scripture).

Many people read ALL the available material, and STILL do not agree with your belief.

4) I do NOT have to accept that your religion is valid. I am perfectly within my rights to consider ANY religious belief as a sign of immaturity. I am not being 'unfair' to anyone... it just seems to me that I was religious when I was younger, but I grew out of it.

5) Christianity is an affront to many people for the same reason as ANY religion... it seeks to control OTHER PEOPLE... with NO justification apart from a 'god' that cannot be verified.

Although I am heterosexual, I would want the right to marry my own gender IF I went 'that way'. Thus - your religion is infringing on my lifestyle. Thus, your religion is an affront to me.

And I reserve the right to shove creationism, abstinence, and any other faith driven social program down your throat. Yeah, that was a great excuse. :rolleyes:

I will ridicule those beleifs if they are presented to me but i wont go out and search for people who beleive in them to try and get them to change their mind, there's quite a difference.

Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

you want an end to AIDS, right?

name a better method for this besides abstinence. Because it seems to me that it is almost entirely transmitted by sexual contact.

just a thought...

as for Creationism, is your alternative for explaining the origin of the universe ... scientific theories?

lol. as if we know.

there are some things we'll NEVER know so long as we're here on earth. so it's funny when scientists get all high-minded with Christians over creationism... and you ask them, "So, then, sir, how did the universe come into being?"

"I don't know... but we're working on it!"

keep working. we will never be certain, so I'll just stick with this: God created the universe. If, after that, he let it go to expand on its own, that's fine. Big Bang actually is not offensive to me. But for a Big Bang to happen, we had to have matter. Where did the matter come from? That, to me, is the question.

Not in the sense of 'logically valid' then?

Chrisitaity is logically valid. I would recomend reading some Ravi Zacharias

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? And wasn't Jesus that really holy dude whom Christians believe to be God? So, essentially, you're not doing what God said.

you want an end to AIDS, right?

name a better method for this besides abstinence. Because it seems to me that it is almost entirely transmitted by sexual contact.

And this has what exactly to do with religion?

No, but many people have analyised it, studied it, critisced it but in the end it is still here and it is still accepted.



Funny, people must not insult racial groups, genders etc. I see no diffrence here.



Yes, and those are fine but people calling Chrisitans mentally retarded is just wrong.



The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc


A. Having people accept something means nothing. It does not validate anything.

B. Actually, people should not insult people of other gender, race, etc. The difference is, there are punishments for doing those things.

C. I was replying to your saying that if atheists actually looked up things on the bible, they would agree its valid. Im sure nobody is calling all christians mentally retarded.

D. Actually, thats very untrue. I dont know one atheist, including myself, who had atheist parents. There are no atheist churches, and there is no where to really get atheist pressure, except maybe from friends. On the contrary, I dont know one religious person who's parents are atheists.

LOL

Peabo Bryson's "If Ever You're In My Arms Again" is on... haven't heard this song in a decade, at least.

5) Christianity is an affront to many people for the same reason as ANY religion... it seeks to control OTHER PEOPLE... with NO justification apart from a 'god' that cannot be verified.


It doesn't control you at all. It might tell you that you need to do that to lead a sinless life, but you don't have to. They aren't gonna send the "nun-squad" out to find you and beat you mercilessly with rulers until you capitulate.

In the same way that the Conservative right wing perspective on politics is considered valid by the Socialist left wing perspective on politics but they disagree with each other. Conservatives diagree with socialists but they can see how it would work.

so "valid" = "criminally insane and possibly evil" then?

As far as I'm aware, most Atheists are of that mindset because they arrived at it on their own. Its not like they get taken to their anti-churches every week and are constantly told about God not existing. Most of the time, they have to resist a lot of pressure from religious groups to arrive at their views.

Oddly enough, though, neither are all Christians. I'm pretty well-versed in religion and philosophy, and there are many other Christians out there who could school me in a debate. So to lump us all into a special ed group is, aside from fallacious (part strawman, part false dichotomy), just not an accurate representation of the facts. You might want to try speaking to a Jesuit sometime.

I'll admit that the hardest part about being a Christian is that I get associated with some real whackjobs, but I can't say that anyone who has ever talked to me in my life has considered me "retarded".

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? And wasn't Jesus that really holy dude whom Christians believe to be God? So, essentially, you're not doing what God said.

Turning the other cheek was meant so that your master could not slap you like a servant, but he would be forced to slap you like an equal. I dont see where people get the whole tolerance thing from that.

you want an end to AIDS, right?

name a better method for this besides abstinence. Because it seems to me that it is almost entirely transmitted by sexual contact.

just a thought...

as for Creationism, is your alternative for explaining the origin of the universe ... scientific theories?

lol. as if we know.

there are some things we'll NEVER know so long as we're here on earth. so it's funny when scientists get all high-minded with Christians over creationism... and you ask them, "So, then, sir, how did the universe come into being?"

"I don't know... but we're working on it!"

keep working. we will never be certain, so I'll just stick with this: God created the universe. If, after that, he let it go to expand on its own, that's fine. Big Bang actually is not offensive to me. But for a Big Bang to happen, we had to have matter. Where did the matter come from? That, to me, is the question.

Creationism as in the belief that the earth was created in 7 days, approximately 6,000 years ago, thats what i find ridiculous, not the beleif that a god started it all.

And this has what exactly to do with religion?

...a response to this:

Originally Posted by San haiti
Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

------------

note that i did not voice support of abstinence... simply defending it as a way to halt or greatly curb the spread of AIDS.

of course... you'd also have to check the blood of your would-be spouse, which in Africa often could end up leading to a disappointing outcome... IE, some of the countries have AIDS prevalency rates of 30%+, so it might not be easy to find a spouse without AIDS.

In which case pre-marital abstinence would not necessarily stop AIDS.

Chrisitaity is logically valid. I would recomend reading some Ravi Zacharias

Logically valid:

All things that whistle are steam trains,
Scorates whistles,
Therefore, Socrates is a steam train.

Logical validity does nothing to prove that you are working from true assumptions. All it means is that the reasoning maintains truth value: if you start with true premises, then you will draw true conclusions from them, whereas if you start with false premises, you will draw false conclusions from them.

So, how do we go about determining if a religion is based on true premises?

Chrisitaity is logically valid.

bwo, you want this one, or should i?

edit: damn, you posted before i could.

so "valid" = "criminally insane and possibly evil" then?

How are obeying the commandments laid out by Jesus: loving God with all your heart and treating others as if they were your neighbor in any way connected with being "criminally insane and possibly evil"?

Moreover, a great deal of Christianity is based on "valid" logic, since validity is only concerned with the structure of a syllogism and whether it is constructed properly.

1) All sex that does not lead to procreation is unnatural.
2) Homosexuality does not lead to procreation.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural.

There, I just set up a perfectly valid argument, since it follows the structure of a modus ponens argument perfectly. Now, you could argue that it isn't substantive, which means that the syllogism doesn't work because Premise 1) is incorrect, but substantiveness and formal validity are two different things.

...a response to this:

Originally Posted by San haiti
Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

Abstinence itself would be a good way of combating the pread of AIDS. I'm sorry if i wasnt clear but i was referring to the teaching of abstinence in schools. In my opinion it is the worst method of sex ed possible beacuase the recipients often do not become abstinent and are then poorly informed of methods of contraception. That is why i ridicule it, if you want to debate this, start another thread.

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

Everyone is 'born' an Atheist, Neo.

Nobody is 'born' believing in 'god'.

(Except for the Dalai Lama, maybe...)

...a response to this:

Originally Posted by San haiti
Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.

Ah, right I see the context now, but San Haiti was talking about 'faith driven' abstinence programs here - those based like Christianity's on the assumption that abstinence outside marriage is not only a good thing because it can limit the spread of STDs, but because sexual activity outside marriage is in itself a bad thing.

Telling people that they will be less likely to acquire an STD if they are celebate is one thing, telling them that they are miserable sinners if they do not remain celebate is quite another.

Creationism as in the belief that the earth was created in 7 days, approximately 6,000 years ago, thats what i find ridiculous, not the beleif that a god started it all.

It doesn't say it was created 6,000 years ago. Give me the exact verse that says AND GOD CREATED THE EARTH 6,000 YEARS AGO! That's right, you can't. Nearly all of the creation story is a metaphor. A day for God cannot be a day for us, because when God started creating the world there was NO SUCH THING AS A DAY! A day for God could equal 10,000 years, or 10,000,000 years which is entirely possible considering he's omnipresent.

Everyone is 'born' an Atheist, Neo.

Nobody is 'born' believing in 'god'.

(Except for the Dalai Lama, maybe...)

Nobody is born believing in the non-existence of 'god' either...
I would classify the newborn as default agnostics, if anything.

Just payback for Bush's little religious crusade. He had anti-Muslim feelings, but he didn't post them on forums, he bombed Mosques and hospitals.

How are obeying the commandments laid out by Jesus: loving God with all your heart and treating others as if they were your neighbor in any way connected with being "criminally insane and possibly evil"?

by my response being to this claim:


In the same way that the Conservative right wing perspective on politics is considered valid by the Socialist left wing perspective on politics but they disagree with each other. Conservatives diagree with socialists but they can see how it would work.

It doesn't say it was created 6,000 years ago. Give me the exact verse that says AND GOD CREATED THE EARTH 6,000 YEARS AGO! That's right, you can't. Nearly all of the creation story is a metaphor. A day for God cannot be a day for us, because when God started creating the world there was NO SUCH THING AS A DAY! A day for God could equal 10,000 years, or 10,000,000 years which is entirely possible considering he's omnipresent.

I know its metaphor, however a lot of people dont and insist the world was created 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, ask Neo if you dont beleive me.

Nobody is born believing in the non-existence of 'god' either...
I would classify the newborn as default agnostics, if anything.

no.

an agnostic believes you cannot know if god exists.

an atheist does not believe. Babies do not believe, ergo they are atheist.

You fail to understand what atheism is. I think you should go look it up.

Originally posted by Chellis: Turning the other cheek was meant so that your master could not slap you like a servant, but he would be forced to slap you like an equal. I dont see where people get the whole tolerance thing from that.

That's supposed to be a metaphor, like most of what Jesus said. He did not mean the literal sense of his words most of the time.

Nobody is born believing in the non-existence of 'god' either...
I would classify the newborn as default agnostics, if anything.

Actually, atheist fully fits a newborn. Antitheist doesnt.

Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

Ah, yes.... I should explain that i don't have any affront against Christianity. Christian fundamentalism, however. Actually, fundamentalism of any religion. It is sick and it is wrong, and is a danger to humanity that must be gotten rid off (points to Kansas, points to the Middle East). Isn't that obvious?

no.

an agnostic believes you cannot know if god exists.

an atheist does not believe. Babies do not believe, ergo they are atheist.

You fail to understand what atheism is. I think you should go look it up.

How does anyone know whether babies are born with a belief in God or not? I haven't heard any newborn babies talk to me in quite a while.

Bah! Im a Catholic, a Republican, and an American, I got a trifecta from hell going against me on this forum.

...what Jesus said. He did not mean... his words most of the time.

Sorry, I couldnt help myself.

It doesn't control you at all. It might tell you that you need to do that to lead a sinless life, but you don't have to. They aren't gonna send the "nun-squad" out to find you and beat you mercilessly with rulers until you capitulate.

Rubbish. Sorry to be so brash - but MOST of the Western world has accepted religious reasons for at least SOME of their national law... such as not being able to shop on a Sunday.

Religion is still controlling the non-religious... and, in the US, the right-wing Christians are seeking to continually expand that powerbase.

How does anyone know whether babies are born with a belief in God or not? I haven't heard any newborn babies talk to me in quite a while.

ask a toddler what god is.

They don't know. They have to learn.

Faith, by its very nature, requires the believer to refuse to question the belief. The believer must accept what is told to him, no matter how nonsensical or contradictory the information is. Otherwise it isn't Faith.


Humans have always had the ability to think and imagine beyond their physical and intellectual capabilities. We understand death, like all animals. But unlike animals, we are able to conceptualize our own individual death. So since the beginning of Homo Sapiens (if not earlier) man has created fanciful explanations for forces greater than himself that he cannot understand.

These explanations become generally accepted into the cultural lore, and become a source of comfort where before there was confusion. As Karl Marx noted, religion is the opiate of the masses. Religion provides a set of explanations already set in stone, thus not requiring any conscious reasoning by the individual. This is particularly attractive to those people who are too fearful, closed minded, lazy, or simple to think things out on their own. Unfortunately, that applies to the majority of the human population.

The problem with Religion is that it becomes inflexible. The Universe keeps changing (according to God's path, if that's your view), so why doesn't the religious community keep up with it? It seems unwilling or unable to grow and change along with the Universe, and thus is left with the status of other archaic belief systems, like the Flat Earth Society. With your current understanding of the shape of Earth, wouldn't you consider someone who still believes the world is flat, against all evidence to the contrary, as somewhat "mentally challenged"? That is how the 'faithful' appear to the non-religious.

Cultural beliefs do change, but more slowly than the greatest thinkers of the time. Thus, forward-thinking humans have moved beyond the mainstream belief in religious doctrine, opting for a more eclectic understanding of all humanity--one that is more inclusive, international, universal. Did you know that ALL world religions have some version of the Golden Rule? : "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Beyond that, they diverge. If it were up to me, we would focus on the part we agree on, and let the rest slide.

The petty squabbles Religion has over their Specific Beliefs results from a too-limited view of the world. They lose sight of the fact that we are ALL part of the same Design. YES, even those who don't believe the same as us.

Perhaps this is why people get so upset with the Christians in particular. All religions have a moral code that they believe is Right. The Christians, however, are the ones most likely to point the finger at what they think is Wrong. And not only point, but fight, kill, legislate and otherwise force people into their definition of Right.

The Golden Rule does not say "Make other people do unto others as you would have them do" It simply tells us what OUR OWN behavior should be, not anyone else's.

no.

an agnostic believes you cannot know if god exists.

An agnostic doesn't necessarilly believe that it is impossible to know if God exists or not: it would be possible to ba an agnostic, but to accept that certain forms of mystical experience could convince you that God exists.

an atheist does not believe. Babies do not believe, ergo they are atheist.

You fail to understand what atheism is. I think you should go look it up.

Working by your definition, all things which do not believe or do not possess the capacity to believe are atheists. Thus my shoes, hat and coat are atheists.

How does anyone know whether babies are born with a belief in God or not? I haven't heard any newborn babies talk to me in quite a while.

How many babies are born with knowledge of geometry? Or with language?

Babies have to learn things. The few things they know how to do when born, are not knowledge, but reactions and such.

What I meant is that they are not raised with any conept of God is the reason why many people are athiests. And the idea that they resist religious groups to arive at their conclusion is completly absurd as far as the UK goes. I dont know about the US though.

Both my parents were raised "with the concept of God" and both have atheist leanings.

And as for resisting religious groups: every week, since Primary 1, I have had a minister come and talk to us and tell us all about the wonders of Christianity etc etc. Now, I'm not terribly bothered about this, because it didn't seem to work very well - but the point it, its quite difficult to simply slip into Atheism.

And I'm in the UK.

Ha! Thats hilarious. Good one, Chellis.

ask a toddler what god is.

They don't know. They have to learn.

I have heard a theory which states that babies actually come into the world as close to God as humanly possible. They are totally innocent, it is only as they grow older that they forget about God, kind of like a dream, you know you dreamed something, but can't remember what.

*shrug* not saying I believe that, just saying it's a theory.

Thus my shoes, hat and coat are atheists.

They are. They are without theism. A-theism.

Nobody is born believing in the non-existence of 'god' either...
I would classify the newborn as default agnostics, if anything.

This just shows that you do not understand what 'makes' an Atheist or an Agnostic, then.

Agnostics can be thiests or atheists... the only thing that MAKES you an Agnsotic, is the belief that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW if god is real or not.

Atheists can be either Explicit (I believe there are NO 'gods') or Implicit (I just don't believe in gods).

ALL children are born Implicit Atheists.

That's supposed to be a metaphor, like most of what Jesus said. He did not mean the literal sense of his words most of the time.

Jesus spoke Aramaic in his daily life.

NONE of the original documents that made up the text of the Bible were written in Aramaic.

If you are reading an English version of the Bible, you must understand that there is no such thing as a "literal" translation of a translation of a translation....

First, I'm going to point out that I'm an Agnostic, which puts what I'm about to say in some perspective. So, if you're an Atheist and think I'm bashing you, I'm not a "closed-minded Christian", and if you're a Christian and think I'm bashing you, I'm not an "bitter cynical Atheist".


>>> Just because many people believe it does not mean its valid, or true.

True. On the other hand, I could say the same about germ theory, evolution, or, well, pretty much any scientific theory as well. 100 years ago people KNEW that Newton's views of physics were completely accurate and true, but that "understanding" was shattered. In the same way, what we "KNOW" to be true could just as easily be discovered to be wrong tomorrow.

True, Christians cannot "prove" their beliefs and faith. On the other hand, no religious faith can really be "disproven" either - this is why nearly every religious discussion goes 'round and 'round with no end.

There's room for BOTH points-of-view. Choose which one works for you, and stop trying to convert everyone to YOUR world-view.


>>> As far as I'm aware, most Atheists are of that mindset because they arrived at it on their own.

I know a number of atheists, having gone through that phase myself. Just as many are products of society (because being religious is uncool, dude!) or direct rebellion to their parent's faith as Christians are products of outside forces. Very few Christians OR Atheists really came to their point-of-view through personal introspection and awareness, and are well-read about things.

In fact, the irony is that the most well-read Christians and Atheists are the ones least likely to TALK about what they believe. They accept that what you believe needs to be your OWN choice, not a product of peer-pressure.


>>> Being compared to a form of mental retardation is harsh, is it? You realise, of course, that the traditional response to those NOT believing in your so-called 'god', was to be branded a Satanist (which is ridiculous, if you think about it) or heretic, or blasphemer - and punished in some suitable accord.

The "traditional" response to uppity slaves in the South was to whip them. Are you advocating traditional responses, then? Or advocating that the "traditional" response should be met with equal enmity later? By that argument, the most enlightened outcome of desegregation would be African-Americans beating the hell out of any white-skinned person who annoys them, yes?

You CANNOT use actions taken by people who've been dead for hundreds of years to justify YOUR being a jerk today. By ripping into Christians, you're effectively proving that you are NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE.


>>> I do not think that Christianity is, in any way, 'valid'. Just because YOU believe in it... that doesn't give it ANY reality, significance, importance or validity.

Considering it's the number one religion in the world right now, followed closely by Islam, I'd say it most certainly has both significance AND importance. You may not turn to it to define how you should live your life, but it most definately affects you. As for it's validity, see the first comment above.


>>> Christianity is an affront to many people for the same reason as ANY religion... it seeks to control OTHER PEOPLE... with NO justification apart from a 'god' that cannot be verified.

That's not religion, that's human nature. Any number of Christians have no interest or desire in what you believe, or in converting you. A number of Muslims feel the same way. And any number of Atheists fall into the same category.

BUT, nearly any faith has those who are far more fanatical, who seek to push their views onto others. Guess what? Atheists do the same. When you tell someone who is a devout Christian that they are clearly intellectually inferior for believing in the invisible babysitter, you are doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING THEM OF DOING.

If you really want to prove you're better than the people who are "oppressing" you, why don't you SHOW it, rather than saying it with hollow words? If you're an Atheist, live your life and show Christians that your way is better. If you're a Christian, live your life and show Atheists how fulfilled it makes you. Using grade-school insults on an anonymous message board doesn't make you cool, it makes you a hypocrite.

Both my parents were raised "with the concept of God" and both have atheist leanings.

And as for resisting religious groups: every week, since Primary 1, I have had a minister come and talk to us and tell us all about the wonders of Christianity etc etc. Now, I'm not terribly bothered about this, because it didn't seem to work very well - but the point it, its quite difficult to simply slip into Atheism.

And I'm in the UK.

Indeed. My mother laments me for my beliefs, and constantly tells me I will grow out of them. When I first was becoming atheist, she was telling me how bad atheism is. That hindered my progression for a while.

They are. They are without theism. A-theism.

Best way to settle this dispute is to define our terms: a quick skip over to Wikipedia defines the model of agnosticism that I am arguing for as weak agnosticism, and the model of atheism as strong atheism, whereas you appear to be using a model of strong agnosticism and a model of weak atheism.

If you don't want to hear what people think about christianity, then don't go round starting a million threads on the subject. Seems simple enough. :rolleyes:

"Exactically!," said the Caterpillar.

It doesn't control you at all. It might tell you that you need to do that to lead a sinless life, but you don't have to. They aren't gonna send the "nun-squad" out to find you and beat you mercilessly with rulers until you capitulate.

No, they'll just pass legislation making their belief law, and then put people in jail for not complying. How is that any different?

This just shows that you do not understand what 'makes' an Atheist or an Agnostic, then.

Agnostics can be thiests or atheists... the only thing that MAKES you an Agnsotic, is the belief that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW if god is real or not.

Atheists can be either Explicit (I believe there are NO 'gods') or Implicit (I just don't believe in gods).

ALL children are born Implicit Atheists.

Explicit atheism might better be called Antitheism, which I am of.

THis just shows that you do not understand what 'makes' an Atheist or an Agnostic, then.

Agnostics can be thiests or atheists... the only thing that MAKES you an Agnsotic, is the belief that it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW if god is real or not.


No, as I have said elsewhere, there are models of agnostic ism which are based on not currently believing in a deity, but being open to being convinced.

Originally posted by Tropical Montana:
Jesus spoke Aramaic in his daily life.

NONE of the original documents that made up the text of the Bible were written in Aramaic.

If you are reading an English version of the Bible, you must understand that there is no such thing as a "literal" translation of a translation of a translation....


But its pretty damn close. And that would mean the basic idea of what Jesus was saying, now I can extract the figurative and literal meanings of a basic idea, can't you?

Best way to settle this dispute is to define our terms: a quick skip over to Wikipedia defines the model of agnosticism that I am arguing for as weak agnosticism, and the model of atheism as strong atheism, whereas you appear to be using a model of strong agnosticism and a model of weak atheism.

Im simply using the definition of the words. A means without. Theism, well, thats obvious. A-theism means Without theism. A baby is without theism. Therefore, a baby is Atheist.

Explicit atheism might better be called Antitheism, which I am of.

Is such antitheism as much a matter of faith as theism is?

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable.
I agree, people should respect Christians. I believe in tolerance for people who are different so I am equally annoyed by the persistent anti-Christianity on these forums.

You try to force it on us, simple enough. That's not respecting our viewpoint, which is equally valid.
Making a lot of threads hardly constitutes "forcing his religion on us."

No, as I have said elsewhere, there are models of agnostic ism which are based on not currently believing in a deity, but being open to being convinced.

but agnosticism implies that you make the choice of being open to being convinced. Babies are open to being convinced simply because they have no feeling either way.

Faith, by its very nature, requires the believer to refuse to question the belief. The believer must accept what is told to him, no matter how nonsensical or contradictory the information is. Otherwise it isn't Faith.

As you are fairly clearly someone who denies that they have "Faith", I question your competence to define and describe faith.

My faith does not require me "to refuse to question" my beliefs. It is simply that I have changed the underlying assumptions of my life.

We all have made working assumptions on "how things are". They allow us to live life without constantly asking ourselves whether our senses are working reasonably accurately, or whether our minds are thinking rationally, or whether other people really exist.

Just over five years ago, I changed my underlying assumptions of life, and consciously adopted a Christian worldview. The decision was not entirely mine, as I believe God was massively influencing me to do so, but I still had, and have, a say.

I still sometimes wonder if my beliefs are accurate, and I have changed my mind on several issues during the course of my Christian life; I will probably do so again. I don't think I'll stop following Jesus, but since so many of my reasons for continuing to do so are subjective, I'm not expecting to persuade you to agree.

Is such antitheism as much a matter of faith as theism is?

I wouldnt call it faith, but it could go under that description.

Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? And wasn't Jesus that really holy dude whom Christians believe to be God? So, essentially, you're not doing what God said.


What Jesus meant was "moon them". :D

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

All religion is a form of mass insanity. All believers are being retarded by their blind faith in the lies and hypocracy of religion.

They are. They are without theism. A-theism.

Those things without beliefs are atheist.
The Bible is without beliefs.
Ergo, the Bible is atheist.

Is such antitheism as much a matter of faith as theism is?
Anti-theism would be a matter of faith... you would have to make the 'leap of faith' to the point where you accepted that 'god' was definitely NOT real.

Creationism as in the belief that the earth was created in 7 days, approximately 6,000 years ago, thats what i find ridiculous, not the beleif that a god started it all.

Aren't you the same guy who said you're quite clued up on the bible? If so, you should read it a bit further. Somewhere in there, and admittedly I forget where, they tell you that God is not "tied" to time the same way we are. His words were "A day is like a thousand years to me, and a thousand years are like a day" (and also remember that a thousand was about the highest number they knew in those years - back then this was a HUGE number) - so anybody at all who goes putting numbers on how old the earth is and saying "God created the earth in seven days, this is rediculous" can't be true; we do not know how long these "days" were that He speaks of.

No, they'll just pass legislation making their belief law, and then put people in jail for not complying. How is that any different?

Isn't that what every law is? It was originally someones belief that it should be their way and it was passed into legislation by a group of people who agreed it was a good law.

For instance, I believe that illegal immigration is wrong and should be worked against. Others might believe illegal immigration is good, but that doesn't matter because the law was that persons belief and he had a majority of people in the legislature who agreed with him.

First, I'm going to point out that I'm an Agnostic, which puts what I'm about to say in some perspective. So, if you're an Atheist and think I'm bashing you, I'm not a "closed-minded Christian", and if you're a Christian and think I'm bashing you, I'm not an "bitter cynical Atheist".


>>> Just because many people believe it does not mean its valid, or true.

True. On the other hand, I could say the same about germ theory, evolution, or, well, pretty much any scientific theory as well. 100 years ago people KNEW that Newton's views of physics were completely accurate and true, but that "understanding" was shattered. In the same way, what we "KNOW" to be true could just as easily be discovered to be wrong tomorrow.



Wrong. Newton's laws were accurate to within the limits of the equipment of the day. They are not wrong now, just need improving in extreme situations, need adding to.




>>> Being compared to a form of mental retardation is harsh, is it? You realise, of course, that the traditional response to those NOT believing in your so-called 'god', was to be branded a Satanist (which is ridiculous, if you think about it) or heretic, or blasphemer - and punished in some suitable accord.

The "traditional" response to uppity slaves in the South was to whip them. Are you advocating traditional responses, then? Or advocating that the "traditional" response should be met with equal enmity later? By that argument, the most enlightened outcome of desegregation would be African-Americans beating the hell out of any white-skinned person who annoys them, yes?

You CANNOT use actions taken by people who've been dead for hundreds of years to justify YOUR being a jerk today. By ripping into Christians, you're effectively proving that you are NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE.


Christians STILL tell atheists that they are sinners, will go to hell, and attempt to inflict their moral code on other people. This kind of attitude is highly likely to attract a negative response.



>>> Christianity is an affront to many people for the same reason as ANY religion... it seeks to control OTHER PEOPLE... with NO justification apart from a 'god' that cannot be verified.

That's not religion, that's human nature. Any number of Christians have no interest or desire in what you believe, or in converting you. A number of Muslims feel the same way. And any number of Atheists fall into the same category.

BUT, nearly any faith has those who are far more fanatical, who seek to push their views onto others. Guess what? Atheists do the same. When you tell someone who is a devout Christian that they are clearly intellectually inferior for believing in the invisible babysitter, you are doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE ACCUSING THEM OF DOING.


Wrong. Christ expressly told people to convert others. Those christians who are not are failing in their faith.

All religion is a form of mass insanity. All believers are being retarded by their blind faith in the lies and hypocracy of religion.

I can see that you're an advocate of discussion and argument rather than mildless insulting.

No, but many people have analyised it, studied it, critisced it but in the end it is still here and it is still accepted.

Accepted by CHRISTIANS... not by everyone. As a Christian, I find it abhorrant that you would force your beliefs on others. Christ taught to turn the other cheek. If you are insulted, then open yourself up for more insults and accept them with Christ's love when they come.


Funny, people must not insult racial groups, genders etc. I see no diffrence here.

Funny people insult racial groups, genders etc., all the time, do you never watch Comedy Central's Friday Night Standup?



Yes, and those are fine but people calling Chrisitans mentally retarded is just wrong.

Suppose they were atheists who knew a lot about the Bible and decided through their studies that Christians were, in fact mentally retarded. Would it be alright for them to postulate the theory, or are your opinions the only ones that are to be considered valid and therefore can be spoken?



The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

I think the original author meant that we were only Christians because our parents were MENTALLY RETARDED. Of course, I could be reading that and interpreting it incorrectly. Hmm. That is the same thing that happened with the BIBLE. Maybe this was inspired by God.

Logically valid:

All things that whistle are steam trains,
Scorates whistles,
Therefore, Socrates is a steam train.

Veeeeery weak argument. That is *illogically* valid:

All people are human,
Socrates is human,
therefore Socrates can't be a steam train.

Christianity doesn't stop with your reasoning, it continues with this reasoning.

Those things without beliefs are atheist.
The Bible is without beliefs.
Ergo, the Bible is atheist.

Beliefs dont equal theism.

Those things without religious beliefs are atheist.
The Bible is without religious beliefs.
Ergo, the Bible is atheist.

If the Bible is without religious beliefs, then yes, its atheist. What is your point?

Everyone is 'born' an Atheist, Neo.


According the definition, everyone is born Muslim. Completely submissive to the Divine, or, if you will, the natural order of things. This makes all animals, all planets, all stars, and the Universe itself Muslim.

One doesn't have to actively believe in the Almighty in order to submit.

See? It can go another way, too.

but agnosticism implies that you make the choice of being open to being convinced. Babies are open to being convinced simply because they have no feeling either way.

Yeah, I used the words 'default' and 'if anything' in my original post on this matter advisedly.

Those things without beliefs are atheist.
The Bible is without beliefs.
Ergo, the Bible is atheist.

*sigh*

BUT!!!1one

Those things without belief are atheist. (check)
The Bible is without beliefs. (False. The Bible is not without beliefs, it is exactly the opposite)

Ergo, the Bible cannot be atheist.

Veeeeery weak argument. That is *illogically* valid:

All people are human,
Socrates is human,
therefore Socrates can't be a steam train.

Christianity doesn't stop with your reasoning, it continues with this reasoning.


Are you claiming that the premise 'All things that whistle are steam trains' is illogical?


No doubt you know about the problems logic has with black swans?

*sigh*

BUT!!!1one

Those things without belief are atheist. (check)
The Bible is without beliefs. (False. The Bible is not without beliefs, it is exactly the opposite)

Ergo, the Bible cannot be atheist.
Hm? Are you stating that the Bible is an intelligent being? Because it can't very well have beliefs otherwise...

Best way to settle this dispute is to define our terms: a quick skip over to Wikipedia defines the model of agnosticism that I am arguing for as weak agnosticism, and the model of atheism as strong atheism, whereas you appear to be using a model of strong agnosticism and a model of weak atheism.

I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source of debate material, I'm afraid... since it has no 'peer-review'... other than an arbitrary semi-democratic creation/correction.

Let me recommend you a site - if we are looking for definition of terms:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm

*sigh*

BUT!!!1one

Those things without belief are atheist. (check)
The Bible is without beliefs. (False. The Bible is not without beliefs, it is exactly the opposite)

Ergo, the Bible cannot be atheist.

Are you telling me that a mass of wood pulp with ink stains on it possesses beliefs?

(and also remember that a thousand was about the highest number they knew in those years - back then this was a HUGE number)

Okay... we have a mentally retarded moron... yes, we have a winner!

Are you telling me that a mass of wood pulp with ink stains on it possesses beliefs?

Well you could try asking it.

But its pretty damn close. And that would mean the basic idea of what Jesus was saying, now I can extract the figurative and literal meanings of a basic idea, can't you?

Okay, here's a simple, one-stage example:

IN SPANISH "No te preocupes, te esta' tomando el pelo"

Literal translation into English " Don't worry, he is taking your hair"

Now, explain to me the figurative meaning of that statement.

THen, if you want to make it more like the Bible, translate the English into Dutch, and the Dutch result into Russian. Then get a bunch of Russian poets together and have them make it more poetic.

Then ask a Russian what the figurative meaning of the final statement is.

Well, I'm gonna assume all atheists are evil because the atheist government of Russia went out and killed everyone who professed christianity. There are still atheists who try to push their beliefs on christians just as there are christians who try to push their beliefs on atheists. China and much of the eastern countries still kill many christians for their beliefs and nothing else. In the middle east christians are imprisoned, raped, and tortured for starting missionary schools or even just having regular church meetings. One guy in Iran had had his fingernails pulled off with plyers and his hands stuck in boiling oil for going to a christian meeting at a friends house. This is TODAY, in the age of reason and enlightenment, and you say we press our faith on you.

According the definition, everyone is born Muslim. Completely submissive to the Divine, or, if you will, the natural order of things. This makes all animals, all planets, all stars, and the Universe itself Muslim.

One doesn't have to actively believe in the Almighty in order to submit.

See? It can go another way, too.
Sure - if you are using the actual MEANING of the word Islam - then we are all born into Islam...

But what is our BELIEF?

We are not BORN with religious belief of any kind. Raising my daughter has shown me this.

Thus - we are all born (Implicit) Atheists.

Aren't you the same guy who said you're quite clued up on the bible? If so, you should read it a bit further. Somewhere in there, and admittedly I forget where, they tell you that God is not "tied" to time the same way we are. His words were "A day is like a thousand years to me, and a thousand years are like a day" (and also remember that a thousand was about the highest number they knew in those years - back then this was a HUGE number) - so anybody at all who goes putting numbers on how old the earth is and saying "God created the earth in seven days, this is rediculous" can't be true; we do not know how long these "days" were that He speaks of.

No i never said i was clued up on the bible, i havent read it at all in about 10 years. I know a lot of people think the creation story is a metaphor, or that took a lot longer than 7 days for the reasons you mentioned. However a lot of people do beleive in the literal 7 days thing, thats what i dont like.

ok
assuming you are being honest in your original post neo.....

first of all i assume you are leaving out the posts that just consist of flames. those are posted by those who are just out to piss you off and have nothing to do with contempt of christianity. they probably dont even indicate contempt of YOU personally, just a troll taking the opportunity as presented.

so who are you complaining about? those who disagree with you? those who have had bad experiences personally? those who cant forget about the middle ages? or just those who get the best of you in an argument?

perhaps if you would pick out a few posts from this thread that would qualify in your mind as over the line, and why, we could judge for ourselves if you are right or just a whiner.

Are you claiming that the premise 'All things that whistle are steam trains' is illogical?

Indeed not. I'm claiming that, while your statement is logical to some extent, it comes to the wrong conclusion. The bible doesn't follow this logic.

Well you could try asking it.

i just tried. it said no. but then i said "aha, i caught you! you can't answer no to that question, because that means that you hold the belief that you have no beliefs. score one for me!" and the bible said "damn" and disappeared in a puff of logic.

Hm? Are you stating that the Bible is an intelligent being? Because it can't very well have beliefs otherwise...

No, I am not implying that it has beliefs, I'm implying it's about beliefs.

Okay... we have a mentally retarded moron... yes, we have a winner!

Aaaahhhh go shag a sheep or something, you'll be better at it than this :) at least I know what was going on 2,000 years ago dude. They were quite obsessed with their numbers back then. 3, 7, 40 and 1000 just to name a couple.

I wish you would all stop MISquoting the verse: "But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other." Matt. 5:39

Jesus didn't say not to stand up for yourself. He said don't resort to violence when it comes to being offended. We as Christians are to stand up for our religion and our faith. Not doing this is as bad as having no faith.

Well, I'm gonna assume all atheists are evil because the atheist government of Russia went out and killed everyone who professed christianity. There are still atheists who try to push their beliefs on christians just as there are christians who try to push their beliefs on atheists. China and much of the eastern countries still kill many christians for their beliefs and nothing else. In the middle east christians are imprisoned, raped, and tortured for starting missionary schools or even just having regular church meetings. One guy in Iran had had his fingernails pulled off with plyers and his hands stuck in boiling oil for going to a christian meeting at a friends house.

Good and evil is subjective. I say Hurrah for these actions, it discourages further christianity.

No, I am not implying that it has beliefs, I'm implying it's about beliefs.
Yes, it's about beliefs. But it doesn't have any beliefs itself.
No beliefs means no religious beliefs. No religious beliefs means it's atheist.

Okay, here's a simple, one-stage example:

IN SPANISH "No te preocupes, te esta' tomando el pelo"

Literal translation into English " Don't worry, he is taking your hair"

Now, explain to me the figurative meaning of that statement.

THen, if you want to make it more like the Bible, translate the English into Dutch, and the Dutch result into Russian. Then get a bunch of Russian poets together and have them make it more poetic.

Then ask a Russian what the figurative meaning of the final statement is.

My favourite is 'everyone'.

In English - you look around a room at raised hands, and say that everyone voted for the same option... for example.

In French, you look around the same room, and say that 'all the world' voted for the same option.

Everyone is not an EXACT translation of 'tout le monde'

As you are fairly clearly someone who denies that they have "Faith", I question your competence to define and describe faith.

au contraire! I am indeed a person with Faith. I have Faith that there is a power greater than myself. I just have no Religious Belief.

My faith does not require me "to refuse to question" my beliefs. It is simply that I have changed the underlying assumptions of my life.

then by definition, this is your belief, as a result of your current understanding. It is not FAITH. I am speaking of the linguistic definition of faith--"taking something on faith", you know.

We all have made working assumptions on "how things are". They allow us to live life without constantly asking ourselves whether our senses are working reasonably accurately, or whether our minds are thinking rationally, or whether other people really exist.

well, i actually do think about whether other people really exist. When you're dreaming, you don't always know its a dream...but thats for another discussion.

I do not accept Wikipedia as a valid source of debate material, I'm afraid... since it has no 'peer-review'... other than an arbitrary semi-democratic creation/correction.

Let me recommend you a site - if we are looking for definition of terms:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smith.htm

Fair enough with the questioning of Wikipedia.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html - for the strong/weak atheism division.

As far as claiming that my model of agnosticism isn't actually agnosticism - you might want to do some research on the chap who actually invented the word and what he meant by it...

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

Thomas Huxley in Agnosticism and Christianity

Well, I'm gonna assume all atheists are evil because the atheist government of Russia went out and killed everyone who professed christianity. There are still atheists who try to push their beliefs on christians just as there are christians who try to push their beliefs on atheists. China and much of the eastern countries still kill many christians for their beliefs and nothing else. In the middle east christians are imprisoned, raped, and tortured for starting missionary schools or even just having regular church meetings. One guy in Iran had had his fingernails pulled off with plyers and his hands stuck in boiling oil for going to a christian meeting at a friends house. This is TODAY, in the age of reason and enlightenment, and you say we press our faith on you.

No good argument starts with 'I'm gonna assume all... are ... because (follow specific example)'

But what is our BELIEF?


Belief is unimportant. Allah is there whether you believe or not, much like the moon doesn't vanish because you don't believe in it.

The fact that our will is submitted to Allah makes us born into Islam, active belief is not necessary. We are, however, the only creatures in the Universe capable of subsequently denying Allah. Free Will.

Originally posted by Tropical Montana
Okay, here's a simple, one-stage example:

IN SPANISH "No te preocupes, te esta' tomando el pelo"

Literal translation into English " Don't worry, he is taking your hair"

Now, explain to me the figurative meaning of that statement.



I can't, however; that wasn't supposed to be a metaphor, but, a statement used to calm someone when their hair is being stolen/trimmed/ripped out of their scalp. Jesus spoke metaphors. That's not a metaphor. I meant that I can grasp the literal and figurative meaning of the basic idea of a metaphor, not of a statement like that, in which there is no figurative meaning. Bye all, of to play poker.

i just tried. it said no. but then i said "aha, i caught you! you can't answer no to that question, because that means that you hold the belief that you have no beliefs. score one for me!" and the bible said "damn" and disappeared in a puff of logic.


:D

Yes, it's about beliefs. But it doesn't have any beliefs itself.
No beliefs means no religious beliefs. No religious beliefs means it's atheist.

I see your reasoning, but how, in the first place, can something that is clearly not even alive have beliefs in the first place? It's not atheist, it's a book. :P

well, i actually do think about whether other people really exist. When you're dreaming, you don't always know its a dream...but thats for another discussion.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but has anyone else ever wondered whether the colors you see are the same colors other people see? Or whether the language you speak is the same as the language everyone else speaks or if you ears just automatically translate another language into something you can understand?

Those are just some things I've wondered about lately and it really blows my mind.

The bible doesn't follow this logic.

so what logic does it use? some form of multivalued logic?

No good argument starts with 'I'm gonna assume all... are ... because (follow specific example)'

Plenty of atheists are doing that with christians.

Good and evil is subjective. I say Hurrah for these actions, it discourages further christianity.
Chellis, are you sure you really mean this?

I know that you are a self-proclaimed antitheist, but do you really think that it's good that people who believe something different to yourself are being tortured and killed because of their beliefs?

Indeed not. I'm claiming that, while your statement is logical to some extent, it comes to the wrong conclusion. The bible doesn't follow this logic.

Nope. My syllogism came to the correct conclusion: it preserved truth value faithfully, and the conclusion was a direct result of the premises.

Are you now claiming that in contrast to this the Bible isn't truth preserving?

That is *illogically* valid:

Nope. My syllogism was perfectly logically valid

This has nothing to do with the thread, but has anyone else ever wondered whether the colors you see are the same colors other people see? Or whether the language you speak is the same as the language everyone else speaks or if you ears just automatically translate another language into something you can understand?

Those are just some things I've wondered about lately and it really blows my mind.

I've thought about it too. Its an interesting thought.

Chellis, are you sure you really mean this?

I know that you are a self-proclaimed antitheist, but do you really think that it's good that people who believe something different to yourself are being tortured and killed because of their beliefs?

I am sure I really mean this.

I am for eradication of religion.

I am sure I really mean this.

I am for eradication of religion.

Well, that is another reason why christians have a poor opinion of atheists right there. :rolleyes:

I see your reasoning, but how, in the first place, can something that is clearly not even alive have beliefs in the first place? It's not atheist, it's a book. :P

My syllogism involving the Bible was an attempt to show my unease with the theory that all those things without belief or the capacity to believe are best labelled as atheist. I would be somewhat tempted to classify such a step as a kind of category mistake.

Humans are born atheists? So why (almost?) every tribe, civilization, etc. has developed deep religion? Because they lack on science? Well... isn't science a belief also? In ancient Greece we had atomists - thier ideas where frowned upon and after few centuries - forgotten. After almost 2000 years scientists developed atomic theory. We are now in Anno Domine 2005 - scientists again say that atoms are non-existant. Only pure energy. Well... many scientists actualy BELIVES in God. Why so? Why I, after 5 years of constant battle against any religion, converted? Mistic experience. People around this tiny globe experience it. Call it hallucination, call it dream, call it whatever... It's a proof. God exists - that's what I experience every day of my life. It's more than mere faith tought in schools. I always objected the "only truth". Look at my political compass. I supposed to be an atheist. But I'm not. Because of experiences that are beyond words.

Truly - I'm not against atheists if they are a good persons. No, I have no problems with homosexuals, other religions, atheists, etc. IF they are good persons - that means they avoid harming others. If you don't feel it - you won't get it. It's simple. I don't understand anyone who wants to convert those who are "anti-theists". But stop this war over words. For me God is Ultimate Goodness (whatever it means). If you are a good person - you are my brother. No matter what label you do have or don't have.

If you don't belive in personal God treat my belives as a set of ideals: Goodness, Justice, Rightfulness, Honesty, etc. For me - that's God.

Did I sounded silly? Yep! Like everyone who argues about words. :rolleyes:
"Words, words, words, words. You may as well listen to the birds." - COIL

This has nothing to do with the thread, but has anyone else ever wondered whether the colors you see are the same colors other people see? Or whether the language you speak is the same as the language everyone else speaks or if you ears just automatically translate another language into something you can understand?

Those are just some things I've wondered about lately and it really blows my mind.

LoL, trying to change the topic are we ;)

still, can't resist.

As to the language, I've got no idea, but the colours... there must be some sort of common benchmark or something. I mean, if you go to two people and show them a piece of paper that has been coloured blue and ask them what colour it is and they answer differently, the colours we see are different. Unfortunately it's not that easy, since even if they see them as different colours, they'll still call it "blue".

Thing is, I think people see colours as the same if you look at web design. Colour schemes used, that kind of thing - if we see colours differently that'll mean some sites have got to look pretty ugly, but most of them are quite fine.

Of course, this could also be some mental thing...

I don't care. Einstein had a low IQ also. Maybe it is because of the focus on your own original thoughts and experience.The IQ tests score how well you think like everyone else. The best way to be a clone is to be one I guess.

I wish you would all stop MISquoting the verse: "But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other." Matt. 5:39



YEAH, USE THE RIGHT VERSION OF THE PROPER TRANSLATION OF THE POETICALLY ENHANCED KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF A TRANSLATION OF A TRANSLATION,

and make sure you interpret it exactly the same as i think it to mean.

OR ELSE.

*rolls eyes*

Fair enough with the questioning of Wikipedia.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/presumption.html - for the strong/weak atheism division.

As far as claiming that my model of agnosticism isn't actually agnosticism - you might want to do some research on the chap who actually invented the word and what he meant by it...

"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

Thomas Huxley in Agnosticism and Christianity

I am aware of Thomas Huxley, my friend... and of the fact that he 'coined' Agnosticism in 1870.

The way I read it - Huxley said you should profess certainty, unless you can prove it.

Religion, being a matter of belief, can never be 'proved'... thus Huxley describes a system whereby a person admits that they can never profess certainty.

Wrong. Newton's laws were accurate to within the limits of the equipment of the day. They are not wrong now, just need improving in extreme situations, need adding to.

I could just as easily say that the Bible was written from a human point-of-view, based on the equipment of the time, and thus any "inconsistancies" don't invalidate it. In essence, think of God as someone from the 20th century playing "Telephone" with someone from 2500 years ago. A LOT is going to come out slightly distorted...

The fact that the point-of-view of the Catholic Church HAS changed over the last 2000 years (not to mention the creation of the Protestant faiths) implies that religion is no more static than science.

And, again, until science can literally DISprove the concept of god/gods, then anything suggested to the contrary is unbridled arrogance. Like it or not, Atheism isn't something you KNOW, it's something you BELIEVE.

And, until something better comes along or we die, we're never going to know who's RIGHT.


Christians STILL tell atheists that they are sinners, will go to hell, and attempt to inflict their moral code on other people. This kind of attitude is highly likely to attract a negative response.

And Atheists still tell Christians that they're deluded fools, living in the Dark Ages, and try to impress THEIR views on other people. Congrats - you're still proving my point.

Does YOUR being a jerk suddenly become justified simply because someone else is being one? I'm agreeing with the first post in this topic (less Christian bashing would be nice), but I would just as openly say that people shouldn't bash Atheists either. Arguing the validity of faiths, and the value of people who have them, on a forum which is part of a GAME, becomes both pointless and childish.


Wrong. Christ expressly told people to convert others. Those christians who are not are failing in their faith.

There is a difference between converting by being open and willing to share views, and imposing your views on others. A Christian who tries to force you to believe in his God is violating the very nature of the teachings of their faith, which are SUPPOSED to be about peace and love. The only way a Christian is really failing to "bear witness" would be if they DON'T share their POV with someone who asks.

Or, to put it another way, I've never seen a Jehovah's Witness kick in the door of someone who didn't want their pamphlet, and tie them down while they preached the Good Word.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but has anyone else ever wondered whether the colors you see are the same colors other people see? Or whether the language you speak is the same as the language everyone else speaks or if you ears just automatically translate another language into something you can understand?

Those are just some things I've wondered about lately and it really blows my mind.

As someone who also speaks German, French and Spanish, I do automatically understand other languages. I can even think in those languages and it is usually pretty close to being the way native speakers would call "fresh"

"Words, words, words, words. You may as well listen to the birds." - COIL

As I'm sure some of us do sometime. I know I do, because in this fvcked up world we live in, things do occasionally go belly-up and there's a number of things I'd rather do than listen to the flinging around of insults that most people stoop to call a "debate".

Aaaahhhh go shag a sheep or something, you'll be better at it than this :) at least I know what was going on 2,000 years ago dude. They were quite obsessed with their numbers back then. 3, 7, 40 and 1000 just to name a couple.


Arggg, quit shagging the sheep and maybe you would realize that 4 is more than a couple.

I don't think you were around 2000 years ago, in fact I bet you weren't around 14 years ago.

Just exactly when, if you are such an all fire expert on the history of numbers, did Nimrod look up and suddenly decide that he could put a 1 at the end of that 1000 in place of the third zero and it was a number that he had not counted... was it when they developed binary machine language?

I think you are a dumbass. In fact, I know that you are a dumbass. So, it seems we can now discount anything else you might have to say.

Go back to your sheep now.

Humans are born atheists? So why (almost?) every tribe, civilization, etc. has developed deep religion?


Not every tribe does... that should be enough to show that there is no world-wide reliious underpinning.

And, 'deep' is relative. Polynesians ascribing a 'god' force to Hurrakan is not quite the same as the Egyptian pantheon of incest and murder... now is it?


Because they lack on science?


Kind of... Theological thought seems to be a precursor to scientific thought.


Well... isn't science a belief also


No.

Nope. My syllogism was perfectly logically valid

With a fair helping of ignorance it is. Let me help it out:

Steam trains whistle using steam, which is produced by boiling water over a fire.
Socrates whistles using his mouth and air from his lungs.
Therefore, Socrates will be in a lot of pain before he's a steam train ;)

Well, that is another reason why christians have a poor opinion of atheists right there. :rolleyes:

A. I am not representative of all atheists, by a long stretch.

B. Im sure they do have a poor opinion of those who work to destroy them. Just as the southern slavers have a poor opinion of abolitionists.

No.

Actually anything you profess as true is what you believe. Science is a belief because I can believe that everything science says is wrong. That would be my belief. Therefore, you believe in science.

Everyone gets respect for their beliefs, as long as they don't tell anyone about them. That much is obvious -- you can't object to what someone thinks in the privacy of their own mind. I mean, my own religious beliefs are a complete mess, but no one knows what they are, so they can't complain.

What about telling people but not trying to force it on them? If any issue involving opinion was stated to be just an opinion... well, let's see:

I, personally, believe that God is an extra-temporal being. In fact, I believe he has the freedom to move at will up and down the timestream, which is how he can be called 'omnipresent' and 'omniscient' -- he has all the 'time' he wants to look at everything. But then, that's just how I interpret the facts.

In an ideal world, that would be a completely non-offensive statement. No one could object to it. They could try to explain why there are problems with it, but they couldn't really /object/. However, in this non-ideal world, people will. They'll tell me I'm a moron for thinking that, and that God is /obviously/ a giant purple sheep with green eyes, or whatever. And they won't justify that.

That's where the problem comes in. My belief up there is a reasoned analysis of the available facts, and I reached a conclusion based mostly on the way we can see the universe works. A lot of Christians will just say 'I'm right because the Bible says I am'. That is /not/ a thought-through conclusion, especially not when they follow it through by saying, in the context of the evolution debate, 'You can't claim evolution is true because you can't test it!'. It just... doesn't make sense, to claim that a book /must/ be true. You can /believe/ it's true, but to try and make other people accept that is, to an extent, stupid. Faith isn't transferable.

So yes, Christians deserve respect. So does everyone else. But if they're going to try and argue with people without backing up what they say with positive stuff from their own side -- saying 'You're wrong because of X' is a lot easier than saying 'I'm right because of X', if X is a reasonable point -- then they're not going to /get/ it. That goes for everyone, actually.

So back up your points or don't make them without pointing out that they're opinions. And I've made several points here with no justifications, so I'll just point out that everything above is just my view on things. I could be dead wrong.

B. Im sure they do have a poor opinion of those who work to destroy them. Just as the southern slavers have a poor opinion of abolitionists.

Just as slaves had a poor opinion about slavers.

Belief is unimportant. Allah is there whether you believe or not, much like the moon doesn't vanish because you don't believe in it.

The fact that our will is submitted to Allah makes us born into Islam, active belief is not necessary. We are, however, the only creatures in the Universe capable of subsequently denying Allah. Free Will.

Indeed, I agree that... if the premise of Islam is true... we are all born into Islam... but we are not discussing the REALITY of the world... and there is no way to PROVE 'Islam' as the one True religion even if we were.

We are debating systems of belief... thus, we are discussing what IS believed.

IF the world is flat - but we all believe it round... does it become round? Probably not. But, a discussion about BELIEF would be about a round world - even though the REAL world would be flat.

We are discussing religious BELIEF... thus, it matters not, to the debate, whether Islam is 'real'... only what is BELIEVED.

Maybe if the christians weren't so pushy with their beliefs, we wouldn't get on them so much about everything. Y'all so pushy though, wanting to convert everyone and saying that everything else is wrong, except for your belief.

Arggg, quit shagging the sheep and maybe you would realize that 4 is more than a couple.

I don't think you were around 2000 years ago, in fact I bet you weren't around 14 years ago.

Just exactly when, if you are such an all fire expert on the history of numbers, did Nimrod look up and suddenly decide that he could put a 1 at the end of that 1000 in place of the third zero and it was a number that he had not counted... was it when they developed binary machine language?

I think you are a dumbass. In fact, I know that you are a dumbass. So, it seems we can now discount anything else you might have to say.

Go back to your sheep now.

Aha, but your beliefs of me being a dumbass are equally unfounded :)

I was not around 2000 years ago, but how come what happened many hundreds of thousands of years before was recorded in accurate detail?

And by the way, I've been around for 20 years, not 14.

As for your futile attempts at insulting me, don't quit your day job :) Try to stick with debate, and try not to throw insults around, it's grossly immature. Almost like you're the one who hasn't been around for 14 years :p

Actually anything you profess as true is what you believe. Science is a belief because I can believe that everything science says is wrong. That would be my belief. Therefore, you believe in science.

Flawed logic... just because you believe one thing, does not make the INVERSE into my 'belief'.

I do not 'believe' in science... I just accept the observable, recordable phenomena of life, and appreciate that science gives mechanisms that explain it.

If you think science is ANYTHING other than that, then your understanding of what science 'IS' is flawed.

You really believe everything science 'says is wrong?

So - you don't take Aspirin, then?

Maybe if the christians weren't so pushy with their beliefs, we wouldn't get on them so much about everything. Y'all so pushy though, wanting to convert everyone and saying that everything else is wrong, except for your belief.

You obviously didn't read my post about how atheists can be just as pushy about their beliefs and even more so. China, the middle east, and Russia. <----VERY pushy atheists/religious fanatics.

I am aware of Thomas Huxley, my friend... and of the fact that he 'coined' Agnosticism in 1870.

The way I read it - Huxley said you should profess certainty, unless you can prove it.

Religion, being a matter of belief, can never be 'proved'... thus Huxley describes a system whereby a person admits that they can never profess certainty.

As far as Huxley goes he also wrote: "Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them" - the door is open to the possibility of internal experience, although, obviously this is a dangerous path to follow.


To show that the model of agnosticism which I am employing is often described as 'weak agnosticism':

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/agnostic.html

As someone who also speaks German, French and Spanish, I do automatically understand other languages. I can even think in those languages and it is usually pretty close to being the way native speakers would call "fresh"
Right, but you are not doing it over hundreds of years, with fluctuations in the actual languages. You are doing it simultaneously with current language.

How can you really know what a metaphor meant to someone 2000 years ago? Especially if that someone spoke a language that is now dead or vastly different now than it was then?

Take your own native language and look up texts that are only five hundred years old. Try to read them.

Now take a language that is not your native language, and look at a 500 year old text and try to discern its meaning.

And consider that the oldest original copy we have of biblical text is dated hundreds of years after Jesus' time. It's integrity over those years could have easily been compromised and molded to fit other existing beliefs. Note the coincidence of pagan holidays and Christian holidays.

In my opinion, if Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't attend Christian church. He'd tear it up the same as he did the marketplace in the temple. What Christianity is today would not make him proud, if you ask me.

Right, but you are not doing it over hundreds of years, with fluctuations in the actual languages. You are doing it simultaneously with current language.

How can you really know what a metaphor meant to someone 2000 years ago? Especially if that someone spoke a language that is now dead or vastly different now than it was then?

Take your own native language and look up texts that are only five hundred years old. Try to read them.

Now take a language that is not your native language, and look at a 500 year old text and try to discern its meaning.

And consider that the oldest original copy we have of biblical text is dated hundreds of years after Jesus' time. It's integrity over those years could have easily been compromised and molded to fit other existing beliefs. Note the coincidence of pagan holidays and Christian holidays.

In my opinion, if Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't attend Christian church. He'd tear it up the same as he did the marketplace in the temple. What Christianity is today would not make him proud, if you ask me.

He was actually responding to my question of whether what we hear isn't truly what is being said by another person. Didn't have anything to do with the whole debate going on. :p

Indeed, I agree that... if the premise of Islam is true... we are all born into Islam... but we are not discussing the REALITY of the world... and there is no way to PROVE 'Islam' as the one True religion even if we were.


True! Completely agreed.

I really didn't want to get into this thread in the first place. Heh.

Damn lack of something else to do!

With a fair helping of ignorance it is. Let me help it out:

Steam trains whistle using steam, which is produced by boiling water over a fire.
Socrates whistles using his mouth and air from his lungs.
Therefore, Socrates will be in a lot of pain before he's a steam train ;)

Answer the simple question: was my syllogism valid or invalid, would you?

Flawed logic... just because you believe one thing, does not make the INVERSE into my 'belief'.

I do not 'believe' in science... I just accept the observable, recordable phenomena of life, and appreciate that science gives mechanisms that explain it.

If you think science is ANYTHING other than that, then your understanding of what science 'IS' is flawed.

You really believe everything science 'says is wrong?

So - you don't take Aspirin, then?

You obviously don't get what a metaphor is. :rolleyes:

Just as slaves had a poor opinion about slavers.

My statement wasnt about moral superiority, it was to show that if someone wants to harm you(directly or indirectly), then they will indeed have a poor opinion of you.

I was not around 2000 years ago, but how come what happened many hundreds of thousands of years before was recorded in accurate detail?


How do you know the detail is accurate?

Because it's in the Bible and you believe it?

Is there any supporting evidence of the words of Jesus outside of the Bible?

Nuffin wrong with religion as such; it's the hypocritical retards that represent it and tell the rest of the world how it suits them to define what it's all about: I mean the politicians, the journalists, & the terrorists (I include the fundamentalists of all religions in this last category)

Aha, but your beliefs of me being a dumbass are equally unfounded :)

I was not around 2000 years ago, but how come what happened many hundreds of thousands of years before was recorded in accurate detail?

And by the way, I've been around for 20 years, not 14.

As for your futile attempts at insulting me, don't quit your day job :) Try to stick with debate, and try not to throw insults around, it's grossly immature. Almost like you're the one who hasn't been around for 14 years :p

I haven't been around for 14 years... I have been around for 38.

To which records are you refering that have been around for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years???

With every post, you show just how stupid you are little boy. I guess you must be a Christian... (you know, mentally retarded)

Here is an idea for you... Go out to the library, or back to your class room and this time, pay attention. Maybe you will learn something this time, because obviously you were asleep during the history lesson. The most ancient surviving texts come from the Sumarians... who were more educated that you are apparently. They not only knew of numbers approaching infinity, but also knew that there were more planets in our solar system then modern man knew about until the 1940's. And, they could also bake a mean apple pie, as well. Perhaps you should stick with DEBATE that deals with things that pertain to obscure information from prior to recorded history so that you don't get tripped up again.

Answer the simple question: was my syllogism valid or invalid, would you?

Invalid, because Socrates doesn't whistle in the same manner as a steam train does. If he did, then I would have agreed, and be very confused.

However, because a made-up syllogism, designed to be invalid though percievable as valid, is going to be used by you in a comparison with Christianity, I warn you it'd be a foolish thing to do because Christianity is not designed to be invalid in the first place.

Just in case you wanted to do that. I know a number of people who would :rolleyes:

As far as Huxley goes he also wrote: "Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them" - the door is open to the possibility of internal experience, although, obviously this is a dangerous path to follow.


To show that the model of agnosticism which I am employing is often described as 'weak agnosticism':

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/agnostic.html

I went and read that link - but, I believe this 'Oppy' fellow works on flawed assuptions...

e.g.

"The strong agnostic claims that it is not rational to believe in the existence of the God of traditional Western theism".

A flawed assumption... since Agnostics may believe in 'god', or may NOT believe in 'god' despite their Agnosticism. There are both Theistic and Atheistic Agnostics.

Agnosticism isn't about believing, it is about KNOWING... hence 'gnostic'.

Thus - it is the PROFESSION of belief (i.e. the assertion of CERTAINTY) that defines Agnosticism... not the belief itself.

I haven't been around for 14 years... I have been around for 38.

To which records are you refering that have been around for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years???

With every post, you show just how stupid you are little boy. I guess you must be a Christian... (you know, mentally retarded)

Here is an idea for you... Go out to the library, or back to your class room and this time, pay attention. Maybe you will learn something this time, because obviously you were asleep during the history lesson. The most ancient surviving texts come from the Sumarians... who were more educated that you are apparently. They not only knew of numbers approaching infinity, but also knew that there were more planets in our solar system then modern man knew about until the 1940's. And, they could also bake a mean apple pie, as well. Perhaps you should stick with DEBATE that deals with things that pertain to obscure information from prior to recorded history so that you don't get tripped up again.

Can we not age-wank? That shows nothing.

Mistic experience. People around this tiny globe experience it. Call it hallucination, call it dream, call it whatever... It's a proof. God exists - that's what I experience every day of my life.

if mystical experiences are proof that god exists, then how is it that people all over the world have mutually contradictory mystical experiences that fit in with their own cultural background? how come in the trance dance of the ju/'hoansi they never see visions of the virgin mary, but instead transform into lions or travel to the mystical village of the god kaoxa to talk to the spirits that live there?

god exists and likes to fuck with people?

He was actually responding to my question of whether what we hear isn't truly what is being said by another person. Didn't have anything to do with the whole debate going on. :p


Sorry, but he had quoted a post of mine referring to the validity of a translation of a translation of a translation of a metaphor. He said he understood things in different languages simultaneously, and the meaning kept its integrity.

My response was to that.

True! Completely agreed.

I really didn't want to get into this thread in the first place. Heh.

Damn lack of something else to do!

But we need good brains in here... it's the only thing that stops it turning into a flame-fest. :)

Invalid.

Wrong. Want to guess again?

You obviously don't get what a metaphor is. :rolleyes:

I understand metaphor... what is it that you are claiming as metaphorical?

Can we not age-wank? That shows nothing.

Unfortuantely, you are incorrect. We have already seen that Dinglebury has learned surprisingly little in his 20 years on the planet.

And who asked you, anyway?

I'll bet you're only 12

Yay!!!!! "This has got to stop now"????? and it's gone for 11 pages already hee hee hee

And thus the thread deteriorates and dies...

Unfortuantely, you are incorrect. We have already seen that Dinglebury has learned surprisingly little in his 20 years on the planet.

And who asked you, anyway?

I'll bet you're only 12

Insults are scoring you no points, friend... and are doing nothing to further the debate.

I'd appreciate it if you'd attempt to refrain.

Deabate the points made, if you can... but keep the vitriol out of it, if you please?

WHEEEEEEEEE!

*slides down the thread to its inevitable doom*

Ah...God...I mean, uhh creationism is...no, that's not it...organized religions aren't...uhhh...what was this thread about again? Oh yeah, Christians...lessee here:

Christians - proselytizing evangelical Christians

Christians - self-styled 'oppression' of same

Christians - Christian myth, law, history

Christians - comparitive/competing theologies

Christians - social influence in America

Hmm, a quickie look into my memory banks isn't turning up the item in question. There's altogether too much info on this subject crowding those neurons of mine. I'll re-read the first post *poof* and of course, this is coming from Neo Cannen.

It doesn't have to stop unless you want it to stop. Maybe it would stop if you didn't make such a good target of yourselves (and I'm referring to a couple of others out there posting on NS as well, don't get needlessly uptight over that). I wouldn't expect it to stop dead in its' tracks, there'll always be some flack...but then again, I don't expect you'll stop with the multidinuous Christian-themed threads anytime soon - so you should be prepared to continue being on the receiving end of some overall contempt or abuse from certain quarters.

Of course you could always go complain to the mods, but personally, I wouldn't. I'd just take the darts along with the laurels... now, what were we talking about again? Oh, right...

I haven't been around for 14 years... I have been around for 38.

To which records are you refering that have been around for HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years???

With every post, you show just how stupid you are little boy. I guess you must be a Christian... (you know, mentally retarded)

Here is an idea for you... Go out to the library, or back to your class room and this time, pay attention. Maybe you will learn something this time, because obviously you were asleep during the history lesson. The most ancient surviving texts come from the Sumarians... who were more educated that you are apparently. They not only knew of numbers approaching infinity, but also knew that there were more planets in our solar system then modern man knew about until the 1940's. And, they could also bake a mean apple pie, as well. Perhaps you should stick with DEBATE that deals with things that pertain to obscure information from prior to recorded history so that you don't get tripped up again.

lol DUDE, if you're 38, you sure as hell don't act it. if I remove all the insults from that post it's only like two or three lines long :p That said, I'll assume you're 14.

I'm not even going to bother with your posts anymore, since all you're obsessed with is insulting those who differ from you, and are probably right in doing so.

I will, however, take the liberty to respond to this last one. After this, I don't want to hear from you unless you do at least 10 years' worth of growing up.

Now, let us begin. First of all, I'm not referring to records that are "HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS" of years old, I'm referring to something your own god (science) has "proven" - the big bang. Evolution. Everything that you nutters use to try to break down the Bible and everyone who follows it. If you actually get out of your little shell of ignorance and go read it, resisting the rediculous urge to rip it up because it does not conform to your equally rediculous beliefs, you will find that even in the book of Genesis, it accurately portrays what science has come to "prove". To name a few, God didn't snap his fingers and whallah, there was man, he "sculpted" man, implying that he went through several stages. Evolution. Also, he said "Let there be light", "and there was light", but hang on, there was no sun? no earth? no day and night even? The Big Bang. Take note that He created the Earth and sh1t not too long after the "Let there be light".

And yes, 1000 was the biggest number they knew 2000 years ago. Bear in mind they almost never had the chance to use it in terms of an absolute quantity - they more often used it to indicate a helluvalot. For example, "I will give you a thousand grains of sand" didn't mean exactly that. It meant "I will give you a sh1tload of sand".

Hope this helps. Anyway, for future reference, try to be less insulting and you might be considered 1. older than 14, and 2. a proper participant in this debate. :D

LOL, I was actually having fun till Monkeyballs over there came along and started flinging insults around and having a general agewank :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

This thread is amazing and impossible to keep up with! You know, as I would read it and get to the bottom of a page, a new page would be added. It was growing faster than I could read! Damn. Too much. So, I'm not going to even try to keep up. By the time I finish writing this post, there will probably be another two pages I haven't read yet.

Do I have anything useful to add other than my obvious observations above? I don't know. Let's see.

I am a polytheist, so my views of God(s) and religion are a bit different from most of the people here. Most discussion seems to presume the existance or non-existance of a single creator-god.

What is obnoxious about fundamentalist Christians, and any other fundamentalist monotheist (and I believe fundamentalism is only possible from a monotheistic world view) is that it goes beyond professing simple faith or belief -- it professes certainty. Anything contrary to this certainty is met with fierce, often violent, opposition.

I have no problem with people speaking their opinions, shouting them from the rooftops if they like. But they better be prepared to hear what I and anybody else with a strong opinion on the subject has to say. I don't have a problem with Christains "pushing their values" as long as I have the right to push back. The problem comes with Christains pass laws or allow practices that marginalize other Faiths. Up until 2000, for instance, it was illegal to practice divination where I live. Christians used that law to persecute Wiccans here. Also, it is a crime here to sacrifice an animal. It's funny how it's okay to kill animals, but do one in honor of a god, and you are a criminal. These are the kinds of things I have problems with.

Anyway, for future reference, try to be less insulting and you might be considered 1. older than 14, and 2. a proper participant in this debate. :D

This is a debate? It doesn't read like one...

Wrong. Want to guess again?

Meh, not really, if you completed that whateverit'scalled to include the relevant details I'll guess again :)

Traditional English Trifle

Ingredients
For the madeira cake
85g/3oz butter, at room temperature
85g/3oz caster sugar
2 medium eggs
125g/4½ oz self-raising flour
3 tbsp full-cream milk
½ lemon, finely grated zest only
For the topping
330ml/10 fl oz full cream milk
750ml/1¼ pints double cream
6 large egg yolks
1 rounded tbsp cornflour
4 tbsp caster sugar
4 tbsp good-quality raspberry jam
6 tbsp Oloroso (sweet) sherry



Method
1. Preheat the oven to 180C/350F/Gas 4. Grease a 450g/1 lb loaf tin, line the base with greaseproof paper and grease the paper.
2. Cream the butter and sugar together in a bowl until pale and fluffy. Beat in the eggs one at a time, beating the mixture well between each one and adding a tablespoon of the flour with the last egg to prevent the mixture curdling.
3. Sift over the flour and gently fold it in, with enough milk to give a mixture that falls reluctantly from the spoon. Fold in the lemon zest.
4. Spoon the mixture into the prepared tin, level the top and bake for 30-45 minutes until a skewer inserted in the centre comes out clean.
5. Cool in the tin for ten minutes then turn out on to a wire rack and leave to cool completely. The cake can be made up to four days in advance and kept tightly wrapped in clingfilm.
6. For the custard, bring the milk and 300ml/10fl oz of the cream to the boil in a non-stick pan. Beat the egg yolks, cornflour and sugar together in a bowl, then gradually whisk in the hot milk and cream.
7. Return the mixture to the pan and cook over a low heat, stirring constantly, for about ten minutes, until the mixture has thickened enough to coat the back of a spoon. Take care not to let it boil as it will curdle.
8. Transfer the custard to a bowl and leave to cool.
9. Cut the madeira cake into slices one centimetre (half an inch) thick and arrange a single layer over the base of the bowl. Spread the layer with two tablespoons of raspberry jam and lay another layer of cake on top (you might not need to use all the cake).
10. Spread the second layer with another two tablespoons of raspberry jam and sprinkle over the sherry.
11. Pour the custard over the cake, cover with clingfilm and chill for at least three hours.
12. Whip the remaining cream into soft peaks. Uncover the trifle, spoon over the cream and return it to the fridge until you are ready to serve.

Preparation time 30 mins to 1 hour

Cooking time 30 mins to 1 hour

This is a debate? It doesn't read like one...

yea, I guess, maybe I should add a little clause like " . . . debate, which can be called that only if people will stop polluting it with insults and the like"

you want an end to AIDS, right?

name a better method for this besides abstinence. Because it seems to me that it is almost entirely transmitted by sexual contact.

just a thought...

as for Creationism, is your alternative for explaining the origin of the universe ... scientific theories?

lol. as if we know.

there are some things we'll NEVER know so long as we're here on earth. so it's funny when scientists get all high-minded with Christians over creationism... and you ask them, "So, then, sir, how did the universe come into being?"

"I don't know... but we're working on it!"

keep working. we will never be certain, so I'll just stick with this: God created the universe. If, after that, he let it go to expand on its own, that's fine. Big Bang actually is not offensive to me. But for a Big Bang to happen, we had to have matter. Where did the matter come from? That, to me, is the question.
where did god come from? he was just there. kinda like.....MATTER. and they dont want me to ridicule their intelligence so i will simply laugh.

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.


Lets see. Humans pissed god off, so god sent his son to eath and killed him. having killed his son a a rather excruciating manner, god felt better and quit being such a dick. I don't think Xians are retared, I just think you are retarded for putting up this lovely bait for Xian bashers. You could tie a naked eight year old up inside a rectory and get less predictable results. sheesh

And yes, 1000 was the biggest number they knew 2000 years ago. Bear in mind they almost never had the chance to use it in terms of an absolute quantity - they more often used it to indicate a helluvalot. For example, "I will give you a thousand grains of sand" didn't mean exactly that. It meant "I will give you a sh1tload of sand".


Absolute nonsense. Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the earth to be 252,000 stadia circa 240BC. How did he manage this if they couldn't handle numbers above a thousand? Even Jesus would most likely have been familiar with the Roman numbering system and the fact that although it didn't have symbols for numbers larger than a thousand, it was possible to represent such figures following the same principles as for smaller numbers - thus MI for 1001, MII for 1002 ... MMMM for four thousand and so on. Sticking to your discussion of grains of sand, you dop know that Archimedes in circa 200 BC was able to do calculations up to figures such as ten to the power of sixty three? (the amount of grains of sand he believed would be required to fill up the universe).

where did god come from? he was just there. kinda like.....MATTER. and they dont want me to ridicule their intelligence so i will simply laugh.

I don't know about that, but having read the Bible I'm inclined to think God was just like, there, instead of matter being just kinda like, there :) that's my belief, and a valid belief it is too. Not neccessarily acceptible, plausible or whatever in the eyes of the rest of you guys, but it is in mine...

Faith, by its very nature, requires the believer to refuse to question the belief. The believer must accept what is told to him, no matter how nonsensical or contradictory the information is. Otherwise it isn't Faith.
--snip--


Hold the phone there, pal. That vessel doesn't hold water.

Any solid faith is one that has been questioned, doubted, studied and re-shaped time and time again. People who never examine their beliefs are the ones without a solid faith. Faith without examination is little more than parroting, excludes any kind of thought and promotes knee-herk reactions like boycotts, mindless picketing, book burnings and lobbyists (and I'll say it again, if religions and churches want to lobby Congress, they need to let themselves be taxed).

I know many Christians who are not Fred Phelps-type nutjobs. Yes, they wished I could see God the way they did, but they were wise enough to merely explain their views WHEN I ASKED. When I admired one friend's composure and patience, he told me that it was because of his faith. I then asked him how that was, and he explained it to me. I sought his explanation.

What people tend to react harshly against is when that view is NOT sought, yet given over and over again or even brought before legislative bodies who have no business deciding an individual moral issue for their constituency.

For Christians to constantly complain that they're under attack is poppycock. It's the same as people who build houses/move into the more mountainous or forested suburbs and then bitch about bears and cougars (pumas, mountain lions, catamounts, whatever your regionalism) in "their" back yard. You don't like being "attacked"? Then preach where you are supposed to preach (unless, of course, you don't mind your church coughing up taxes).

If you can't stomach opposal to your beliefs... Convert.

Otherwise, just deal with it. People believe the things they do just like you believe those things you are taught. On what basis? Strong powers of the heart. Seriously, you can't hope to change people's opinions of religion with a post that is so small. To change perspective, you would need a novel opposing that of the size of the Bible. Even then, you couldn't truly believe that people would change. You can't prove you are right. Neither can they prove otherwise.

Opinions, dear sir.

Thus, stalemate.

I have not read beyond the original post - I see how long it is, I imagine seeing a flame war... Why read it?

Absolute nonsense. Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the earth to be 252,000 stadia circa 240BC. How did he manage this if they couldn't handle numbers above a thousand? Even Jesus would most likely have been familiar with the Roman numbering system and the fact that although it didn't have symbols for numbers larger than a thousand, it was possible to represent such figures following the same principles as for smaller numbers - thus MI for 1001, MII for 1002 ... MMMM for four thousand and so on.

Bah, of course there were those who knew of numbers that large, but keep in mind the people Jesus mixed with - they were mostly only peasant-class people, who probably wouldn't even be able to count in the first place... so if someone went to them like "I'll give you two trillion gold coins!" they wouldn't jump around merrily, they'd go "WTF..."

Lets see. Humans pissed god off, so god sent his son to eath and killed him. having killed his son a a rather excruciating manner, god felt better and quit being such a dick. I don't think Xians are retared, I just think you are retarded for putting up this lovely bait for Xian bashers. You could tie a naked eight year old up inside a rectory and get less predictable results. sheesh

well, you're missing a lot of vital details from that story. I'll fill you in if you want

Meh, not really, if you completed that whateverit'scalled to include the relevant details I'll guess again :)

My syllogism was of the form:

All A are C
B is an A
Ergo, B is a C

Valid?

Thus, stalemate.

Yup - but human nature tends to keep us going I guess :)

I have not read beyond the original post - I see how long it is, I imagine seeing a flame war... Why read it?

Flame war? *cough* Castrated_Monkey *cough*

Bah, of course there were those who knew of numbers that large, but keep in mind the people Jesus mixed with - they were mostly only peasant-class people, who probably wouldn't even be able to count in the first place...

Such as tax collectors?

My syllogism was of the form:

All A are C
B is an A
Ergo, B is a C

Valid?

Perfectly valid, yes. In fact, too valid. Only problem is, Socrates and the train don't whistle in the same manner, so even though it's valid on the surface, it's invalid deeper down.

Perfectly valid, yes. In fact, too valid. Only problem is, Socrates and the train don't whistle in the same manner, so even though it's valid on the surface, it's invalid deeper down.

Nope. You are mistaking false premises for invalidity. My syllogism certainly contained a false premise (as far as this universe goes) - all things that whistle are steam trains, but it was perfectly valid regardless.

I actually agree with this thread but not just on Christianity bashing all religions. That Dangers of Christ thread, well its title really pissed me off. I don't know why, I'm far from religious. It was just so damn disrespectful.

Originally Posted by Donkelbury
Bah, of course there were those who knew of numbers that large, but keep in mind the people Jesus mixed with - they were mostly only peasant-class people, who probably wouldn't even be able to count in the first place... ...

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

Two words: "Religious freedom"

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If it bothers you that much, maybe you should stop posting about religion so much. That's what I'd do.

Nope. You are mistaking false premises for invalidity.

Let me ask you: Socrates doesn't whistle using the same driving mechanism as a train. Valid or invalid?

you can go on as long as you want, but the logical conclusion that Socrates is a steam train is as false as they come - it's proven false by the (valid) logical deduction of:

. steam trains are not human
. socrates is human
. therefore, socrates cannot be a steam train.

...

Are you now claiming that the Bible was written by literate but innumerate peasents? I really fail to see where you are going with this.

Let me ask you: Socrates doesn't whistle using the same driving mechanism as a train. Valid or invalid?

Neither. True, but not valid or invalid.

Are you now claiming that the Bible was written by literate but innumerate peasents? I really fail to see where you are going with this.

More or less correct, yes, but they weren't totally innumerate. They had the concept of larger numbers, but not much more than 1000. like I said earlier, they knew of numbers like 3, 7, 40 and those in between (those three numbers are the ones that pop up more often in the Bible, along with 1000).

Neither. True, but not valid or invalid.

it's valid. What about it is invalid?

it's valid. What about it is invalid?

It is a statement, not a logical operation, and as such is neither valid nor invalid.

No, but many people have analyised it, studied it, critisced it but in the end it is still here and it is still accepted.

Funny, people must not insult racial groups, genders etc. I see no diffrence here.

Yes, and those are fine but people calling Chrisitans mentally retarded is just wrong.

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc

A) so are tabloids. and Fox News. and Michael Moore. and Bush. Especially Bush.

B) because racial groups and genders aren't things you consciously choose to become.

C) not really. just (mostly) incorrect and an extreme exageration of isolated examples.

D) no.

For someone who hates being called retarded so much, you're kinda proving their point so far.

It is a statement, not a logical operation, and as such is neither valid nor invalid.

oops, my bad. Rephrase:

- Steam trains whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle
- Socrates whistles (or whistled, he's dead now) using muscles, his lungs and a "biological" whistle
- Therefore, Socrates is not a steam train.

Is that valid or invalid?

oops, my bad. Rephrase:

- Steam trains whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle
- Socrates whistles (or whistled, he's dead now) using muscles, his lungs and a "biological" whistle
- Therefore, Socrates is not a steam train.

Is that valid or invalid?

If you allow me to rewrite it in the form:

All steam trains whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle,
Socrates does not whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle,
Therefore, Socrates is not a steam train.


Then it is valid, and does away with some of the potential problems in your formulation.

For someone who hates being called retarded so much, you're kinda proving their point so far.

No dude, I don't mean to take a leak in your shoes but you really should try to find out what the Christian life is like - I'm not implying you should convert. I'm suggesting you find out how hard it is, not because of any rules or anything, but because of what other people do to you, about you and with you.

Valid.

... although I'd rather phrase it in the form:

All steam trains whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle,
Socrates does not whistle using boilers and a mechanical whistle,
Therefore, Socrates is not a steam train.


As this keeps the structure a lot simpler.

Fair enough. Thing is, if that's valid, how can your deduction also be valid? that's what I've been trying to get at

Fair enough. Thing is, if that's valid, how can your deduction also be valid? that's what I've been trying to get at

Validity is about the structure of logical operations. I never claimed that my conclusion was valid, but that my syllogism was. We can thus see that two entirely different conclusions can be reached while following the rules of logic. Logic is largely silent on the matter of what premises we feed into it, or how these can be shown to be true or false.

No dude, I don't mean to take a leak in your shoes but you really should try to find out what the Christian life is like - I'm not implying you should convert. I'm suggesting you find out how hard it is, not because of any rules or anything, but because of what other people do to you, about you and with you.


One can live a Christ-like life without ever taking Jesus as their personal saviour.

And yet the hardline Christians would still say that one is still going to hell, because they believe you have to name Jesus as the reason for your goodness before it counts.

That's what i find retarded about Christianity. They think the Dalai Lama and Ghandi are gonna rot in hell. And yet these warmongers like Bush can say "yes to Jesus" and get a spot in heaven.

THat just pisses me off.

No dude, I don't mean to take a leak in your shoes but you really should try to find out what the Christian life is like - I'm not implying you should convert. I'm suggesting you find out how hard it is, not because of any rules or anything, but because of what other people do to you, about you and with you.

What in my post suggested that I'm unfamiliar with Christian life? I've read the bible (albiet an abridge version, but as a high school student I honestly don't have the time to read a book that dense), attend Church with my mother and grandmother every Christmas Eve, and have debated/spoken with Christians on numerous occasions.

Ironic that you're the one claiming that I'm ignorant.

Validity is about the structure of logical operations. I never claimed that my conclusion was valid, but that my syllogism was. We can thus see that two entirely different conclusions can be reached while following the rules of logic. Logic is largely silent on the matter of what premises we feed into it, or how these can be shown to be true or false.

Fair enough. So how did we get to this point?

well, you're missing a lot of vital details from that story. I'll fill you in if you want
ok. Who was going to send humans to hell as punishment for their sins?
Who sent Jebus to die for those sins?
Jebus' death brought humans forgivness by whom?
As I was taught the answer to all these is GOD.

And just to rant. "Jebus" is used to indicate that I don't take the whole story very seriously, as opposed to JC which makes the man sound like a member of n'sync. yo yo yo, we gonna worship the big JC wiki-wki-woo-woo. oh yeah girl.

Fair enough. So how did we get to this point?

I initially raised the issue that Christianity may be a valid system, but one of which the initial assumptions and premises are highly dubious in response to Neo-Cannen's (IIRC) claim that it was valid.

To illustrate the problem here: Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism could all be valid systems, but that tells us nothing about whether they are true or not. One or more of them could be claiming that Scorates is, in fact, a steam train.

What in my post suggested that I'm unfamiliar with Christian life? I've read the bible (albiet an abridge version, but as a high school student I honestly don't have the time to read a book that dense), attend Church with my mother and grandmother every Christmas Eve, and have debated/spoken with Christians on numerous occasions.

Ironic that you're the one claiming that I'm ignorant.

I never said you're ignorant, I just said you should think of how hard Christian life really is today. You get called arrogant, pushy, ignorant, moronic, a dumbass, wannabes, fanatics, misled, retarded - the list goes on - all because of prejudice. and that's just the verbal abuse.

For instance, here in New Zealand with this gay marriage crap, the members of a church protested in front of Parliament, along with a great group of people outnumbering them about two to one, and only they get labelled as haters and hypocrits, and are dismissed. That, imho, strikes at the very heart of my faltering hope for the rest of Humanity.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/gnikrul/beliefbashing.jpg

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

It's the easy way, the way of the ship. Nothing to decide, God is responsible, haha. You don't live, 'cos after death is "da thing". :rolleyes:

One or more of them could be claiming that Scorates is, in fact, a steam train.

I'll be tearing up with laughter if one of them do :D

but yea, there is an array of evidence suggesting that Christianity is true and valid - if you sit down and think about it and go looking for this evidence, you will find it. A number of years ago I did this - which is why I'm mentioning it - and I did come up with a nice couple of things, but I can't for the life of me remember them.

I'm studying to be a minister and I'm telling you right now to tell people to stop expressing their own views on our faith is the dumbest thing you can possably do. People have a right not to believe just as we have the right to and to try to force it on them is just as bad if not worse as not trying at all or them not believing. Christians these days are so hypocritical and only use Christ when it's convieniant for them. I'm more upset with the christians these days than I am with the other religious groups or athiest. I'm sick of the holier than thou attitude I get from my fellow christians. This world would be a better place if y'all could just learn that you can't force anything on others and instead work with them to better things. We as humans all have common needs and wants no matter our faith, and if we could just work on those, this world would be a better place than it is.

haha. stupid christians.

I initially raised the issue that Christianity may be a valid system, but one of which the initial assumptions and premises are highly dubious in response to Neo-Cannen's (IIRC) claim that it was valid.

hey, i was the one that provoked the validity discussion. you just ran with it. damn foreigners, always trying to steal my thunder.

Being a christian or any other faith is fine. However I do reserve the right to ridicule any mention of creationism, abstinence or any other faith driven social program.
actually not on this board. There are atually rules to what you cant and can say.

hey, i was the one that provoked the validity discussion. you just ran with it. damn foreigners, always trying to steal my thunder.

Oh yeah, like you Americans invented classical logic... sorry.

but yea, there is an array of evidence suggesting that Christianity is true and valid - if you sit down and think about it and go looking for this evidence, you will find it. A number of years ago I did this - which is why I'm mentioning it - and I did come up with a nice couple of things, but I can't for the life of me remember them.

As far as compelling arguments go, I have to rank that one pretty low.

ok. Who was going to send humans to hell as punishment for their sins?
Who sent Jebus to die for those sins?
Jebus' death brought humans forgivness by whom?
As I was taught the answer to all these is GOD.

And just to rant. "Jebus" is used to indicate that I don't take the whole story very seriously, as opposed to JC which makes the man sound like a member of n'sync. yo yo yo, we gonna worship the big JC wiki-wki-woo-woo. oh yeah girl.

lol. I'm afraid you were taught incompletely. Thing is, in the Old Testament things were *really* strict. If you committed a sin, you were punished, simple as that - more often with death than anything else. Thing is, this was a promise God made (i.e. something in the lines of "You sin, you die, this I'm telling you"). But it got quite extreme, and God felt sorry for us or something and he sent His own Son to "assume all sins we have made and could make" and die instead of us, with a suitable death (and I garuantee you, it was such a horrific, painful and mutilitive death that I, having seen a moderated version of it in Gibson's Passion of the Christ, cannot put it into words) thus forever clearing the "you sin, you die" thing. This doesn't mean that whatever we do now is not a sin, it just means we won't die for it anymore.

Oh yeah, like you Americans invented classical logic... sorry.

we did. if it wasn't for america, you people would still be living in grass huts hunting mammoths.

As far as compelling arguments go, I have to rank that one pretty low.

Who said I was arguing? I was simply stating a fact.

haha. stupid christians.

hmm, Monkeyballs reincarnated? Come back with a proper, non-insulting, mature argument if you want to partake in this.

A. Just because many people believe it does not mean its valid, or true.

B. We must not do anything, contradictory to what you say.

C. There are plenty of atheists/agnostics on this forum who know lots about the bible. I don't know as much as them, but they have made some damn good arguments through the bible.

D. People who believe in christianity are not mentally retarded. Just most of them believe in it because their parents were, or because they are afraid of damnation, etc. Most christians are very bad christians in a strict sense.

E. Spell-check before you post. You need it.

::clap::
i couldn't agree more my self... alot of people believe in "God." and that's fine and dandy. but there real problem is trying to disprove my eternal question. which is "Prove this chair isn't god." no one can really disprove that, the more times ive asked it, the more retarted answers ive gotten.

::clap::

::slap::

;)

we did. if it wasn't for america, you people would still be living in grass huts hunting mammoths.

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to the 37 reasons why America is better than the rest of the world thread.

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to the 37 reasons why America is better than the rest of the world thread.

Evil.

Anyway guys, thanks for the debate, been a while since I've had one like this. I've gotta go off and fix up some food for me mother, this being mother's day this side of the globe. Cy'alls later :p

1) Being compared to a form of mental retardation is harsh, is it? You realise, of course, that the traditional response to those NOT believing in your so-called 'god', was to be branded a Satanist (which is ridiculous, if you think about it) or heretic, or blasphemer - and punished in some suitable accord...

Like... being burned to death, or stoned.

In comparison - being called a 'dummy' seems pretty minor.

I wont even begin to list the crimes of athiestical governments (China, N.Korea etc) against religion. But please grave, do not pull out the "look what you have done in the past" card. I can equally well do that to you. Choose your style with more care


2) I do not think that Christianity is, in any way, 'valid'. Just because YOU believe in it... that doesn't give it ANY reality, significance, importance or validity.

Its not just because I believe in it. It is because it has historical and ethical validity of itself. Now while I dont expect you to agree with it, in the same way that Socialists and Conservatives dont agree, you can at least respect it.


3) I have studied Christianity... and a wealth of other religions. Neo, you KNOW I have far greater learning on this subject than you do - you have (as far as I know, STILL not finished reading the bible - let alone read ANY other religious texts... or the native tongue of the biblical scripture).

Many people read ALL the available material, and STILL do not agree with your belief.

And I can respect that to an extent. All I am asking is for you to afford me and all Christians the same respect. I do not expect to be showered down as mentally retarded, along with all my people.


4) I do NOT have to accept that your religion is valid. I am perfectly within my rights to consider ANY religious belief as a sign of immaturity. I am not being 'unfair' to anyone... it just seems to me that I was religious when I was younger, but I grew out of it.

No you are not. Religion is clearly something that has a strong force of logic behind it. If it were not, it wouldnt be so widespread as an idea. Some at this point have compared cigerates to religion, being widespread. But they have a chemical depencency factor and are objects. I am talking about an idea. I recomend you read Ravi Zacharias's "Jesus above other Gods" as I am at present. I have a feelling it may show you a great many things.


5) Christianity is an affront to many people for the same reason as ANY religion... it seeks to control OTHER PEOPLE... with NO justification apart from a 'god' that cannot be verified.

Christianity does not seek to control people. Can you actually prove that somehow. It sets out life principles and a moral code, ways that you should life, but if you examine all of these there is nothing that they ultimately benefit that would set them down on people. When someone or something tries to control something or someone then there must be a reason. If you examine Christianity, you will see there is nothing that it benefits by implying its "controling" lifestyle code on short of God.

It doesn't say it was created 6,000 years ago. Give me the exact verse that says AND GOD CREATED THE EARTH 6,000 YEARS AGO! That's right, you can't. Nearly all of the creation story is a metaphor. A day for God cannot be a day for us, because when God started creating the world there was NO SUCH THING AS A DAY! A day for God could equal 10,000 years, or 10,000,000 years which is entirely possible considering he's omnipresent.


If the creation story is metaphor, how do Christians (or Jews or any other group that bases their religious beliefs on it) know what part is "real" and what part is metaphor? And how do they know that the metaphor is symbolic of THEIR interpretation vs. someone else's? Note: this isn't an argument against religious folk, just really question.

If the creation story is metaphor, how do Christians (or Jews or any other group that bases their religious beliefs on it) know what part is "real" and what part is metaphor? And how do they know that the metaphor is symbolic of THEIR interpretation vs. someone else's? Note: this isn't an argument against religious folk, just really question.

Short answer: Prayer and meditation - guidance from God.

whoo! im the last one!







sry...I couldnt resist

People long ago: We don't understand nature. Let's make up a story out of our imaginations and write it down. This shall be The Truth. This shall be religion.

Scientists today: Through logic, deduction and experimentation, we have come up with rational explanations for at least some parts of nature. We may not know everything yet, but is that really so bad, not knowing everything?

Science says the world is round. Bible says otherwise - who has the correct understanding of logic?

The same thing can be said of athiests, they are only athiests because their parents are etc


'scuse me? My father is Muslim, my mother and youngest sister are Catholics, and my younger sister is aethiest. I am Pagan,m'self. I know a number of people who are of a differeing religion than their parents. Your parents don't determine your religion,in the end. You do.

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

I have not read the entirety of this thread but i shall answer your question. your very long and monotonous question.

You Christians force your beliefs on us way to much. It's like those Jehovas witnesses. They come around, knock on your door and annoy the hell out of you by trying to make you convert.

If people constantly push something on you that you generaly find annoying then you will react by insulting them. So if you don't want to be insulted by the people on this forum (i don't mean just you i mean religous people in general) then stop preaching all of the time.


This may have sounded harsh and i would like to say that i did not mean to offend but i couldn't think of a nicer way to put it.

Oh, and one question:

What would you do if a hindu constantly preached about their religion to you? would you fins that annoying?

Okay, here's my ten-pennies worth. I am 17 and a Christian. I have been a Christian since the age of 15. But I don't want to talk about me. I have heard it said a few times, "Christianity is the only group that exists for the benefits of its non-members." That means - you guys out there who insist upon yelling at us for our beliefs. The whole point is that they are beliefs. We can't prove it because proof denies faith. Thousands of Jews are still waiting for the Messiah. Many others have come to the belief that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. What does this show? That the Bible has some truth to it? Maybe. And evidence has been found to show that some occurances in the Bible are true. Put it this way - people died for their beliefs. Would you die for a lie?

Okay, next point. This is for the people who rant at Christians who say that if you don't believe in Jesus you will die. Well, in the Bible, it translates Jesus as saying: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." That is what it says. Many Christians try and ignore this, to pretend that it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you behave nicely. But Jesus is the only way - this is my belief.

Before you say that at fifteen I was too young to form my own opinions about God, and that I should be out there having a good time etc. I want to make a point. People who live a Christian life are not always better off than non-Christians, but Christians who obey God will be given what they want - a husband who loves them and will never leave them, for example. God is good, and he wants everyone to love him. He is sad when people ignore him. I don't expect everyone here to agree, this is what I believe. Oh, and I know a girl aged 7/8 who is extremely on-fire for God. She may be young, but she's so into God, as is her slightly older brother. If you could see them you would have no doubts.

Final point - evil, sin, Satan etc. God loves us. But the only way he can love us is if we have free will - to listen to him or to ignore him. To sin or to obey him. If we had no free will how would he love us for obeying him? He would be like the puppeteer pulling the strings, rather than like the Blue Fairy who wants to make us alive with no strings, and then, at the end, make us into 'a real boy'. Wow, that's the first time I saw Pinocciho that way. Without sin, we would all know God, but we would not be able to argue against him either. Without sin, we'd be like animals - autonomous not self-controlling.

Please do not post replies in this thread. Use another method.

Just payback for Bush's little religious crusade. He had anti-Muslim feelings, but he didn't post them on forums, he bombed Mosques and hospitals.


umm yeah.. okay sure.

I am now getting very fed up with the pesistance of Anti-Chrisitan feeling on this forum. It wasn't so bad previously when it was merely interlectuall banter but in recent times I can recall at least three occations when I have seen Christians compared to the mentally retarded for their beliefs. That is unacceptable. Theology and the belief in God is one that is intellectually valid, if you people who constantly dismiss it would actually study it. You may disagree with the idea, that is fine. But you must accept it as one that is valid, and not dismiss it as being akin to being mentally retarded. That is insulting to over one third of the planets population. I would ask those who constantly insult Chrisitanity to have a little introspective and ask themselves why. Why is Chrisitanity such an affront to you.

Here's how I see it:
Christians = No problem with them
Preaching Christians = Annoying but still OK.
Preaching Christians who, when asked about their religion, can't answer, didn't read their holy text, claim to know the only way 'just because' = Stupid Christian

So when I say "these stupid christians and their legal actions to force creationism in the classroom", I'm not talking about the Christians in general, just the stupid ones.

Well, I am 17. And I am a Christian. This is true. So is the fact that I am just as fed up as anyone else with everyone that says that "Jesus is the only way to salvation".

I happen to believe that anyone who leads a good life, and tries to do what is right will get into heaven, assuming there is an afterlife. But I'm tired of people, both Christian and not, tarring all of us with the same brush. Just as Islam has its branches (Like Shiite and Sunni, to name just two.) Christianity has thousands of branches.

Not all of us are anti-gay, anti-science, anti-Dungeons and Dragons (had to get that one in. I love D&D.) ultra-conservative, hate freaks. In fact most of us aren't. Unfortunately, the minority that are tend to be very vocal. They make up for their insecurities by being both loud and annoying.

Don't think I'm a self-hating Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in God, but I don't believe that hell is the destination of anyone who doesn't. I think there are plenty of non-Christians out there who are a hell of a lot better than many Christians that I'm ashamed to say I know.

But that doesn't mean that anyone should attack us all. It makes you no better than the conservative Christians who will tell you that if you don't believe in Jesus as your savior and confess your sins to God, you will burn in Hell for all eternity. I will never, EVER try to force my views on anyone else, so please, do me a favor, and don't try to shake my faith. It won't change.

(For those who are interested, I do not believe that God created the Heavens and the Earth in seven days. I believe in evolution. I believe that Dungeons and Dragons is a healthy way for a community to interact. I believe that stage magicians are awesome people, and not the spawn of Satan. I believe that Buddhism is a very cool religion for the tolerance it teaches. And I believe that lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only, not investment purposes.)

Here's how I see it:
Christians = No problem with them
Preaching Christians = Annoying but still OK.
Preaching Christians who, when asked about their religion, can't answer, didn't read their holy text, claim to know the only way 'just because' = Stupid Christian

So when I say "these stupid christians and their legal actions to force creationism in the classroom", I'm not talking about the Christians in general, just the stupid ones.


That does make sense. :)

For that guy who said free will ws given by God so he could love us:

some believe it was given wrongly, what would you say to that?

Good and evil is subjective. I say Hurrah for these actions, it discourages further christianity.

You sick ****, you actually aprove of that? Maybe you should come to the middle east where I live and be subjected to some of it. By god, I even know places where they will torture YOU because you are an atheist, but as Christians we disapprove of that. (unlike you :mad: )

For that guy who said free will ws given by God so he could love us:

some believe it was given wrongly, what would you say to that?

1. Girl not guy
2. I'm arguing this at 1.00am, so forgive me for any mistakes if you believe in forgiveness.
3. I believe that it was given rightly. I want to be loved by God, and have free will. I don't want to be controlled. It makes my relationship with Him more special.

Okay, point: In school, for example in science subjects, you are taught about Chromosomes and Genes and so on. You yourself have no proof these exist except for what other people have told you. In the same way, Christians believe what others tell them who are also Christians such as their Ministers or other church leaders.

Religion is clearly something that has a strong force of logic behind it. If it were not, it wouldnt be so widespread as an idea.

So, are you saying that all widespread ideas have a strong force of logic behind them?

Okay, point: In school, for example in science subjects, you are taught about Chromosomes and Genes and so on. You yourself have no proof these exist except for what other people have told you. In the same way, Christians believe what others tell them who are also Christians such as their Ministers or other church leaders.

Woah, woah, woah. Slow down just a mite. There's a small difference between church and school. Okay, chromosomes and genes are a proven scientific fact. It's easy to prove they exist. Look under a powerful enough microscope and you can see them.

God's existence cannot be proven. This DOES NOT mean he does not exist. See, while faith and the Bible are not proof on their own, plenty of things have been theorised that were both ridiculed and unprovable in their time, that have now been proven true.

For example, quantum mechanics. Einstein himself said, "God does not play dice with the Universe." Well, with all respect to Einstein's brilliance, quantum mechanics happen to be the current functioning theory on the modern physical behavior of sub-atomic particles in the Universe.

One more clarification. (I've seen this sort of thing so many times, and not ONCE have I seen it corrected.) The word "Theory" in science means, basically, "A statement that has been supported so many times by scientific fact and evidence that it is accepted as the truth". It does not mean "a guess at the nature of the universe". The "Theory of Evolution" is the truth, not a guess at the nature of the universe. The "Theory of Gravity" has never been argued by Christians, and the Theory of Evolution has as much to support it, if not more. So there.

*Puts on flame-retardent suit*

You sick ****, you actually aprove of that? Maybe you should come to the middle east where I live and be subjected to some of it.

Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

People long ago: We don't understand nature. Let's make up a story out of our imaginations and write it down. This shall be The Truth. This shall be religion.

Scientists today: Through logic, deduction and experimentation, we have come up with rational explanations for at least some parts of nature. We may not know everything yet, but is that really so bad, not knowing everything?

Science says the world is round. Bible says otherwise - who has the correct understanding of logic?

Comments like these disparaging the Old Ways, really all religions, but usually the more ancient ones, strike a nerve with me. We Moderns think we are so damn smart. It is pure arrogance to think we are all that different from our ancestors. They were pretty damn smart, too.

Religious stories aren't about explaining away and dismissing the mysteries of the universe, they are a vehicle for exploring them and giving them their due. They are not about logic, they are about intuition and feeling. Even though I am not Christian, I can feel the ancient wisdom of the Myths of the Bible. They contain a truth that goes beyond the mere literal words. To read it literally is to, in effect, desecrate it. That is why I weep for Fundamentalists, for They No Not What They Do to their own sacred texts.

And when I call them Myths, do not mistake to think I disparage them. It is only through Myth, I believe, that the true secrets of the universe can be explored and, thus, I give it my highest praise. They are, however, not MY Myths. I prefer the Mythology of the ancient Celts and actively study the ways of the Druids.