NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do people always make this insane dodge and claim that means they have "out debated" you.

The dodge I am talking about is christianity.

Everytime you ever criticize another religion, especially Islam, there will be some looser on this thread who although could not care less about religion immediately compare or criticize/attack christianity despite it not ever being mentioned in the thread at all. It will go something like this:

Me: IMO, xian is....

Looser: omg!! How dare you be such a racist bigot!! What gives you the right to criticize a religion, to generalise against so many people!! On the other hand, Christianity and christians are.... evil.... bigotted..... violent.... corrupt.. etc...

You have done two things here, you have basicly admitted you cannot refute my statement by running away to attack another religion which is not mentioned, and you have become a complete hypocrite by doing just as much, if not more stereotyping/attacking/generalizing of another religion.

Many of the people have become hypocritical 'scaredy cats' on this forum, and I cannot believe no one even notices.

So true.

IMHO, the argument has some merit only in cases when it is a Christian complaining about another religion.

Even if it is not explicitly mentioned, the simple fact that the poster in question adheres to Christianity screams "religion X is worse than my religion because..." I don't believe religious people are capable of making rational judgements regarding other religions, because their relationship with the matter has to be clouded by faith.

That being said, there are no religions which haven't been interpreted and re-interpreted a billion times. You can't make blanket statements about any religion, really. But you can make statements about specific interpretations of religions. I can criticise Calvinism for example (Or can I? Not sure how many different versions of that there are...), but I can't criticise Christianity in general.

What I would like one of those faith-based trolls (Why else would you start a "religion X is bad because..." thread in the first place?) to do is state clearly what their specific religious denomination is and openly come out and compare it to the other specific religious denomination in question.

Not that anything will come of it, faith is not something that can be debated...but at least it'll lead to a bit more theology being used rather than demagogy.

There are no gods and never were. religion is a losers game whichever particular one they subscribe to. I could go on and explain the logic but I rarely bother to - as logic can always be 'refuted' by blind faith with its' blinkers and reins. Giddy up there horseys! Oh yes Mr (insert religious title here). Happy Winter Solstice everybody!;)

IMHO, the argument has some merit only in cases when it is a Christian complaining about another religion.

Even if it is not explicitly mentioned, the simple fact that the poster in question adheres to Christianity screams "religion X is worse than my religion because..." I don't believe religious people are capable of making rational judgements regarding other religions, because their relationship with the matter has to be clouded by faith.

That being said, there are no religions which haven't been interpreted and re-interpreted a billion times. You can't make blanket statements about any religion, really. But you can make statements about specific interpretations of religions. I can criticise Calvinism for example (Or can I? Not sure how many different versions of that there are...), but I can't criticise Christianity in general.

What I would like one of those faith-based trolls (Why else would you start a "religion X is bad because..." thread in the first place?) to do is state clearly what their specific religious denomination is and openly come out and compare it to the other specific religious denomination in question.

Not that anything will come of it, faith is not something that can be debated...but at least it'll lead to a bit more theology being used rather than demagogy.

It's still irellevant. Each religion isn't equal, if you attack someone elses beleif , that doesn't change anything about his original statement. It doesn't make it any falser and if thats the only thing you can do it shows that you don't have anything good enough to refute the original statement.

Everyone will be clouded by some sort of belief anyway, why don't you ask someone to put their political compass on each of their threads as that would surely influence their beliefs as well.

If a communist decided to start criticizing the restrictions or market or something, I wouldn't start attacking the fact that he is -10 to the left.

There are no gods and never were. religion is a losers game whichever particular one they subscribe to. I could go on and explain the logic but I rarely bother to - as logic can always be 'refuted' by blind faith with its' blinkers and reins. Giddy up there horseys! Oh yes Mr (insert religious title here). Happy Winter Solstice everybody!;)

Great argument there :rolleyes:

There are no gods and never were. religion is a losers game whichever particular one they subscribe to. I could go on and explain the logic but I rarely bother to - as logic can always be 'refuted' by blind faith with its' blinkers and reins. Giddy up there horseys! Oh yes Mr (insert religious title here). Happy Winter Solstice everybody!;)

You can logically disprove God?

I don't believe you.

Oh and the thing you're describing Mr. OP is called an ad hominem. You can ignore them.

cheers criik - happy winter solstice to you too!

If you spell lose (http://dict.leo.org/?search=lose) as loose (http://dict.leo.org/?search=loose), you lose!

Trilby63;12125093']You can logically disprove God?

I don't believe you.

Oh and the thing you're describing Mr. OP is called an ad hominem. You can ignore them.

Yes I can logically disprove god, but I would be wasting my breath on you, and also refuse your 'I don't believe you' trap. As for the Ad Hominem - ooooOOOOOoooo. :upyours:

Yes I can logically disprove god, but I would be wasting my breath on you, and also refuse your 'I don't believe you' trap. As for the Ad Hominem - ooooOOOOOoooo. :upyours:

So basicly, you came to troll rather then debate.

Yes I can logically disprove god, but I would be wasting my breath on you, and also refuse your 'I don't believe you' trap. As for the Ad Hominem - ooooOOOOOoooo. :upyours:

Humor us then. If you can disprove God, then do so.

If you spell lose (http://dict.leo.org/?search=lose) as loose (http://dict.leo.org/?search=loose), you lose!
QFT.

what do you mean?

Yes, it's a German / English dictionary but you CAN see the context in which both words are used.

Humor us then. If you can disprove God, then do so.
I'll bite.

God is benevolent.
God loves his genocide. (just see the Old Testament)
This doesn't work and therefore God does not exist.

It's still irellevant. Each religion isn't equal, .

They are, if you don't believe in any of the fuckin things....

It's still irellevant. Each religion isn't equal, if you attack someone elses beleif , that doesn't change anything about his original statement. It doesn't make it any falser and if thats the only thing you can do it shows that you don't have anything good enough to refute the original statement.
You're trying to fit rules of rational debate and logical argument to religion. Not gonna work. ;)

So basicly, you came to troll rather then debate.

No. However, have you ever tried to debate with True Believers? It's a waste of time because of their religious brainwashing - anything you say, no matter how logical and self-evident, if it doesn't fit the picture they worship, then you might as well have not spoken. So when I realise I am speaking to a True Believer, I usually deliver a sarcastic broadside and leave it at that. I'm sorry but there really is no talking to these people. ;)

I'll bite.

God is benevolent.
God loves his genocide. (just see the Old Testament)
This doesn't work and therefore God does not exist.

Ah, I'm not referring to the God of Abrahamic religions, but to the concept of God in general.

I'll bite.

God is benevolent.


Is he? Prove that?


God loves his genocide. (just see the Old Testament)


If he did, how does that make him non existent? How do you know the "genocide" was not justified? (as it says in the Bible all of those peopel were completely evil and deserved death)


This doesn't work and therefore God does not exist.

Just because the old testements interpretation of God is benevolent, and lets just hypothetically assume that he isn't, how does that disprove god?

No. However, have you ever tried to debate with True Believers? It's a waste of time because of their religious brainwashing - anything you say, no matter how logical and self-evident, if it doesn't fit the picture they worship, then you might as well have not spoken. So when I realise I am speaking to a True Believer, I usually deliver a sarcastic broadside and leave it at that. I'm sorry but there really is no talking to these people. ;)

Just so you know, I can easily disprove everything you believe in with air-tight logic. I'm kinda sleepy right now though, so I'm not going to bother with you.

Yes I can logically disprove god, but I would be wasting my breath on you, and also refuse your 'I don't believe you' trap. As for the Ad Hominem - ooooOOOOOoooo. :upyours:

Chill dude..

Where's your winter solstice spirit?

You can't disprove god any more than you can disprove that natural law is governened by invisible ninja penguins. Does that mean God exists? No, it doesn't mean a thing. That's where faith comes in. If you don't have it, then you don't get it.

But it's all cool.. Anyone can criticise anything but if it's not for a rational reason such like the ad hominem the OP is talking about then expect to be called on it.

They are, if you don't believe in any of the fuckin things....

You don't believe in talking rabbits right? You also don't believe in 100 foot giants? That doesn't stop the 100 foot giant being more powerful then the rabit.

Is he? Prove that?



If he did, how does that make him non existent? How do you know the "genocide" was not justified? (as it says in the Bible all of those peopel were completely evil and deserved death)



Just because the old testements interpretation of God is benevolent, and lets just hypothetically assume that he isn't, how does that disprove god?
It's generally accepted by most Christians that God is benevolent. Why would you want to worship a deity that was all, like, evil and stuff?
It doesn't so much go against a God as it goes against the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity. Even if they did deserve death, doesn't everyone deserve death but God's supposed to be merciful and forgiving?

It's generally accepted by most Christians that God is benevolent. Why would you want to worship a deity that was all, like, evil and stuff?
It doesn't so much go against a God as it goes against the Bible, which is the foundation of Christianity. Even if they did deserve death, doesn't everyone deserve death but God's supposed to be merciful and forgiving?

I still don't see how any of this, in the slightest, disproves God, let alone logically.

Ah, I'm not referring to the God of Abrahamic religions, but to the concept of God in general.
All right, fair enough. No, you can't logically disprove a higher power, but I don't think you can logically prove one either. Burden of proof rests on whoever's trying to prove the thing. Misinterpreted it... I'll be leaving now.

You don't believe in talking rabbits right? You also don't believe in 100 foot giants? That doesn't stop the 100 foot giant being more powerful then the rabit.

That doesn't make sense.

Trilby63;12125154']That doesn't make sense.

It shows that you can still regard somethnigs greater then other things, despite not believing in either.

Trilby63;12125154']That doesn't make sense.
It does if you make the assumption that the giant is more powerful.

Of course, to the poster in question the assumption is self-evident, so it doesn't bear repeating...

[QUOTE='[NS]Trilby63;12125139'] That's where faith comes in. If you don't have it, then you don't get it.

BQUOTE]

Ha! If you've got 'faith' in an invisible friend, and you're not six years old, then medically what does that make you?

Ha! If you've got 'faith' in an invisible friend, and you're not six years old, then medically what does that make you?

Are you saying that all religious people are medically insane?

Oh dear...

Are you saying that all religious people are medically insane?

Oh dear...

I didn't say that - You did!

I didn't say that - You did!

Don't dodge, you blatently implied it.

It does if you make the assumption that the giant is more powerful.

Of course, to the poster in question the assumption is self-evident, so it doesn't bear repeating...

It's not more powerful. It doesn't exist and so has no power. Nor does the rabbit.

[QUOTE='[NS]Trilby63;12125139'] That's where faith comes in. If you don't have it, then you don't get it.

BQUOTE]

Ha! If you've got 'faith' in an invisible friend, and you're not six years old, then medically what does that make you?

It makes me religious, doesn't it?

Trilby63;12125189']It's not more powerful. It doesn't exist and so has no power. Nor does the rabbit.

It doesn't matter if it exists or not, we're talking hypothetically here.

Trilby63;12125189']It's not more powerful. It doesn't exist and so has no power. Nor does the rabbit.
Bingo.

See, for that particular argument to work, the giant has to objectively be more powerful than the rabbit.

That's impossible of course. He's just making the assumption that a giant is more powerful than the rabbit, much like a religious person would carry around all the assumptions on which his or her faith is based.

Is he? Prove that?



If he did, how does that make him non existent? How do you know the "genocide" was not justified? (as it says in the Bible all of those peopel were completely evil and deserved death)



Just because the old testements interpretation of God is benevolent, and lets just hypothetically assume that he isn't, how does that disprove god?



Weren't people persecuted for being homosexuals too? Maybe the people were simply a bunch of homos. I'm not saying thats totally true if there is any truth to it at all but its totally possible. These were uneducated people. They didnt even know what germs were.

Trilby63;12125189']It's not more powerful. It doesn't exist and so has no power. Nor does the rabbit.

The universe is a large place. You can stipulate the existence of something you haven't experienced firsthand for the purpose of debate. It wont hurt you.

1. All species on this planet are subject to mortality.

2. Only humans can realise this rationally ahead of the event.

3. Only humans have religions promising continuity beyond this point in return for loyalty, peer group strength and materials, and bounded by threats of torment and/or ostracism for disloyalty.

Bingo.

See, for that particular argument to work, the giant has to objectively be more powerful than the rabbit.

That's impossible of course. He's just making the assumption that a giant is more powerful than the rabbit, much like a religious person would carry around all the assumptions on which his or her faith is based.

Much like the assumptions your making about religious people aye?

How in the living fuck would it matter weather it is hypothetical or not, why can you not regard one hypothetical being greater then another hypothetical being?

And since when is religious teachings hypothetical, religious teachings are objective in nature (doesn't mean what they are talking about is objective), surely you can compare the teachings in tollerance etc...

Trilby63;12125195'][QUOTE=Jim the Awesome;12125168]

It makes me religious, doesn't it?

You see? Totally oblivious to the point being made. Get yourself deprogrammed or shut up.

The universe is a large place. You can stipulate the existence of something you haven't experienced firsthand for the purpose of debate. It wont hurt you.
But we're talking about different religions, each of which carry different assumptions.

Comparisons will in most cases be impossible, since the assumptions don't fit together. The two parties aren't looking eye to eye, so they will completely miss each other's points.

The universe is a large place. You can stipulate the existence of something you haven't experienced firsthand for the purpose of debate. It wont hurt you.

Bah!

Fine!

I propose that the rabbit is more powerful. With it's cuteness and ability to talk it won't be long before it as followers. With weapons probably.

And I doubt that the giant could move fast enough to stomp on this rabbit. They're quick, you know and giants have been well documented to have poor eyesight.

[QUOTE='[NS]Trilby63;12125195']

You see? Totally oblivious to the point being made. Get yourself deprogrammed or shut up.

Which was?

Trilby63;12125240'][QUOTE=Jim the Awesome;12125214]

Which was?

see original answer. prat.

Don't dodge, you blatently implied it.

There is no dodge. YOU are the one implying that people over 6 that believe in an invisible friend are medically insane. If you believe they are, you also believe that all religious people are - yes.

I personally suspend judgement. I do however agree that double standards are bad.

And since when is religious teachings hypothetical, religious teachings are objective in nature (doesn't mean what they are talking about is objective), surely you can compare the teachings in tollerance etc...
As far as the real-life manifestations of religious concepts are concerned, yes, you can compare them.

Though not in a generalised way, as I pointed out before. You can only really compare very specific interpretations of various forms of religions. Rather than Islam vs Christianity, it would have to be a specific Sufi teaching against a specific form of Presbyterianism.

Of course, this requires some sort of comparison to occur first. That's the problem with religious people attacking other religions in threads: they're really making a comparison, but implicitly. That way they can compare the flawed real-life manifestation of the other system with the idealised, assumption-based idea they have of their own religion.

And when someone then comes out and makes it all equally ugly and explicit, they get annoyed and start a thread like this. ;)

The point is you cannot argue with blind faith, stupidity or women. The first two because they dont know any better or dont want to know any better and the last one because they have things that men want and won't get should men start to express dominance over women.

But we're talking about different religions, each of which carry different assumptions.

Comparisons will in most cases be impossible, since the assumptions don't fit together. The two parties aren't looking eye to eye, so they will completely miss each other's points.

Religious debate can be complicated and difficult, I agree. I've seen it occur with some success in the past, so I don't agree that it isn't possible.

If a Muslim believes C because it logically follows from A and B, while a Jew also believes C, but doesn't believe A or B, then debate over C may not work well, but the same can be seen among philosophers, physicists, chemists, etc. with fundamental disagreements. There is almost always some common ground either way, and many dimensions to complex topics.

There is no dodge. YOU are the one implying that people over 6 that believe in an invisible friend are medically insane. If you believe they are, you also believe that all religious people are - yes.

I personally suspend judgement. I do however agree that double standards are bad.

No you are the one implying, I was the one telling you what you were implying.

The point is you cannot argue with blind faith, stupidity or women. The first two because they dont know any better or dont want to know any better and the last one because they have things that men want and won't get should men start to express dominance over women.

No you can't but is fun to try and you can learn a lot and isn't that the point?

The only losers in internet debates are those who learn nothing from it...

..and those who argue against evolution of course, they lose too.

No you are the one implying, I was the one telling you what you were implying.

I didn't post the earlier comment.
However, the fact remains that *you* got the implication. You apparantly believe it is odd to believe in an invisible friend.

1. All species on this planet are subject to mortality.

2. Only humans can realise this rationally ahead of the event.

3. Only humans have religions promising continuity beyond this point in return for loyalty, peer group strength and materials, and bounded by threats of torment and/or ostracism for disloyalty.

Fuck me! You people are all nuts - giants versus rabbits, you said, I said, blah blah blah. Above is logical proof. read it.

Happy winter solstice everybody - I'm off to the pub.

Also the bible was written and approved by men and men alone. The hand of this so called god was elsewhere. Therefore we cannot use the christian bible as a reference because it may not be true at all. I mean stories of people living in the desert for years and then seeing crazy shit? It could have been insanity or a simple mirage or both. Now god on the other hand is tricky. Now there have been so many supposed "sightings" and "miracles" from all sorts of religions to prove that their god is real. But when you think about it it's all just getting a bunch of people to believe something then time will take care of the rest. I could make up a religion right now then tell it to a bunch of stupid people. In time more people would believe and then time will blur the origins. It'll go from being an argument on the internet to some apparition of some deity that started the religion. Look at all the druggos that say "god saved me". Why don't we kidnap a bunch of druggo bums, get em clean and get their lives back. We'd have members for life. I mean L. ron hubbard made all that other shit up and look how he went.

There are no gods and never were. religion is a losers game whichever particular one they subscribe to. I could go on and explain the logic but I rarely bother to - as logic can always be 'refuted' by blind faith with its' blinkers and reins. Giddy up there horseys! Oh yes Mr (insert religious title here). Happy Winter Solstice everybody!;)
Being a "loser" in your eyes, is of zero consequence to me. :p

Happy Winter Solistice to you, Merry Christmas to those that dare to believe. :)

Being a "loser" in your eyes, is of zero consequence to me. :p

Happy Winter Solistice to you, Merry Christmas to those that dare to believe. :)

1. All species on this planet are subject to mortality.

2. Only humans can realise this rationally ahead of the event.

3. Only humans have religions promising continuity beyond this point in return for loyalty, peer group strength and materials, and bounded by threats of torment and/or ostracism for disloyalty.

Above is logical proof. read it.
.

Humans, the only life-form on Earth capable of high-level thought, including concepts such as mortality and religion, have religion. Animals, who couldn't understand God or absence of God regardless His existence or lack of existence, don't have religion. Therefore, there is no God. That's a Swiss watch, to be sure.

Why do people always make this insane dodge and claim that means they have "out debated" you.

The dodge I am talking about is christianity.

Everytime you ever criticize another religion, especially Islam, there will be some looser on this thread who although could not care less about religion immediately compare or criticize/attack christianity despite it not ever being mentioned in the thread at all. It will go something like this:

Me: IMO, xian is....

Looser: omg!! How dare you be such a racist bigot!! What gives you the right to criticize a religion, to generalise against so many people!! On the other hand, Christianity and christians are.... evil.... bigotted..... violent.... corrupt.. etc...

You have done two things here, you have basicly admitted you cannot refute my statement by running away to attack another religion which is not mentioned, and you have become a complete hypocrite by doing just as much, if not more stereotyping/attacking/generalizing of another religion.

Many of the people have become hypocritical 'scaredy cats' on this forum, and I cannot believe no one even notices.
I have to say that I (reluctantly, given that it's you) agree with this.

Humans, the only life-form on Earth capable of high-level thought, including concepts such as mortality and religion, have religion. Animals, who couldn't understand God or absence of God regardless His existence or lack of existence, don't have religion. Therefore, there is no God. That's a Swiss watch, to be sure.

It isn't the idea of god and its' complexity that is the issue. It is the fear of death ahead of time and the creation of an afterlife to cope with it, and a god to deal with the natural problems, and a priesthood to rule and line their pockets and carry on the brainwashing to the next generation.

1. All species on this planet are subject to mortality.

2. Only humans can realise this rationally ahead of the event.

3. Only humans have religions promising continuity beyond this point in return for loyalty, peer group strength and materials, and bounded by threats of torment and/or ostracism for disloyalty.
Weren't you "off to the pub" to imbibe another pint of logic? :p

My beliefs cost me nothing and offer me far greater rewards then anything that you could possibly offer.

It isn't the idea of god and its' complexity that is the issue. It is the fear of death ahead of time and the creation of an afterlife to cope with it, and a god to deal with the natural problems, and a priesthood to rule and line their pockets and carry on the brainwashing to the next generation.

That's a complaint that you may have, but that's not logical proof for the existence or absence of God. Some people fear death and some don't. Some religions promise treats and joy and love, and others don't. Some people use religion to get rich, and some people actually believe due to some personal experience or reason, and join a church to help others.

My beliefs cost me nothing and offer me far greater rewards then anything that you could possibly offer.

Hmm... can you write this cost/benefit analysis out ? With a detailed explanation of the "no cost" part?

That's a complaint that you may have, but that's not logical proof for the existence or absence of God. Some people fear death and some don't. Some religions promise treats and joy and love, and others don't. Some people use religion to get rich, and some people actually believe due to some personal experience or reason, and join a church to help others.
Although I haven't often agreed with you in the past, I can on what you stated here. Also, one needs to remember, that one does not have to go to church to believe in Him, or do His work.

Hmm... can you write this cost/benefit analysis out ? With a detailed explanation of the "no cost" part?

Would there be any point? It's not like it would be objective.

Trilby63;12125333']Would there be any point? It's not like it would be objective.

It does not need to be. Just as long as the person posting it admits that ;)

Weren't you "off to the pub" to imbibe another pint of logic? :p

My beliefs cost me nothing and offer me far greater rewards then anything that you could possibly offer.

just like any religious nutter, you can't deal with the argument so you try to rubbish the speaker. How do you know what he had to offer?

just like any religious nutter, you can't deal with the argument so you try to rubbish the speaker. How do you know what he had to offer?

That's a little harsh isn't it?

Besides, if you believed that eternal life and general pleasentness awaited you what would you trade it for?

Hmm... can you write this cost/benefit analysis out ? With a detailed explanation of the "no cost" part?
There is no cost to believe in Him and the rewards are self evident to those that choose to live a better life. Money has nothing to do with the equation.

IMHO, the argument has some merit only in cases when it is a Christian complaining about another religion.

Well, that's just attacking the poster rather than their opinion, isn't it?

I would also say that most, or around half perhaps, of the people who make anti-Islam threads are atheists - but people always assume they're Christians because a lot of people here just don't like Christians.

So basicly, you came to troll rather then debate.
You had your turn, I suppose he must have his.

There is no cost to believe in Him and the rewards are self evident to those that choose to live a better life. Money has nothing to do with the equation.

I am not thinking of money where the costs are concerned. I am for instance thinking that picking one religion is limiting yourself (there are thousands of them after all). Or how your selfperception changes if you accept the existence of something so vastly superior to you, emphasising your own inferiority.

Aspects like those apparantly do not bother you. I am genuinely curious as to why ?

I don't know about you, but if you don't believe in religion then where do you think you'll go after you die? Atleast religion gives us hope. Evolutionism believes that we live and then we turn into worm food. I seriously don't know about you, but I'd would take a heaven over nothing.

Plus, how many times has the Bible been proven right compared to anything else? I.E: Islam is mostly if not all faith, Budhism is just trying to seek enlightenment.

My question again: what would you rather believe?

Trilby63;12125351']That's a little harsh isn't it?

Besides, if you believed that eternal life and general pleasentness awaited you what would you trade it for?

I would have to value truth above personal comfort. Such people are rare. Most religious nutters are sold on the afterlife idea already, and would, literally, rather die than give it up. Sad but true. Anyone who has genuinely considered the idea of existing for ETERNITY will tell you that that would be the true hell.

What we try to do with those arguments is explain how all religions can be twisted to justify violence. Every single one, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, all of them.

just like any religious nutter, you can't deal with the argument so you try to rubbish the speaker.
I see that you have no sense of humour and then you waste your first post doing exactly what you claim I was attempting.

How do you know what he had to offer?
It is simple my friend, he has nothing to offer me.

It is simple my friend, he has nothing to offer me.[/QUOTE]

Now actually answer the question - how do you know what he had to offer?

So you would rather believe that you are god? I am sorry to tell you this, but there are always going to be someone more superior to you. The rich control your life, not you.

It is a conflict inside of us that we will never win. We didn't make the choices, so therefore we don't control anything besides our blip of an existence on the face of a planet with not much more importance than a piece of space dust.

I would have to value truth above personal comfort. Such people are rare. Most religious nutters are sold on the afterlife idea already, and would, literally, rather die than give it up. Sad but true. Anyone who has genuinely considered the idea of existing for ETERNITY will tell you that that would be the true hell.

Oh me too.. I'm quite happy to live my life and then get on with the process of not existing. I imagine it'd be like a long sleep only without that whole annoying business of waking.

But that's not the point. The point is does wanting comfort really make you a nutter? Belief is what is makes us human. Whether you agree with it or with the way it can easily be manipulated is irrelevent? I mean, I assume you have beliefs, yes?

I am not thinking of money where the costs are concerned. I am for instance thinking that picking one religion is limiting yourself (there are thousands of them after all). Or how your selfperception changes if you accept the existence of something so vastly superior to you, emphasising your own inferiority.
Man is naturally inferior to many things. Why should a belief in God be lesser?

Aspects like those apparantly do not bother you. I am genuinely curious as to why ?
It is easy to accept my mortal inferiority. Do you struggle with that concept?

I don't know about you, but if you don't believe in religion then where do you think you'll go after you die? Atleast religion gives us hope. Evolutionism believes that we live and then we turn into worm food. I seriously don't know about you, but I'd would take a heaven over nothing.

I guess I am weird then. I like the idea that my life had a beginning and will have an end. It seems so much neater.
I would just like to choose the time and manner of the end, but one cannot have everything.

Plus, how many times has the Bible been proven right compared to anything else?

Never ?

It is easy to accept my mortal inferiority. Do you struggle with that concept?
Accepting it is one thing. Embracing it and glorifying it quite another.
I wouldn't worship the hypothetical superior aliens that invade our planet either after all ;)

Why do people always make this insane dodge and claim that means they have "out debated" you.

The dodge I am talking about is christianity.
<snip>
Looser: omg!! How dare you be such a racist bigot!! What gives you the right to criticize a religion, to generalise against so many people!! On the other hand, Christianity and christians are.... evil.... bigotted..... violent.... corrupt.. etc...
<snip>
Many of the people have become hypocritical 'scaredy cats' on this forum, and I cannot believe no one even notices.You're not the only one to notice this. It's been like that on Nationstates for as long as I've been here. Mention any other religion (except maybe Scientology) and people will generally be tolerant and polite. But if it's Christianity, well, then they have every right to attack it. Why are there so many more threads attacking Christianity than any other religion? I've been on and off this forum for months, and though I've never started any religious thread there will always be at least one on Christianity.

I know I'm putting myself out there to be ripped apart by responding, but I don't care. The way I see it is that people, whether they believe it or not, are afraid of Christianity because it is the right way (this is from my perspective anyway). Satan is happy with people following any other religion but Christianity (well, the real kind, not the bank account controlling kind). Dosagree with me all you like, but I'm entitled to my opinion... Well, maybe not on this forum...:rolleyes:

snip
Well, since Christianity is the dominant belief in most of the countries of the people who post on NS, it can't really be threatened by little bands of upstart atheists or others grumbling about it, but Muslims or Jews are a minority and are therefore more vulnerable. Also, most of the threads relating to Christianity are really atheist threads debating religion in general, and we just use Christianity as an example since it's usually the religion people are most familiar with, again in the countries of the posters here.

Trilby63;12125351']That's a little harsh isn't it?

Besides, if you believed that eternal life and general pleasentness awaited you what would you trade it for?

Steve Vai's fretting hand, for one...

Christianity is mentioned because most of those "debates" are started with the base conceit that Islam is the only oppressive, violent religion in the world.

:rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but if you don't believe in religion then where do you think you'll go after you die? Atleast religion gives us hope. Evolutionism believes that we live and then we turn into worm food. I seriously don't know about you, but I'd would take a heaven over nothing.

Plus, how many times has the Bible been proven right compared to anything else? I.E: Islam is mostly if not all faith, Budhism is just trying to seek enlightenment.

My question again: what would you rather believe?

There's now a religion/philosophy called "evolutionism" which includes "beliefs" regarding whether or not there is an afterlife?

News to me...

just like any religious nutter, you can't deal with the argument so you try to rubbish the speaker. How do you know what he had to offer?

Good one hypocrite

What we try to do with those arguments is explain how all religions can be twisted to justify violence. Every single one, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, all of them.

Correction, what some people do, not everyone.

I am not thinking of money where the costs are concerned. I am for instance thinking that picking one religion is limiting yourself (there are thousands of them after all). Or how your selfperception changes if you accept the existence of something so vastly superior to you, emphasising your own inferiority.

Aspects like those apparantly do not bother you. I am genuinely curious as to why ?

Most religious people don't normally "choose their religion", it is usually either a result of some sort of spiritual experience, upbringing or peer pressure of some sort.

Most religious people don't normally "choose their religion", it is usually either a result of some sort of spiritual experience, upbringing or peer pressure of some sort.

Of which only the first one would be a good reason IMO.

Steve Vai's fretting hand, for one...

Well shit, if I could trade eternal happiness for musical talent then I'd hand over my wings and harp straight away.. although, Steve Vai's actual hand? Can you imagine where it's been?

Ah, I'm not referring to the God of Abrahamic religions, but to the concept of God in general.

That can't be logically disproven. The only one that can would be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

Accepting it is one thing. Embracing it and glorifying it quite another.
There is no fear in embracing the reality of my mortal existence and ultimate demise. At one time, I did have that fear. Many people have heroes, be they rock stars, sports stars, military leaders, political figures, etc., and they glorify them. I find it only natural to glorify Him that gave us life, certainly over and above the other "heroes".

I wouldn't worship the hypothetical superior aliens that invade our planet either after all ;)
Me either. :)

1. All species on this planet are subject to mortality.

2. Only humans can realise this rationally ahead of the event.

3. Only humans have religions promising continuity beyond this point in return for loyalty, peer group strength and materials, and bounded by threats of torment and/or ostracism for disloyalty.

Point one is correct. Point two is not. Elephants understand the concept of mortality. Point three cannot be demonstrated.

Also, that doesn't even follow the structure of a logical proof.

Christianity is mentioned because most of those "debates" are started with the base conceit that Islam is the only oppressive, violent religion in the world.

:rolleyes:
No, they aren't. True, most of these threads target Islam exclusively, but very few deny that other religions have their nasty episodes.

That can't be logically disproven. The only one that can would be an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

God cannot be disproven, and there is far more chance of it/him being conclusively proved to exist than not to exist. We must simply accept that the chances of its/his existence are small, but the myth is resiliant and very much immortal.

You have done two things here, you have basicly admitted you cannot refute my statement by running away to attack another religion which is not mentioned, and you have become a complete hypocrite by doing just as much, if not more stereotyping/attacking/generalizing of another religion.

Many of the people have become hypocritical 'scaredy cats' on this forum, and I cannot believe no one even notices.

No, they have done only one thing, which may or may not be appropriate to the argument.

They have assumed that you are doing what a lot of Christians do. Disguising an "anti-everything but Christ" argument as a "this is what's wrong with X" argument.

It would be like if someone were to start arguing that we need to protect Boy Scout members from child molesters and a lot of people assumed you were (as many homophobes do) using it as a disguised "get homos out of the boy scouts" argument.

I don't know about you, but if you don't believe in religion then where do you think you'll go after you die? Atleast religion gives us hope. Evolutionism believes that we live and then we turn into worm food. I seriously don't know about you, but I'd would take a heaven over nothing.

No. "Evolutionism" if taken to mean a belief in the principles of evolution, does not address the idea of an afterlife at all. Evolution, like any scientific theory is not about what you would like to be the case, but what, in light of the evidence, probably is the case.

Plus, how many times has the Bible been proven right compared to anything else?

Never. Not once. In the whole history of the world nothing in the Bible has been proven right. Many things in it have been proven untrue. Like the mustard seed being the smallest of seeds. It isn't. The world being shaped like a tabernacle (rectangle). It isn't.

I.E: Islam is mostly if not all faith,

So is Christianity. In fact, there are huge chunks of the New Testament talking about how faith is what it's really all about. Take a look at the begining of Paul's Letter to the Corinthians.

Budhism is just trying to seek enlightenment.

The Budhist concept of enlightenment is much closer to the idea of salvation than our idea of wisdom. You know how Jesus encouraged people to concern themselves with divine concerns instead of material ones? Buddha's teachings were all about the same thing.

Take a look at the Divine Comedy (a Christian work). In that, salvation is imagined as sitting in a giant glowing rose. Uniting with the ultimate divine. That's what Buddhist enlightenment is.

And like Christianity one of the biggest sects believes that you get enlightenment (salvation) by praying to have it given to you rather than by working to become that type of person yourself.

My question again: what would you rather believe?

If you're believing out of an egotistical desire to have your conciousness spared from oblivion then you don't get what Christianity is about at all. God isn't a lifeboat to get you off this sinking ship called life. It's not about hope that you won't die. It's about seeing the world from a place where it doesn't matter if you do die.

There is no cost to believe in Him and the rewards are self evident to those that choose to live a better life. Money has nothing to do with the equation.

But if you choose to believe in the existence of the Christian God and follow what various priests or ministers have told you you must do in order to stay in his good graces then you do loose something. If the things you must forego in order to heed Christian taboos appeal to you, then your beliefs cost you their enjoyment. If they don't, then you only believe it because it's convenient for you to do so. Like gay people who think that nothing in the Bible condemns homosexuality, or homophobes who think that the Bible indicates that homosexuality is a grevious sin deserving of more attention than eating shellfish or providing for the poor.

But if you choose to believe in the existence of the Christian God and follow what various priests or ministers have told you you must do in order to stay in his good graces then you do loose something. If the things you must forego in order to heed Christian taboos appeal to you, then your beliefs cost you their enjoyment. If they don't, then you only believe it because it's convenient for you to do so. Like gay people who think that nothing in the Bible condemns homosexuality, or homophobes who think that the Bible indicates that homosexuality is a grevious sin deserving of more attention than eating shellfish or providing for the poor.
Many people and various religions have their own interpretations of the Bible. Are they all right or all wrong, or partly right and partly wrong? I don't believe that God believes in organized religion per se. All He asks us to do is believe in Him, and ask for forgiveness for our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us. Too many people want to complicate the very simple message that we are all God's children.

I endeavour to lead a moral life, but I am aware of my lack of perfection, and so is He. One can be very happy and enjoy life leading a moral life. If my best is not good enough come judgement day, so be it.

It would be like if someone were to start arguing that we need to protect Boy Scout members from child molesters and a lot of people assumed you were (as many homophobes do) using it as a disguised "get homos out of the boy scouts" argument.
If this is how you think, let me guess something else. Suppose someone starts criticising Islam, or something to that effect. Do you think they are actually trying to use it as a subtle argument for "this is why we should bomb ?

I call that [I]paranoia!

And like Christianity one of the biggest sects believes that you get enlightenment (salvation) by praying to have it given to you rather than by working to become that type of person yourself.
Some Christian groups, like the Catholic Church, believe that good works as well as faith are necessary for salvation. Believing that faith alone is enough is more of a Protestant thing.

If you're believing out of an egotistical desire to have your conciousness spared from oblivion then you don't get what Christianity is about at all. God isn't a lifeboat to get you off this sinking ship called life. It's not about hope that you won't die. It's about seeing the world from a place where it doesn't matter if you do die.
I agree.

If they don't, then you only believe it because it's convenient for you to do so.
What, so you think that everyone who doesn't enoy what the Bible prohibits, and adheres to Christianity, is just faking it for convenience?

Like gay people who think that nothing in the Bible condemns homosexuality, or homophobes who think that the Bible indicates that homosexuality is a grevious sin deserving of more attention than eating shellfish or providing for the poor.
*snigger*

Providing for the poor isn't a sin, it's actually quite the opposite!