NationStates Jolt Archive

The Christmas difference:

Religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

Atheist: "What absurdity! The presents appeared there of their own accord. Don't try to tell me they actually have a purpose, or that something alive put them there."

Deist: "Maybe someone did put the presents here...but the 'Santa-story' is a bit outlandish."

Agnostic: "Beats me."

In case anyone didn't know, this is a metaphor for the creation of the universe.

The Christmas difference:

Religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

Atheist: "What absurdity! The presents appeared there of their own accord."

Deist: "Maybe someone did put the presents here...but the 'Santa-story' is a bit outlandish.

Coca-Cola-Claus is a religious figure? Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer too?

don't be silly, clearly it was the space Jews :cool:

Coca-Cola-Claus is a religious figure? Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer too?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Sinter-claes-saint-nicolas-dam800.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Nicholas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Sinterklaas_2007.jpg/400px-Sinterklaas_2007.jpg

Actually we say they were put there by NINJAS!

...okay, we say that they were put there but humans, but most ninjas are human...

Atheist: "What absurdity! The presents appeared there of their own accord."

No. The presents were purchased from stores by people who have fallen for consumerist propaganda baked into a pagan holiday co-opted by blasphemous Christians who are confused about the birth of their imagined, cosmic, telepathically accepted Zombie-Jew master.

Flying Spaghetti Monster did it

No. The presents were purchased from stores by people who have fallen for consumerist propaganda baked into a pagan holiday co-opted by blasphemous Christians who are confused about the birth of their imagined, cosmic, telepathically accepted Zombie-Jew master.

I'd say people do it for fun, or more likely pressure to conform to the one thing that seems to embody western culture

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Sinter-claes-saint-nicolas-dam800.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Nicholas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Sinterklaas_2007.jpg/400px-Sinterklaas_2007.jpg

Nice pictures of saint Nicholas.

how about:

religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

atheist: "the presents got here by the real world method of parents putting them under the tree"

deist: "im not sure how the presents got here but i bet it was some really cool supernatural kinda way'

No. The presents were purchased from stores by people who have fallen for consumerist propaganda

True.

baked into a pagan holiday

True. It was, originally, a pagan holiday.

co-opted by blasphemous Christians who are confused about the birth of their imagined, cosmic, telepathically accepted Zombie-Jew master.

Okay, you're gonna have to explain this to me: How, or in what way, are we "confused" about the birth of the God-Man, Jesus Christ? And why do you call Him a "zombie"? :confused:

how about:

religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

atheist: "the presents got here by the real world method of parents putting them under the tree"

deist: "im not sure how the presents got here but i bet it was some really cool supernatural kinda way'

Only trouble with that is this: atheists don't believe there is a purpose to the presents, so that really doesn't work.

And why do you call Him a "zombie"? :confused:

He rose from the dead.

Okay, you're gonna have to explain this to me: How, or in what way, are we "confused" about the birth of the God-Man, Jesus Christ? And why do you call Him a "zombie"? :confused:See, you're confused:p

The Christmas difference:

Religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

Atheist: "What absurdity! The presents appeared there of their own accord."

Deist: "Maybe someone did put the presents here...but the 'Santa-story' is a bit outlandish.

In case anyone didn't know, this is a metaphor for the creation of the universe.

You do realize that most religious theists don't believe in the first explanation, right? And that most atheists have a much more complicated viewpoint than you're giving them credit for?

Is that a pro-deist bias I smell? :)

You do realize that most religious theists don't believe in the first explanation, right? And that most atheists have a much more complicated viewpoint than you're giving them credit for?

Is that a pro-deist bias I smell? :)

Of course. :p I'm an NS'er. It's just a pro-deist debate put into a more relative form.

how about:

religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

atheist: "the presents got here by the real world method of parents putting them under the tree"

deist: "im not sure how the presents got here but i bet it was some really cool supernatural kinda way'

Uh, no. The Parkus Empire had the Atheists' part right. Not the Religious Theists' part, of course; we know Santa Claus isn't real, but we know Jesus Christ IS real.

Uh, no. The Parkus Empire had the Atheists' part right. Not the Religious Theists' part, of course; we know Santa Claus isn't real, but we know Jesus Christ IS real.

I know Jesus is real too. It's just the Biblical concept of God that is unusual.

And yes, atheists believe the presents had no purpose. And they certainly don't believe a living being put them there. That's preposterous. :eek:

Nice pictures of saint Nicholas.

Nowadays it's just "Saint Nick." :D

Nowadays it's just "Saint Nick." :D

Doesn't that depend on for how long you've known him?

(citing Scent of a Woman)

Okay, you're gonna have to explain this to me: How, or in what way, are we "confused" about the birth of the God-Man, Jesus Christ?

That it happened at all and that it is to have happened in December during Saturnalia and on the very day of the Sol Invictus.

And why do you call Him a "zombie"? :confused:

I call it a zombie myth because that's what it is. Don't feel bad, though - the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree can be very confusing unless dismissed.

Flying Spaghetti Monster did it

WHO IS this "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Who is this "Santa Claus"? Come to me, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Santa Claus, if you dare! I defy you! Come! Come and kneel before Zod!...ZOD!

(*shoots Flying Spaghetti Monster and Santa Claus with eye lasers*)

There. Santa Claus' reign of defiance has ended, as has that of the so-called "Flying Spaghetti Monster". From this day forward, I shall be your new Santa: Santa ZOD!

And, speaking of this "Christmas": I declare the new name of Christmas to be "Zodmas". You shall refer to it as "Zodmas" instead of "Christmas" from now on.

You better watch out
You better not say "Christmas"
You better not get up off your knees, I'm telling you why
Santa Zod is coming to town!

Only trouble with that is this: atheists don't believe there is a purpose to the presents, so that really doesn't work.

did i claim a purpose to the presents?

i claimed a naturalistic origin for them rather than a supernatural origin.

as any atheist would do.

Uh, no. The Parkus Empire had the Atheists' part right. Not the Religious Theists' part, of course; we know Santa Claus isn't real, but we know Jesus Christ IS real.

is this a serious post?

do you really not understand metaphor?

is this a serious post?

do you really not understand metaphor?

Yes, that was a serious post.

And yes, I understand metaphor; you were saying that the universe just somehow evolved of its own accord, by nature.

But where did "nature" come from? Did it "will" itself into existence or something?

That doesn't make sense to me; it makes much more sense to believe that it was created supernaturally.

The Christmas difference:

Religious theist: "A man named Santa Claus who lives in the North Pole goes around in a flying sleigh coming down chimneys. He put the presents here."

Atheist: "What absurdity! The presents appeared there of their own accord. Don't try to tell me they actually have a purpose, or that something alive put them there."

Deist: "Maybe someone did put the presents here...but the 'Santa-story' is a bit outlandish.

In case anyone didn't know, this is a metaphor for the creation of the universe.

Sounds good to me.

That it happened at all

You're wrong here; it DID happen.

and that it is to have happened in December during Saturnalia and on the very day of the Sol Invictus.

Okay, you have a point here; when he was born, shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks by night, and THAT does NOT happen in December. So you're right about that; He was probably born around September or October.

I call it a zombie myth because that's what it is.

It is no "myth"; He really came to this world, died, and rose from the dead.

Furthermore, someday He will come back to "pwn" the kingdoms of this world.

Don't feel bad, though - the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree can be very confusing unless dismissed.

:rolleyes: Whatever. (*walks off wagging his head*)

Yes, that was a serious post.

And yes, I understand metaphor; you were saying that the universe just somehow evolved of its own accord, by nature.

But where did "nature" come from? Did it "will" itself into existence or something?

That doesn't make sense to me; it makes much more sense to believe that it was created supernaturally.

Where did 'supernature' come from?

Yes, that was a serious post.

And yes, I understand metaphor; you were saying that the universe just somehow evolved of its own accord, by nature.

But where did "nature" come from? Did it "will" itself into existence or something?

That doesn't make sense to me; it makes much more sense to believe that it was created supernaturally.

no thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about THIS sentence...

"Not the Religious Theists' part, of course; we know Santa Claus isn't real, but we know Jesus Christ IS real."

indicating that you think that he was suggesting that all christians believe in santa claus.

and yes i was saying that the atheist believes that the universe came about and developed according to natural laws not the will of god.

i wasnt asking you to convert, i was saying that THAT is the atheist point of view.

correcting the metaphor that had presents pop into existence all by themselves which would NOT be according to natural laws.

He rose from the dead.

lol :p

The Scripture does indicate, however, in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, that Christians really ARE "zombies": "And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin: but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." (Romans 8:10) That sure seems to me to indicate that Christians are "zombies": dead bodies inhabited by a living spirit.

See, you're confused:p

I'm confused (or I WAS before he answered my post) as to why Fassitude thinks it's a "myth". I don't believe it's a "myth", even after his spiel.

we know Jesus Christ IS real.

but I don't know that, nor does the vast majority of the planet

Where did 'supernature' come from?

the unsettling man has with real world things such as death and why

you see the natural conclusion when you can't give a definite answer is that a ghost did it!

and yes i was saying that the atheist believes that the universe came about and developed according to natural laws not the will of god.

correcting the metaphor that had presents pop into existence all by themselves which would NOT be according to natural laws.

Yes, but "natural laws" only exist because GOD created them. So HE is the author of "natural laws"; they would not exist without Him. "Natural laws" are just some of the ways God does things, not proof of His non-existence.

Yes, but "natural laws" only exist because GOD created them. So HE is the author of "natural laws"; they would not exist without Him. "Natural laws" are just some of the ways God does things, not proof of His non-existence.
Er, no.

Saying I made them makes as much sense.

no thats not what i was talking about. i was talking about THIS sentence...

"Not the Religious Theists' part, of course; we know Santa Claus isn't real, but we know Jesus Christ IS real."

indicating that you think that he was suggesting that all christians believe in santa claus.

I took it to mean he was indicating that all atheists disbelieve in the story of Jesus Christ.

You're wrong here; it DID happen.

Nope, and you've no proof that it did. You see, that's how things work in the real world - if you claim something, you have to provide proof for it. You don't have any evidence at all for your zombie master having existed at all, let alone having been born to a (bwahahahaha!) "virgin".

Okay, you have a point here; when he was born, shepherds were in the fields watching their flocks by night, and THAT does NOT happen in December. So you're right about that; He was probably born around September or October.

Of course it didn't happen, but it is fun to see Christians blaspheme against their own deity by celebrating it on a day consecrated to another deity. Didn't you get the memo that yours is supposed to be a petty and jealous deity that doesn't like to share?

It is no "myth"; He really came to this world, died, and rose from the dead.

Furthermore, someday He will come back to "pwn" the kingdoms of this world.

Yeah, and a migraine-suffering Zeus really did split his own head with an axe to pull Athena out of it (after of course having devoured her pregnant mother Metis, whom he had fucked - at least the Greeks knew about the birds and the bees), just like Thor really does cause thunder with his hammer and the world was created with the dismembered corpse of Tiamat by Marduk.

:rolleyes: Whatever. (*walks off wagging his head*)

You are the one who believes in talking snakes and cannibalistic penitence of an imaginary magical being. It really is fitting for you to wag your head at it, just like it's fitting for me to point and laugh.

Yes, but "natural laws" only exist because GOD created them. So HE is the author of "natural laws"; they would not exist without Him. "Natural laws" are just some of the ways God does things, not proof of His non-existence.

again, im not debating the existence of god with you. im just giving what i think is the better version of the metaphor.

if you want to think that natural laws were created by god. go for it. i see no particular downside as long as you strive to understand just what those natural laws are. in the end, you get the same result and you (meaning YOU not a generic you) sleep better at night for it.

Yes, but "natural laws" only exist because GOD created them.

proof?

also natural laws come from how the fabric of this universe formed, shockingly Gravity may in itself be weakening in force

so now answer me this, why is the Devil of your book still being punished when all he did was something which his God programmed him to do? possibly your master is a spoilt child who could never accept that he was wrong as shown by his blabbering about being all seeing, all knowing, all powerful?

now justify to me why an omnipotent being made a universe at all?

................
you see the natural conclusion when you can't give a definite answer is that a ghost did it!

Which also makes a lot more sense. :)

You are the one who believes in talking snakes and cannibalistic penitence of an imaginary magical being. It really is fitting for you to wag your head at it, just like it's fitting for me to point and laugh.

No, I do NOT believe in "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being". I believe in receiving Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as one's personal Savior.

And go ahead and laugh, if you want; I don't care. Someday God will laugh at YOU.



P.S.: I was wagging my head at YOU.

I took it to mean he was indicating that all atheists disbelieve in the story of Jesus Christ.

certanly an atheist would have to disbelieve in big chunks of the story.

personally i believe it was made up whole-cloth with its origin being the crucifiction of some poor radical jewish preacher.

but thats neither here nor there. its no more relevant than your belief that it is the literal truth.

also natural laws come from how the fabric of this universe formed, shockingly Gravity may in itself be weakening in force

The "fabric of how this universe formed" was, that GOD CREATED IT. The universe could not form itself; it was formed by God speaking it into existence.

so now answer me this, why is the Devil of your book still being punished when all he did was something which his God programmed him to do? possibly your master is a spoilt child who could never accept that he was wrong as shown by his blabbering about being all seeing, all knowing, all powerful?

now justify to me why an omnipotent being made a universe at all?

God never programmed anybody to do anything; God made all creatures with free will, i.e. that they could choose to accept or reject Him, to obey or disobey.

The "fabric of how this universe formed" was, that GOD CREATED IT. The universe could not form itself; it was formed by God speaking it into existence.
How was God created?

don't be silly, clearly it was the space Jews :cool:

You have to check though, make sure they really are space Jews. They might be space Gentiles trying to pass themselves off...

No, I do NOT believe in "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being". I believe in receiving Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as one's personal Savior.

Yeah, you believe in eating the flesh of a pseudo demi-god. That is cannibalism of a magical being.

And go ahead and laugh, if you want; I don't care. Someday God will laugh at YOU.

And Odin will invite me into the halls of Valhalla to feast on mead and on the boar Sæhrímnir, who comes back to life after he's eaten. See, at least the Vikings stuck to zombie pigs for their sustenance instead of cannibalism. The wanton sex was nice, too.

P.S.: I was wagging my head at YOU.

That's OK, I use the it as a compass that I am on the right path when people who believe in magical nonsense don't agree with me.

God never programmed anybody to do anything; God made all creatures with free will, i.e. that they could choose to accept or reject Him, to obey or disobey.


So god is not all-knowing?

Yeah, you believe in eating the flesh of a pseudo demi-god. That is cannibalism.

No, I DON'T believe in eating the flesh of a "pseudo demi-god". I know which Scripture you are citing, however: John 6:56. Jesus' own people stumbled over that one, just like you have. Read verses 60-63. No, don't just sit there laughing at me: GET THE BOOK OUT AND READ THE PASSAGE.

(*takes for granted that you will ignore my insistence on reading the verses*)

OK, I'll post them:
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

So Jesus wasn't talking about literal cannibalism; he was talking about you receiving Him by faith.

No, I DON'T believe in eating the flesh of a "pseudo demi-god". I know which Scripture you are citing, however: John 6:56. Jesus' own people stumbled over that one, just like you have. Read verses 60-63. No, don't just sit there laughing at me: GET THE BOOK OUT AND READ THE PASSAGE.

(-snip-)

So Jesus wasn't talking about literal cannibalism; he was talking about you receiving Him by faith.

So, the cannibalism of your deity is supposed to be supported and urged by your deity as an initiation ritual into the faith. Well, that's being a good sport about it, because you'd all feel a bit guilty eating of its flesh and drinking its blood (ooh, Dracula sexy!) against its will, I'd imagine. That'd be cruel in addition to it being completely and utterly loony otherwise.

I love these shows. No really, you should charge admission.

No. The presents were purchased from stores by people who have fallen for consumerist propaganda baked into a pagan holiday co-opted by blasphemous Christians who are confused about the birth of their imagined, cosmic, telepathically accepted Zombie-Jew master.

omg! *sigs*

I love these shows. No really, you should charge admission.

Nah, it's Christians who have a dead-beat deity that is in constant need of money. If you want to spend, they've hotlines that you can call call now! Remember, Jesus needs a new Gucci man purse. Such a queer fellow...

"Murses for Jesus!" I can dig it. I love murses and want them to spread.

Why do these threads always turn out to be 2 sides rejected each others logic, refusing other opinons exist and maybe(just maybe)their own opinon might be wrong,and stating their own opinons over and over again in different words?

Why do these threads always turn out to be 2 sides rejected each others logic, refusing other opinons exist and maybe(just maybe)their own opinon might be wrong,and stating their own opinons over and over again in different words?

Because for some of us, it's really entirely too much to ask that we suspend our disbelief in order to entertain the idea of a magical mystical being. I mean...I love that my kids believe that Bender from Futurama is their crazy robot uncle...but I can not myself actually believe it, just to see it from their side.

Because for some of us, it's really entirely too much to ask that we suspend our disbelief in order to entertain the idea of a magical mystical being. I mean...I love that my kids believe that Bender from Futurama is their crazy robot uncle...but I can not myself actually believe it, just to see it from their side.

Herr Peenochle who lives in my ear and takes care of me will be so sad to hear about your atheism towards him. He'll even *gasp* wag his head at YOU!

Tragedy, when the feeling's gone and you can't go on it's tragedy. When the morning cries and you don't know why it's hard to bear, with no one to love you you're goin' nowhere...

Why do these threads always turn out to be 2 sides rejected each others logic, refusing other opinons exist and maybe(just maybe)their own opinon might be wrong,and stating their own opinons over and over again in different words?

Because inevitably, someone tries to answer one of lifes deepest questions with "The magical Sky-man said so" as proof of the ultimate scientific question.

And we have to pretend they arent fucking stupid, or we're the assholes.



Damn...imma lil bit bitter today apparently.

And we have to pretend they arent fucking stupid,

No, we don't.

or we're the assholes. Damn...imma lil bit bitter today apparently.

You say those things like they were bad.

Honestly, it's the agnostics that really annoy me, with their vaunted sense of superiority about nothing being truly knowable blah blah blah.

Honestly, it's the agnostics that really annoy me, with their vaunted sense of superiority about nothing being truly knowable blah blah blah.

It isn't superiority they have an air of. It's intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

No, we don't.



You say those things like they were bad.

Well, see, I try not to be a prick all the time.
*ahem*....

I call it a zombie myth because that's what it is. Don't feel bad, though - the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree can be very confusing unless dismissed.

and having the zombie want you to eat him is particularly confusing. unless its a trap.

Well, see, I try not to be a prick all the time.
*ahem*....

I don't try to be a prick. It comes effortlessly.

Well, see, I try not to be a prick all the time.
*ahem*....

You are under the misapprehension that any effort whatsoever if put into his demeanor. :P

I don't try to be a prick. It comes effortlessly.

Ahh. Touche'

I don't try to be a prick. It comes effortlessly.

By mere seconds you beat me once again...

and having the zombie want you to eat him is particularly confusing. unless its a trap.

I wouldn't put it past them to be in some sort of collusion. They're very admiral Ackbar that way.

By mere seconds you beat me once again...

I always beat you. Resign yourself to it already.

I always beat you. Resign yourself to it already.

But then I'd give up, and what amusment would I provide then?

But then I'd give up, and what amusment would I provide then?

Oh, the same as you do now, rest assured.

Oh, the same as you do now, rest assured.

None?

:(

You're a cruel man.

Which also makes a lot more sense. :)

you seem to have some ectoplasm on your mouth there

The "fabric of how this universe formed" was, that GOD CREATED IT. The universe could not form itself; it was formed by God speaking it into existence.

and your evidence of this is a book rather than observable science...

chanting blindly isn't any form of debate

God never programmed anybody to do anything; God made all creatures with free will, i.e. that they could choose to accept or reject Him, to obey or disobey.

yes psychology and biology are complete nonsense because how on Earth could a mans actions be influenced by crazy things like chemical stimulus!

God allows evil too take place because in its infinite wisdom it thought that it would be kind of groovy to make some suffer for eternity for not being acceptable to his oh so high morale standards

None?

:(

You're a cruel man.

Any more news you wish to share?

Any more news you wish to share?

*runs away weeping, with much flailing of the arms*

How was God created?

Theoretically speaking something that didn't require creation would be so incredible it would have to be called "God". Quite weird, but it would be equally weird if the universe didn't require creation.

I love these shows. No really, you should charge admission.

If I do, the money will all go to Max Barry.

*runs away weeping, with much flailing of the arms*

*tells your kids to laugh at pathetic mommy, then hurry up and get into the plane for a trip to a much better Nordic dwelling*

you seem to have some ectoplasm on your mouth there



and your evidence of this is a book rather than observable science...

chanting blindly isn't any form of debate



yes psychology and biology are complete nonsense because how on Earth could a mans actions be influenced by crazy things like chemical stimulus!

God allows evil too take place because in its infinite wisdom it thought that it would be kind of groovy to make some suffer for eternity for not being acceptable to his oh so high morale standards

Sarcasm is a wonderful thing ^.^

Why do these threads always turn out to be 2 sides rejected each others logic, refusing other opinons exist and maybe(just maybe)their own opinon might be wrong,and stating their own opinons over and over again in different words?

duh

because all those who dont do that leave the thread. the only ones left are those who are content to make the same points over and over again.

Don't forget the agnostic perspective. We don't know how they got here, we can't prove how they got here, in any case, how they got here isn't important. What's important is, they're here.

God allows evil too take place because in its infinite wisdom it thought that it would be kind of groovy to make some suffer for eternity for not being acceptable to his oh so high morale standards

From my point-of-view, God would not be a moral entity, nor an immoral one, but a completely logical one.

Don't forget the agnostic perspective. We don't know how they got here, we can't prove how they got here, in any case, how they got here isn't important. What's important is, they're here.

http://images.inmagine.com/168nwm/photodiscfilm/pdf133/pdf133004.jpg

Don't forget the agnostic perspective. We don't know how they got here, we can't prove how they got here, in any case, how they got here isn't important. What's important is, they're here.

I already dismissed you. *makes flippant gesture*

Theoretically speaking something that didn't require creation would be so incredible it would have to be called "God". Quite weird, but it would be equally weird if the universe didn't require creation.

Well, an argument from first cause could go along the lines of that within the constraints of our universe itself, some kind of causal agent must exist to create change/motion/etc. But that agent, not being a part of the universe, since it caused the universe, must be, by nature, a thing not of the universe, in which case principles of causation need not apply. So, if one were to answer that the thing which caused the universe has no cause itself, it isn't entirely logically invalid and for a great while this has been the basis of my claim to deism.

Now, this does not necessitate that the causal agent gives a shit about anything within the caused creation. In fact, it seems that if such were the case, the causal agent would be entirely unable to interact with the things within the universe in the biblically unnatural methods claimed. However, the thing I'm having trouble with is that the universe does not exist within the universe and so there is no reason to assume that the causal principles that apply within our universe apply to it as a greater whole. But I also tend to loathe metaphysics so *shrug*

Well, an argument from first cause could go along the lines of that within the constraints of our universe itself, some kind of causal agent must exist to create change/motion/etc. But that agent, not being a part of the universe, since it caused the universe, must be, by nature, a thing not of the universe, in which case principles of causation need not apply. So, if one were to answer that the thing which caused the universe has no cause itself, it isn't entirely logically invalid and for a great while this has been the basis of my claim to deism.

Da.

Now, this does not necessitate that the causal agent gives a shit about anything within the caused creation. In fact, it seems that if such were the case, the causal agent would be entirely unable to interact with the things within the universe in the biblically unnatural methods claimed. However, the thing I'm having trouble with is that the universe does not exist within the universe and so there is no reason to assume that the causal principles that apply within our universe apply to it as a greater whole. But I also tend to loathe metaphysics so *shrug*

Deist.

Honestly, it's the agnostics that really annoy me, with their vaunted sense of superiority about nothing being truly knowable blah blah blah.

http://cectic.com/comics/005.png

Their answer does seem easiest though ;)

Deist.An admitted one, too. Though, depending on how religious I'm feeling, I can be swayed to my own tweaked version of pantheism, as well. ;)

Just as a general question, has any of the people arguing against religion in general ever been to a church?

Just as a general question, has any of the people arguing against religion in general ever been to a church?

Churches of several denominations, two Mosques, a synagogue, one Buddhist temple and several Wiccan and Neo-celt ceremonies. I want to visit a Hindu temple or two in the future.

Why did you ask ?

Just as a general question, has any of the people arguing against religion in general ever been to a church?

I've been to dozens and dozens of churches, including the Vatican itself. Have you ever been? I've also been to mosques, synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist and Hellenic temples, Viking burial mounds, Druidic ruins and so on and so on... Did you have a point with your question?

Anyway, my favourite churches are the Sacré Coeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilique_du_Sacr%C3%A9-C%C5%93ur%2C_Paris) in Paris and Gustaf Vasa kyrka (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Vasa_kyrka) in Stockholm.

Just as a general question, has any of the people arguing against religion in general ever been to a church?

a hefty percentage of atheists were raised in a religious home.

Yes, but "natural laws" only exist because GOD created them. So HE is the author of "natural laws"; they would not exist without Him. "Natural laws" are just some of the ways God does things, not proof of His non-existence.

*casts Occam's razor*

...

*at the darkness*

Why did you ask ?

Because alot of people that I know who argue against Religion had either a bad experience with a church or else a commercialized view.

Because alot of people that I know who argue against Religion had either a bad experience with a church or else a commercialized view.

Or, you know, they don't spend their time believing in utter poppycock.

Or, you know, they don't spend their time believing in utter poppycock.

:eek:

Prepare for smite-a-tude.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/games/drg100/g189/g18907ou07b.jpg

I've been to dozens and dozens of churches, including the Vatican itself. Have you ever been? I've also been to mosques, synagogues, Hindu and Buddhist and Hellenic temples, Viking burial mounds, Druidic ruins and so on and so on... Did you have a point with your question?

Anyway, my favourite churches are the Sacré Coeur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilique_du_Sacr%C3%A9-C%C5%93ur%2C_Paris) in Paris and Gustaf Vasa kyrka (http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Vasa_kyrka) in Stockholm.

Religions certainly have contributed to some of the best architecture around - before the 20th century, at least - though I suppose they were one of the only groups (aside nobility) to have the funds to do it.

OP: Your atheist option has already been corrected. I love Fass' first reply to this topic, but not so much his one on agnosticism: 'intellectual dishonesty' is wilfully denying evident truth, but no such absolute truth exists regarding god or lack of it.

Religions certainly have contributed to some of the best architecture around - before the 20th century, at least - though I suppose they were one of the only groups (aside nobility) to have the funds to do it.And in the 20th century too: the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is kind of awesome, though it's still not finished. The extrapolation they're doing (based on Gaudi's earlier work on the building) seems to be pretty faithful.

In general, 20th century architecture kind of sucks anyway.

In general, 20th century architecture kind of sucks anyway.

Shut your face. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco)

And in the 20th century too: the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona is kind of awesome, though it's still not finished. The extrapolation they're doing (based on Gaudi's earlier work on the building) seems to be pretty faithful.

In general, 20th century architecture kind of sucks anyway.

Gaudi's an exception it seems, though his work is quite beautiful.

I wouldn't say the 20th century has been bad for architecture, there are numerous cool buildings around the world, it's just very different from previous times and using different types of buildings to work on. Take Hong Kong for example, huge numbers of skyscrapers, but some very interesting designs used.

OP: Your atheist option has already been corrected. I love Fass' first reply to this topic, but not so much his one on agnosticism: 'intellectual dishonesty' is wilfully denying evident truth, but no such absolute truth exists regarding god or lack of it.

Now that's just silly. Of course an absolute truth regarding god exists. You could, I suppose, argue that we can't find said truth or even make any progress towards it (I'd still disagree with you, but you could at least argue it), but gods either exist or they do not.

<snip>



I'm confused (or I WAS before he answered my post) as to why Fassitude thinks it's a "myth". I don't believe it's a "myth", even after his spiel.

Look up the definition of myth

No, I do NOT believe in "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being". I believe in receiving Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as one's personal Savior.

Of which there is no proof

Now that's just silly. Of course an absolute truth regarding god exists. You could, I suppose, argue that we can't find said truth or even make any progress towards it (I'd still disagree with you, but you could at least argue it), but gods either exist or they do not.

Actually, that's what I meant, sorry my bad wording. An absolute truth can exist regarding this, but cannot, imo, ever be known. To know it would be omniscient.

It isn't superiority they have an air of. It's intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

I know a few agnostics who can defend their honesty pretty well, but I definitely feel the same way you do on this. I stopped calling myself an agnostic as soon as I figured, 'not knowing is the same thing as not believing.'

It took me 16 years to go from christian to 'spiritual.'

3 years to go from 'spiritual' to agnostic.

2 days to go from agnostic to atheist.

Theoretically speaking something that didn't require creation would be so incredible it would have to be called "God". Quite weird, but it would be equally weird if the universe didn't require creation.

Silly four dimensional view of time being different than the universe. No requirement for a creator when there's no actual time for creating anything pre-universe.

This may also mean that time travel is possible merely by manipulating the universe in certain ways.

yes psychology and biology are complete nonsense because how on Earth could a mans actions be influenced by crazy things like chemical stimulus!



You know, thank Leary that chemical stimulus does affect the brain, cause I tried salvia yesterday and...WOW.

Because alot of people that I know who argue against Religion had either a bad experience with a church or else a commercialized view.

Most of the people I know who 'argue against religion' simply lack faith that any of the 'stories' are real. They are no more rejecting 'religion' for a bad experience, than they are rejecting Harry Potter for a bad experience.

It's a story - until you show me a reason why it's 'real'.

You know, thank Leary that chemical stimulus does affect the brain, cause I tried salvia yesterday and...WOW.

Be careful with Salvia because it's all fun and games until you're crawling on the floor shouting at your friends to stop playing guitar because the dinosaurs are going to get you.

No, I do NOT believe in "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being". I believe in receiving Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as one's personal Savior.

And go ahead and laugh, if you want; I don't care. Someday God will laugh at YOU.



P.S.: I was wagging my head at YOU.

I want to make sure I am understanding if you "receive" Jesus Christ then is that not a form of ritualized cannibalism? Some cultures around the world have ritualized cannibalism, they eat their dead to have their strengths passed to the living. I think what makes your dogma unique is the idea that you can not abide the universe happening spontaniously, yet by some quirk of fate a Jewish "virgin" gets pregnant after seeing a being in her room, is not stoned to death for being pregnant yet not married, gives birth to a suprehuman "God" still manages to not get stoned to death for being delusional for claiming it when others where stoned to death for less. :confused:
Do you have any documentation besides your story book that this being ever existed? If he really was as amazing as your story book claims, I think he would have made the Roman history, so many other less amazing (raising the dead is a pretty amazing claim) people did. :rolleyes:
As far as your "God" laughing at me, why not, I am laughing at him so he/she and I are at least laughing toether.

Be careful with Salvia because it's all fun and games until you're crawling on the floor shouting at your friends to stop playing guitar because the dinosaurs are going to get you.

Oh believe me I know the value of setting, and of having a committed sitter. And the first time i did it, i smoked about a gram of 20x (kids-don't try this at home) and it was just about the most intense experience of my life. I was judging myself for times when i was emotionally dishonest, my sense of perception was torn into little pieces, reality was spinning around and not letting me back in, and...oh yeah i repeatedly dove headfirst into the ground, until my friend finally wrestled me down (I wasn't aware of my diving and didn't find out till later when I asked if having a headache was normal).

Oh believe me I know the value of setting, and of having a committed sitter. And the first time i did it, i smoked about a gram of 20x (kids-don't try this at home) and it was just about the most intense experience of my life. I was judging myself for times when i was emotionally dishonest, my sense of perception was torn into little pieces, reality was spinning around and not letting me back in, and...oh yeah i repeatedly dove headfirst into the ground, until my friend finally wrestled me down (I wasn't aware of my diving and didn't find out till later when I asked if having a headache was normal).

No, kids do try it at home. Specifically, only try it at home. =p

But, yea, my dinosaur trip was with, oh, I think 36x and I've been kind of weary of trying it since, but I recommend people try it in the right setting before it's finally outlawed, unfortunately.

Because alot of people that I know who argue against Religion had either a bad experience with a church or else a commercialized view.

Are we arguing against religion or just against a cult that can not prove any of it's claims? Yes I have been to many churches, many denominations, yes I have had bad experiences, yet what does that have to do with enlightenment? My search for truth did not have anything to do with a bad experience with a church, it has everything to do with my bullshit detector going off everytime they talked.:p

WHO IS this "Flying Spaghetti Monster"? Who is this "Santa Claus"? Come to me, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Santa Claus, if you dare! I defy you! Come! Come and kneel before Zod!...ZOD!

(*shoots Flying Spaghetti Monster and Santa Claus with eye lasers*)

There. Santa Claus' reign of defiance has ended, as has that of the so-called "Flying Spaghetti Monster". From this day forward, I shall be your new Santa: Santa ZOD!

And, speaking of this "Christmas": I declare the new name of Christmas to be "Zodmas". You shall refer to it as "Zodmas" instead of "Christmas" from now on.

You better watch out
You better not say "Christmas"
You better not get up off your knees, I'm telling you why
Santa Zod is coming to town!

Homer Simpson: I'm not normally a religious man, but if you're up there, save me, Superman!

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/9804/119292114521ss7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/2842/119130985172qb1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/3299/christianitydemotivatorqw8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


I honestly don't understand how people can say "Gee, I don't know - it might be true I guess" to something as nonsensical and contradictory as mainstream Christianity. I think that in most instances, agnosticism is a social cop-out - as in the agnostic hasn't really thought about it and doesn't want to feel apart from any segment of society, so they say "Who could possibly know!" I call BS; Either you drank the KoolAid or you haven't.

I think that in most instances, agnosticism is a social cop-out - as in the agnostic hasn't really thought about it and doesn't want to feel apart from any segment of society, so they say "Who could possibly know!" I call BS; Either you drank the KoolAid or you haven't.

Saying you don't know is far better than a baseless conjecture.

Don't forget the agnostic perspective. We don't know how they got here, we can't prove how they got here, in any case, how they got here isn't important. What's important is, they're here.

So let's enjoy them and stop worrying about it.

I know a few agnostics who can defend their honesty pretty well, but I definitely feel the same way you do on this. I stopped calling myself an agnostic as soon as I figured, 'not knowing is the same thing as not believing.'

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I honestly don't understand how people can say "Gee, I don't know - it might be true I guess" to something as nonsensical and contradictory as mainstream Christianity. I think that in most instances, agnosticism is a social cop-out - as in the agnostic hasn't really thought about it and doesn't want to feel apart from any segment of society, so they say "Who could possibly know!" I call BS; Either you drank the KoolAid or you haven't.

Pantheism though, is harder to dismiss.

Saying you don't know is far better than a baseless conjecture.

Honestly, I'd say I'm agnostic to some degree, but I'm a fairly strong de facto atheist, and I think it's probable that I'm correct. (Not that atheism and agnosticism are contradictory-- they're separate axises.) If you've read The God Delusion, I'd be in category 6.

Certainly, I cannot prove that God does not exist in some form, but until some sort of evidence is presented in favor, the idea is completely illogical. I don't believe in God the same way that I don't believe in Baal, Loki, Hephaestus, Lord Krishna, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Russell's Teapot, Gandalf the Grey, or Harry Potter. If you say we can't be sure about the Abrahamic (or indeed any) God then you should, strictly speaking, be agnostic about all these things-- they have no less evidence for their existence than God does(of course, several of them are gods, but that's not my point).

There's no evidence in favor, so I think that they do not exist, and I live my life on the assumption that they do not. However, I recognize that I could be incorrect and that, if evidence arose that I was previously unaware of, I could change my beliefs.

Furthermore, I can make some judgments from history. So far, every time somebody has thought that magic was the answer, they've been wrong. To me, it's probable that this pattern will continue, and also apply to the formation of the universe. You may think that magic is due, or at least a plausible answer, but it seems unlikely to me.

Pantheism though, is harder to dismiss.

As far as I understand-- and I do not know very many pantheists, so I may be wrong-- isn't god in the pantheist sense more of a metaphor for nature rather than any sort of actual deity?

As far as I understand-- and I do not know very many pantheists, so I may be wrong-- isn't god in the pantheist sense more of a metaphor for nature rather than any sort of actual deity?

I think so, but I chose to use it as an example to say that just because mainstream religions because in god X that does Y, doesn't mean that there's not a god or concept thereof that does fit in with the universe as we can see it. Although most of those lines of thought lead to "Well it doesn't really matter".

Really I should have used panentheism or pandeism as an example instead. And as far as I can tell I don't know an pantheists, pandeists or panenthiests so I don't really know much about the subjects... I know an omnitheist though.

There's no evidence in favor, so I think that they do not exist, and I live my life on the assumption that they do not. However, I recognize that I could be incorrect and that, if evidence arose that I was previously unaware of, I could change my beliefs.

I agree.

Furthermore, I can make some judgments from history. So far, every time somebody has thought that magic was the answer, they've been wrong. To me, it's probable that this pattern will continue, and also apply to the formation of the universe. You may think that magic is due, or at least a plausible answer, but it seems unlikely to me.

I agree.

No, kids do try it at home. Specifically, only try it at home. =p


Fair enough--kids at home; Don't smoke a GRAM of salvia 20x, especially your first time.

As far as I understand-- and I do not know very many pantheists, so I may be wrong-- isn't god in the pantheist sense more of a metaphor for nature rather than any sort of actual deity?
It can be, but, at its most basic, it simply means God is nature, in that all things in the universe are extensions of the...Godhead or something. This doesn't entail metaphor, at all, unless that's explicitly what the proponent is saying.

Like I said earlier, I subscribe to pantheism when I'm feeling religious but only because I'm a fairly firm believer in functionalism and pantheism strikes me as a logical extension of such a belief. But there are many shades and colors to pantheism.
Fair enough--kids at home; Don't smoke a GRAM of salvia 20x, especially your first time.

Hey, on the upside, it's a much shorter trip than probably any other drug you can try (even if it can feel like an eternity while tripping). 30 minutes is the uppermost limit, really. ;)

Close-to-complete Ideology and Religion Shit List

* Taoism: Shit happens.
* Confucianism: Confucius say, "Shit happens."
* Buddhism: If shit happens, it isn't really shit.
* Zen Buddhism: Shit is, and is not.
* Zen Buddhism #2: What is the sound of shit happening?
* Hinduism: This shit has happened before.
* Islam: If shit happens, it is the will of Allah.
* Islam #2: If shit happens, kill the person responsible.
* Islam #3: If shit happens, blame Israel.
* Catholicism: If shit happens, you deserve it.
* Protestantism: Let shit happen to someone else.
* Presbyterian: This shit was bound to happen.
* Episcopalian: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve the right wine with it.
* Methodist: It's not so bad if shit happens, as long as you serve grape juice with it.
* Congregationalist: Shit that happens to one person is just as good as shit that happens to another.
* Unitarian: Shit that happens to one person is just as bad as shit that happens to another.
* Lutheran: If shit happens, don't talk about it.
* Fundamentalism: If shit happens, you will go to hell, unless you are born again. (Amen!)
* Fundamentalism #2: If shit happens to a televangelist, it's okay.
* Fundamentalism #3: Shit must be born again.
* Judaism: Why does this shit always happen to us?
* Calvinism: Shit happens because you don't work.
* Seventh Day Adventism: No shit shall happen on Saturday.
* Creationism: God made all shit.
* Secular Humanism: Shit evolves.
* Christian Science: When shit happens, don't call a doctor - pray!
* Christian Science #2: Shit happening is all in your mind.
* Unitarianism: Come let us reason together about this shit.
* Quakers: Let us not fight over this shit.
* Utopianism: This shit does not stink.
* Darwinism: This shit was once food.
* Capitalism: That's MY shit.
* Communism: It's everybody's shit.
* Feminism: Men are shit.
* Chauvinism: We may be shit, but you can't live without us...
* Commercialism: Let's package this shit.
* Impressionism: From a distance, shit looks like a garden.
* Idolism: Let's bronze this shit.
* Existentialism: Shit doesn't happen; shit IS.
* Existentialism #2: What is shit, anyway?
* Stoicism: This shit is good for me.
* Hedonism: There is nothing like a good shit happening!
* Mormonism: God sent us this shit.
* Mormonism #2: This shit is going to happen again.
* Wiccan: An it harm none, let shit happen.
* Scientology: If shit happens, see "Dianetics", p.157.
* Jehovah's Witnesses: >Knock< >Knock< Shit happens.
* Jehovah's Witnesses #2: May we have a moment of your time to show you some of our shit?
* Jehovah's Witnesses #3: Shit has been prophesied and is imminent; only the righteous shall survive its happening.
* Moonies: Only really happy shit happens.
* Hare Krishna: Shit happens, rama rama.
* Rastafarianism: Let's smoke this shit!
* Zoroastrianism: Shit happens half on the time.
* Church of SubGenius: BoB shits.
* Practical: Deal with shit one day at a time.
* Agnostic: Shit might have happened; then again, maybe not.
* Agnostic #2: Did someone shit?
* Agnostic #3: What is this shit?
* Satanism: SNEPPAH TIHS.
* Atheism: What shit?
* Atheism #2: I can't believe this shit!
* Nihilism: No shit.

The Vatican Rag.
First you get down on your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Do whatever steps you want, if
You have cleared them with the Pontiff.
Everybody say his own
Kyrie eleison,
Doin' the Vatican Rag.

Get in line in that processional,
Step into that small confessional,
There, the guy who's got religion'll
Tell you if your sin's original.
If it is, try playin' it safer,
Drink the wine and chew the wafer,
Two, four, six, eight,
Time to transubstantiate!

So get down upon your knees,
Fiddle with your rosaries,
Bow your head with great respect,
And genuflect, genuflect, genuflect!

Make a cross on your abdomen,
When in Rome do like a Roman,
Ave Maria,
Gee it's good to see ya,
Gettin' ecstatic an'
Sorta dramatic an'
Doin' the Vatican Rag!

don't be silly, clearly it was the space Jews :cool:

That's my X-mass present: History of The World, Part II!

Ooooo! Look at my shiny new sig!

Someday God will laugh at YOU.Heh, so far, "God"'s laughing at the spectacles of these particular threads, i suspect, especially his/her/its "representatives".
Maybe it's a nervous laugh, eh?

No, I do NOT believe in "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being". I believe in receiving Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as one's personal Savior.Eucharist is "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being".

And go ahead and laugh, if you want; I don't care. Someday God will laugh at YOU.Why would Enki laugh at Fass?

Why would Enki laugh at Fass?

I think that would be an occasion of who was considering themselves more serious at the time.

Honestly, I'd say I'm agnostic to some degree, but I'm a fairly strong de facto atheist, and I think it's probable that I'm correct. (Not that atheism and agnosticism are contradictory-- they're separate axises.) If you've read The God Delusion, I'd be in category 6.

Certainly, I cannot prove that God does not exist in some form, but until some sort of evidence is presented in favor, the idea is completely illogical. I don't believe in God the same way that I don't believe in Baal, Loki, Hephaestus, Lord Krishna, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Russell's Teapot, Gandalf the Grey, or Harry Potter. If you say we can't be sure about the Abrahamic (or indeed any) God then you should, strictly speaking, be agnostic about all these things-- they have no less evidence for their existence than God does(of course, several of them are gods, but that's not my point).

There's no evidence in favor, so I think that they do not exist, and I live my life on the assumption that they do not. However, I recognize that I could be incorrect and that, if evidence arose that I was previously unaware of, I could change my beliefs.

Furthermore, I can make some judgments from history. So far, every time somebody has thought that magic was the answer, they've been wrong. To me, it's probable that this pattern will continue, and also apply to the formation of the universe. You may think that magic is due, or at least a plausible answer, but it seems unlikely to me.

Indeed, this is a similar position to myself. I call myself an agnostic atheist, though you could say the condition that you may be wrong when presented with more information should be implicit in any rational atheist's view. I hate the view that an agnostic is automatically someone who is sitting on the fence (though that position in itself is not always a bad one) and can't be bothered to decide which way to go. People who say they don't know and don't care are ignostic, agnostics actually have thought about it and come to the conclusion that it is ultimately unknowable, but generally will make an assumption with which side they feel is most likely.

Heh, so far, "God"'s laughing at the spectacles of these particular threads, i suspect, especially his/her/its "representatives".
Maybe it's a nervous laugh, eh?

If God did exist, why would it care if you believed in it? If someone told me they didn't believe that I exist, why would I care? Surely God is a level-headed fellow...it's not Zeus, you know...nobody thinks it's some nut who hurls thunderbolts and kills innocents by the thousands and burns people alive who don't believe in it...I mean, nobody would think it was like that.

Everyone knows it would be more mature...like us posters on NS. :D

If God did exist, why would it care if you believed in it? If someone told me they didn't believe that I exist, why would I care? Surely God is a level-headed fellow...it's not Zeus, you know...nobody thinks it's some nut who hurls thunderbolts and kills innocents by the thousands and burns people alive who don't believe in it...I mean, nobody would think it was like that.I think it's kinda like that Halloween Simpsons' episode entitled, "Attack of the 50-Foot Eyesores".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70QPXn4N8OQ

Everyone knows it would be more mature...like us posters on NS. :DEvery parental set gotta have its sexy time. Perhaps it's more like that. :p

Eucharist is "cannibalistic" penitence of an "imaginary magical being".

You've confused Christianity and Catholicism. I don't believe in the Eucharist; THAT is a strictly Catholic thing; it has nothing to do with Christianity.

Why would Enki laugh at Fass?

Who is "Enki"? I said GOD would laugh at him, not somebody named "Enki".

You've confused Christianity and Catholicism. I don't believe in the Eucharist; THAT is a strictly Catholic thing; it has nothing to do with Christianity.


Not at all, all the Baptist churches round here do it, in some form.

Hmmm...

"Almost every Christian denomination celebrates it in some form, whether called Holy Communion, Lord's Supper, or many other names"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

You've confused Christianity and Catholicism. I don't believe in the Eucharist; THAT is a strictly Catholic thing; it has nothing to do with Christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity#Catholic

It seems that reality itself confuses Christianity and Catholicism.

Who is "Enki"? I said GOD would laugh at him, not somebody named "Enki".

Oh dear. Good luck with this.

[url]
Oh dear. Good luck with this.

*munches popcorn*
It would a be a fair question on a less anti-religious forum, though, wouldn't it?

*munches popcorn*
It would a be a fair question on a less anti-religious forum, though, wouldn't it?

True. But I doubt many members of pro-religious forums would have heard the name Enki, let alone have a clue as to what it refers to.

True. But I doubt many members of pro-religious forums would have heard the name Enki, let alone have a clue as to what it refers to.

Good point. I suppose i should frequent a few of 'em instead of only whoring myself out on this one. :p
Maybe even inspire them to come over here and argue?

Good point. I suppose i should frequent a few of 'em instead of only whoring myself out on this one. :p
Maybe even inspire them to come over here and argue?

Have at it, mate. Educate.

Have at it, mate. Educate.

We could have a "Who is Enki?" thread. With a poll! (A poll! A poll!)

Some Extreme Pantheists might say:

The presents were always under the tree, and always will be under the tree, even while / after they are opened. One cannot create or destroy presents, one can only convert presents into openings and vice versa. Information and entropy are co-processes.

When we gods choose to re-enter space-time, we have to pretend to learn (tsk, it seems always the hard way) not to max out our credit cards AGAIN. Hahahaha :slapstick_cracks: ! ! ! :banana_peel: ............,,,:!!!&&&&_______ :belly_laughs:

Actually, neither the present, the tree, the present-opening, the gods or the credit cards make one whit of difference; it's deciding what story to tell and how to tell it that actually matters. :cool:

Cheers!

Not at all, all the Baptist churches round here do it, in some form.

Hmmm...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

yes but baptists dont transubstantiate do they?

so they just eat bread in remebrance of christ, they dont eat his actual body

What comes to christmas, our family celebrates it secular ways. I donate blood before holidays to give something non-commercial, go to feed birds and squirrels to cemetery, have nice two week holiday, spend time with my girlfriend, relax, fix our apartment and eat and drink way too much. My parents usually buy tons of presents to my younger bros, others just eat their way through xmas holidays. I have never really understood the big jesus-hype behind this commercial holiday.

Even as I believe Jesus is as true character as Xenu is, christmas indeed packs some values for me. It´s about friendship, love, giving and caring about those who are in need.

BTW. You forgot one xmas difference;
neo-pagan/wannabe wiccan way; worship xmas tree by having ritual sex under it in RPG clothing and playing lord of the rings soundtrack as mood-music.

Had nice girlfriends before...

BTW Thanks for christians the best laughs of the week. They used pedobear in their open-to-all day advertisement :D I´m local, but this page spotted it first http://www.riemurasia.net/jylppy/displayimage.php?pos=-25867

Self irony, prank or just plain stupidity?

yes but baptists dont transubstantiate do they?No, they perspire.