NationStates Jolt Archive

Firstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic. My beliefs about the universe are right, and all the evidence points my way of belief.

Your beliefs, however, are total lies and based on fallacies and erroneous positions and serve only to demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. Unless you agree with me, in which case you probably don't understand what it is we believe as well as me.

Or is it?

I bet you've heard this sort of arguement before, be you Christian or Atheist. To any other religions, you don't count because this is the internet and no one follows anything else. Still, you've no doubt heard this arguement before.
One a similar note, anyone with a belief system uses the same arguement.
Let's thinks of some examples...

ATHEISM.

Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance (except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically. At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

Historially, they're doing *OK*. You used to have to be smart to be an atheist, now every psuedo-intellectual and his dog is an atheist, and atheist education consists of TV and internet ads. It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.

CHRISTIANITY

Despite being a Catholic myself, the sheer overwhelming absurdity of Christianity leaves a lot to be desired. It's no particularly straightforward, and there are alot of competing ideas. Transubstantiation, trinity, triclavianism, duality, etc. The biggest problem with Christianity today is ignorance; Christians are too ignorant.

This is not to say that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, au contrare, it is a religion of knowledge. Put simply, there is too much to know. Christianity is so jammed packed with 2000 years of philosophy, debate, conjecture, history amd tragedy. If anyone wants to be a real Christian, they have to LEARN. You start with the Bible, and then books about the Bible, outlining what you need to know. However, most people get put off and stop there because the bible is so silly, or just accept the whole thing as fact.
Few people manage to slip through and find out what it's all about.

In the meantime, you get a whole lot of silly christians going around confusing the atheists, leading to a big mix up.

ISLAM

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say Islam is a great religion. For the most part anyway...
The doctrines of Islam are sensible, moral, decent and clean, Theologically that is. Literally they are a bit overdone and are often taken a bit too extreme. The who anti-women thing is silly, and the whole Mohummad is AWESOME is just too much.

JUDAISM

Sneakiness aside, again, a sensible religion with a lot of emphasis on Justice. Way too much emphasis on MAN doing INJUSTICE on behalf of GOD, and how Israelis are above everyone else.
Jews are almost as elitist as Atheists. Almost.

BUDDHISM

One of the few beliefs that are right. However, Buddhism is not a big deal because it's all a load of hooey. It's not a big deal.
It's like having a "religion" based around being nice, with all the myths taken away. I don't know why it's such a big deal, it's just common sense. It's similar to atheism, except Buddhists tend to be nicer and much smarter. They lack a bit of conviction, but at least have some rules.

PAGANISM

A sham. Pagans are weak individuals who believe in magick and so forth. It is the ultimate stamp of lacking a personality. Pagans are, without fail, morons who fear being similar to other people. So they pretend to adpot this outlandish silliness.

SCIENTOLOGY

A cult, right up there with Branch Davidian and Jonestown.

HINDUISM

This looks to be more of a traditional thing than an actual religion.

SCIENCE

Not a religion, and is pretty unbiased. Contrary to popular belief, neither science nor logic lend credibility towards any belief system, especially atheism. Atheists say it does, and Christians say it lends credit to Christianity. Anyone invoking the "science and logic" arguement doesn't believe their own lies.

UPDATE: Atheism is actually correct, because it's oh so logical thanks to the helpful posters who defended atheism.

I think this thread will make you as popular as a turd in a punchbowl

Can't... resist.... the bait.

I think it will too. I don't mind though; people may not like it, but it's not inflammatory or false.

Well my mistake he wasn't using sarcasm. (unless this thread is sarcasm)

Please dude shut up and go away, you are not going to help anybody and put even more Catholics in a bad light (if that is possible) as people will make generalisations about all Catholics from the rantings of one idiot yes you Cuxil. I could go one and point out why every paragraph of yours is wrong starting with the first one, but I wont because that would be a waste of time. I am sure others will do that for me.

Generalities I beg of you please let this ill thought out and misconceived thread slowly sink down the pages.

This thread is a terrible idea.
must...resist.....temptation.....to.....laugh.....too....strong....
To the Op you could have worded it better and still get the ideas across which you aim to, words like
Your beliefs, however, are total lies and based on fallacies and erroneous positions and serve only to demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance
is a terrible argument against a bunch of people you don't know. and it's ad hominum (attacking the person).

*grabs popcorn/Lazy boy chair...prepares to watch the fireworks*

Subscribing to thread...gonna have to watch this one.

I'm glad i've got a front row seat for this one *grins*

Oh, did anyone bring the marshmallows?

My prediction for this thread on page 20 is a lot of mindless spam before we finally agree to disagree...

Or do we?

Well my mistake he wasn't using sarcasm. (unless this thread is sarcasm)

Please dude shut up and go away, you are not going to help anybody and put even more Catholics in a bad light (if that is possible) as people will make generalisations about all Catholics from the rantings of one idiot yes you Cuxil. I could go one and point out why every paragraph of yours is wrong starting with the first one, but I wont because that would be a waste of time. I am sure others will do that for me.

Generalities I beg of you please let this ill thought out and misconceived thread slowly sink down the pages.

I suspect the same person is also behind DeXysterMalison who is posting from the opposite perspective - my guess is a bored ten-year old.

I'm glad i've got a front row seat for this one *grins*

Oh, did anyone bring the marshmallows?

no but i do have some steak, prime cut and everything all the sauces.

This thread is a terrible idea.
must...resist.....temptation.....to.....laugh.....too....strong....
To the Op you could have worded it better and still get the ideas across which you aim to, words like

is a terrible argument against a bunch of people you don't know. and it's ad hominum (attacking the person).

Of course it is a terrible arguement, that is my point.
It's really the ONLY arguement anyone uses on these forums.

And for those telling me to go away because they cannot be bothered to reply, grow up. You bothered to reply, so get on with it.

I'm glad i've got a front row seat for this one *grins*

Oh, did anyone bring the marshmallows?

*Raises hand/passes bag*

Of course it is a terrible arguement, that is my point.
It's really the ONLY arguement anyone uses on these forums.


So the whole OP was merely satire demonstrating your frustration at the style of argument you have deluded yourself into believing is only present on NSG?

There seems to be alot of spammers looking to mindlessly get their post counts up, instead of actual posters.

I am also waiting for someone to rebut what was said, or the point behind it.

Damn you're a good troll, but you can't get me to bite! Nope, not me!

I think it will too. I don't mind though; people may not like it, but it's not inflammatory or false.

The bit about atheism most certainly is. You - like many religious folks - assume that morality can only exist when given and enforced by some sort of divinity.
That's bollocks, dear. Human morality is inate, we are born with it. Religion meddles with it where it can, twisting and perverting it mostly, but despite all claims to the contrary, religion did not instill moralitiy into humankind.

I think it will too. I don't mind though; people may not like it, but it's not inflammatory or false.

It is false, your ignorance of other religions is boring, to say Buddhists lack conviction is false, to not understand the root causes of why Muhammad went back against his original conviction that women are equal is false - your ignorance is false.

Christianity was seized upon because it gave Romans a chance for feeling superior over more ancient civilizations by co-opting their religion, then blaming them, thereby allowing them to better suppress them over a false moral superiority.

Is that false?

Your belief in your intelligence and corresponding belief that others are stupid is false.

You couldn't even spell 'argument' or 'au contraire' - you've professed your lack of desire to learn how to quote, you can't be bothered to spell check.

It's all both inflammatory and false, to other religions as well as to simple intelligence.

Satire is lost on so many these days.

There seems to be alot of spammers looking to mindlessly get their post counts up, instead of actual posters.

I am also waiting for someone to rebut what was said, or the point behind it.


I would gladly if you actually would make a point. But....you didn't. You made alot of opinionated statements, backed up with absolutely no concrete literary, journalistic, or any physical citations to back up your point. Nothing. If I disputed with you, I can create the best argument in the world and it can't go up against your inevitable call of, "Nuh-uh. Because I said so." There isn't much point. Yes, your argument fails simply because you didn't prove anything, in fact you didn't state what you believe in the first place! So you're not proving against anything! You're simply making ridiculous statements.

Satire is lost on so many these days.

I saw your edit...son :)

The bit about atheism most certainly is. You - like many religious folks - assume that morality can only exist when given and enforced by some sort of divinity.
That's bollocks, dear. Human morality is inate, we are born with it. Religion meddles with it where it can, twisting and perverting it mostly, but despite all claims to the contrary, religion did not instill moralitiy into humankind.

Oh really? Then why do different cultures have different morals? Why do different people have different morals, even people of the same beliefs?

I'm not really saying atheists lack morals, I'm saying they lack moral guidance outside religion and religion in society.

Humans are not some special magical animal that developed morals when other animals have not. Morality is developed psychologically, it is not innate.

Religion is just one of the ways people learn morals.

Satire is lost on so many these days.

Well it is hard to tell satire from just another NooB kicking off on the wrong foot.

Satire is lost on so many these days.

He's not being clear that it's satire, I guessed from one of his posts, but if he doesn't say that it's satire, isn't that by definition trolling? Anyway I'm not sure that he is being satirical, look at some of his posts in other threads.

Everyone's belief system is wrong; the OP's, however, is a bit more wrong than most people's.
Any belief system that believes it is right is wrong. Any other belief system is also wrong, but at least it is open to improvement.

Barringtonia... ? What?
That didn't even make any sense. My ignorance is false? Yes, it is...?

Wanderjar, why should I go to the effort to prove to you anything? I'm not writing an essay here, I'm putting my opinion forward. Or an opinion.
My point is that your belief system is wrong, it says so in the title.

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak.
Says the person from the largest non-cult religion where you have a heirarchy of power telling you what to do and how to think.

You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction.
All aboard the contradiction train!

You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.
Yet ironically atheists know more about most religions than their respective practitioners, especially Christianity.

The biggest problem with Christianity today is ignorance; Christians are too ignorant.
Suckers, I think you mean to say Christians are suckers. They have no interest in thinking because they have people telling them what to think.

This is not to say that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, au contrare, it is a religion of knowledge.
The knowledge that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Few people manage to slip through and find out what it's all about.
I find it ironic that you, as a Catholic especially, failed to mention the schisms and councils in the "studies" lecture there.

Way too much emphasis on MAN doing INJUSTICE on behalf of GOD, and how Israelis are above everyone else.
Jews are almost as elitist as Atheists. Almost.
Wait, are we switching from the contradiction train to the self-righteousness train already?

It's like having a "religion" based around being nice, with all the myths taken away.
Some one failed Sunday school.

A sham. Pagans are weak individuals who believe in magick and so forth.
Two words: faith healing.
Also, fire more: Jesus turned water into wine. 'Nuff said.

This looks to be more of a traditional thing than an actual religion.
Lulwhat?

Anyone invoking the "science and logic" arguement doesn't believe their own lies.
I invoke logic because that is the only way my brain isn't destroyed by this inane, uninformed gibbering.




Also, you could've done alot better on the Pagan thing, especially if you brought up Wicca. Try again.

I like you. You're alright.

Barringtonia... ? What?
That didn't even make any sense. My ignorance is false? Yes, it is...?

Wanderjar, why should I go to the effort to prove to you anything? I'm not writing an essay here, I'm putting my opinion forward. Or an opinion.
My point is that your belief system is wrong, it says so in the title.

But if you're not trying to prove anything than what is the point of this topic? If you didn't want debate, then why post? I realise you're simply flame baiting, and I'm totally getting sucked into this like the idiot that I am.

Oh really? Then why do different cultures have different morals? Why do different people have different morals, even people of the same beliefs?

I'm not really saying atheists lack morals, I'm saying they lack moral guidance outside religion and religion in society.

Humans are not some special magical animal that developed morals when other animals have not. Morality is developed psychologically, it is not innate.

Religion is just one of the ways people learn morals.

You would base the safety of your life on a person's fleeting belief in divinity?

What happens when a person, with only religion as a source of morals, realizes how much priests and such have lied to them? Would they still respect the idea that you cannot kill because "God said so"? I don't think so and it's rather weak to base your morals on "God said so" because as soon as whatever underlying divinity is removed (rather easily, I might add), they could go on a murderous rampage.

Religion as a basis for morality is dangerous and wicked. Tis far better to base it on something you've actually considered thoughtfully and found good reasoning for, as philosophers do. Theological philosophers included, because they too actually think things through and find reasonings other than mere religion.

I'm not really saying atheists lack morals, I'm saying they lack moral guidance outside religion and religion in society.

.

Why should religion guide morals? What makes religious morals more worthy than my non religious ones? In fact, they are probably based on the same principles.

One of the differences is that mine are self taught and not passed down from some man sitting in the Vatican wearing a funny hat:D

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

That's a bit of an unfair generalisation don't you think? People of any religion can be spiritually lazy and psychologically weak and people of any religion can be the opposite.

I suspect the same person is also behind DeXysterMalison who is posting from the opposite perspective - my guess is a bored ten-year old.

I would say your guess is right.

Cabra, Barringtonia don't waste your effort and debate skills on this, there are more important threads that require your immediate attention

That's a bit of an unfair generalisation don't you think? People of any religion can be spiritually lazy and psychologically weak and people of any religion can be the opposite.

Of course not, because they aren't catholic. duh.

Oh really? Then why do different cultures have different morals? Why do different people have different morals, even people of the same beliefs?

I'm not really saying atheists lack morals, I'm saying they lack moral guidance outside religion and religion in society.

Humans are not some special magical animal that developed morals when other animals have not. Morality is developed psychologically, it is not innate.

Religion is just one of the ways people learn morals.

Do they? Show me one culture that doesn't value altruism, that does not form family groups, that does not punish unlawful killings, that encourages lying or that endorses and rewards laziness?

Besides, animals do have morals. Look up the behaviour of capucin monkeys some time. How would you explain that, since they're hardly religious after all?

Well it is hard to tell satire from just another NooB kicking off on the wrong foot.

:)

NooBs are easily spotted by their use of these:

:sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :headbang: :gundge:

Flame baiting? You see it as flame baiting because what I said what so outrageous.

I admit, there was a bit of baiting, but that's hwo you get people into a discussion. If I stated something boring, no one would reply. The difference between me and a troll or a noob or a flamer is that I'm going to concede that I didn't mean all what I say. The online me is always a little more extreme, and apparantly some people don't really get that.

Looks like the atheists are really taking offense to it.
Weak indeed.

this is either trolling, or funny like a red rag is to a bull (round here, at least)

:)

NooBs are easily spotted by their use of these:

:sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :headbang: :gundge:

Much truth you speak.

I'm going to concede that I didn't mean all what I say.

Cool, go away then.

Oh really? Then why do different cultures have different morals? Why do different people have different morals, even people of the same beliefs?By and large they don't have different morals; they make roughly the same moral choices but only differ in how they justify this choice.
Try reading James Wilson's "the Moral Sense"; or any number of other works that examine actual moral behaviour of people across cultures.

Ah well, if it's satire... it's still not so great.

Flame baiting? You see it as flame baiting because what I said what so outrageous.

I admit, there was a bit of baiting, but that's hwo you get people into a discussion. If I stated something boring, no one would reply. The difference between me and a troll or a noob or a flamer is that I'm going to concede that I didn't mean all what I say. The online me is always a little more extreme, and apparantly some people don't really get that.

You'd be surprised what people will reply to.

Looks like the atheists are really taking offense to it.
Weak indeed.

Huh?

Why should religion guide morals? What makes religious morals more worthy than my non religious ones? In fact, they are probably based on the same principles.

One of the differences is that mine are self taught and not passed down from some man sitting in the Vatican wearing a funny hat:D

Religious morals are generally no different that Non-Religious ones. Today, that is.

Like it or not, Western society is pretty much ground in Judeo-Christian ideals. Ethics in our society stem from religion, and atheists adopted them because they make good sense.
I'm not sayin Morals cannot come from atheism, I just saying they didn't.

Flame baiting? You see it as flame baiting because what I said what so outrageous.

I admit, there was a bit of baiting, but that's hwo you get people into a discussion. If I stated something boring, no one would reply. The difference between me and a troll or a noob or a flamer is that I'm going to concede that I didn't mean all what I say. The online me is always a little more extreme, and apparantly some people don't really get that.

Looks like the atheists are really taking offense to it.
Weak indeed.

Au contraire, I'm quite religious, bordering on fantaticism I won't lie. When others joke, "My faith is my shield" I actually mean it. I simply keep it to myself because I feel that forcing my beliefs on others is completely and totally wrong, and I feel that all beliefs have merit and may or may not be true, including my own.
الله أكبر إن شاء الله

Now i'm athesist but quite a few things you said are either wrong or incorrect.

Firstly there is nothing wrong with "Paganism". It's the first "Religion" for humaity to have develpoed. So TECHNICALLY if tehre is a god it's going to be pagan becasue they were the first gods. Pagans don't practice magic you twit thats the occult. Shamanism yes that involves "magic" but paganism is the worship of tree spirits and so on and so forth; along with the observance and interpretation of the natural cycles of the world.

Hinduism is a religion with a great diversity of gods you idiotic narrow minded moron.

Judaism was the first true monothestic religion, Jesus himself was a Jew, the Jews have got it right and the Christians got it wrong. As backed up by Christianity's abhorrent record when it comes to their fellow man. Crusades, ignorance, burning other religions, forcibly converting people. Christianity is like a tumour on the side of a true religion.

Athesists (like myself) are not lacking in moral fibre or the like, we simply differ in that we won't accept any old rubbish about some god doing soemthing obscure and waving his hand. We like facts and science becasue it's actually true. Those who take the bible literally are idiots becase they are perpared to wave aside reason with some prophetic babble. Perhaps it is the Christians who are to afraid to face up to reality and that there really is nothing beyond this life?

Islam, like you said, is a good religion, unfortunatly it's public perception has been twisted by an over active media.

Religion is the opiate of the masses, it's a natural part of human nature to want to survive. And what better way to survive than believe in life after death? Hello religion, it is RELIGION that is for the weak.


P.S. I hold no grudge against a faith and those who follow it. It is RELIGION that i despise. For example, the faith that one gets from the bible teaches them to be modest and look after others ect: All very good qualities. Now compare that FAITH to the RELIGION derived from the bible and you get fat blokes wearing expensive clothes in a highly expensive building which completely goes against the modesty and self-lessness outlined in the bible. I admire anyone who can selflessly believe in soemthing with no logic. I certainly couldn't.

Au contraire, I'm quite religious, bordering on fantaticism I won't lie. When others joke, "My faith is my shield" I actually mean it. I simply keep it to myself because I feel that forcing my beliefs on others is completely and totally wrong, and I feel that all beliefs have merit and may or may not be true, including my own.
الله أكبر.

I make a point of not really telling people about my actual beliefs either, mainly because they're not so straightforward. I think my beliefs however are pretty much better than the rest, because if I didn't, I'd believe something else.

People who force their beliefs on others are counter-productive, and there seems to be a lot of atheists on this board who have a nasty habit of totally dismissing other people's points of view. It's a central theme of strong atheism; deny and act uppity and clever.

Ah well, if it's satire... it's still not so great.

Yeah, it's not that good. But people would still take it far too seriously, even if it were very good.

Religious morals are generally no different that Non-Religious ones. Today, that is.

Like it or not, Western society is pretty much ground in Judeo-Christian ideals. Ethics in our society stem from religion, and atheists adopted them because they make good sense.
I'm not sayin Morals cannot come from atheism, I just saying they didn't.

Then please do explain to me how humans developed society without morals, since apparently the Judeo-Christian god only got round to telling them about morals a few millenia ago?

Also, how would you explain moral behaviour in apes and other social animals?

Yeah, it's not that good. But people would still take it far too seriously, even if it were very good.

Rational posts don't get rational replies. Irrational posts are both more fun and involved.

Yeah, it's not that good. But people would still take it far too seriously, even if it were very good.

It's not satire though. If it was it would be humorous and have a point to it, all this is is attention grabbing and trolling. He's admitted that he doesn't believe what he says, so he's just being provocative and annoying at everyone else for the sake of it. Again, surely mod action should be required here?

It's not satire though. If it was it would be humorous and have a point to it, all this is is attention grabbing and trolling. He's admitted that he doesn't believe what he says, so he's just being provocative and annoying at everyone else for the sake of it. Again, surely mod action should be required here?

Wow, you have quite the skill for misinterpreting people.

I believe what I wrote, it's just not all I believe. It's not as simple as you think it is.

Wow, you have quite the skill for misinterpreting people.

I believe what I wrote, it's just not all I believe. It's not as simple as you think it is.

"I'm going to concede that I didn't mean all what I say"

You didn't mean all that you said, therefore you were saying provocative things that you don't believe to get attention, by definition you are trolling. If you did believe everything you said, it wouldn't be satire at all.

It's not satire though. If it was it would be humorous and have a point to it, all this is is attention grabbing and trolling. He's admitted that he doesn't believe what he says, so he's just being provocative and annoying at everyone else for the sake of it. Again, surely mod action should be required here?

Oh, it was vaguely funny, and there was definitely a specific point to the OP. If there wasn't a very clear point to it, I would have already locked it as spam.

The issue is that people are going to get upset rather than getting the point, and I'll probably eventually have to close the thread for that reason.

It's not satire though. If it was it would be humorous and have a point to it, all this is is attention grabbing and trolling. He's admitted that he doesn't believe what he says, so he's just being provocative and annoying at everyone else for the sake of it. Again, surely mod action should be required here?

I don't think mod action would be consistent, if applied here.

The OP hasn't said anything more trollish or flame baiting than the average UB post. If the OP has posted an identical thread but left out the criticism of atheists most of the complainers in this thread would be singing a different tune.

Sorry, but it's true, and you all know it.

And before my objectivity gets questioned, do remember that the OP criticizes Christianity heavily as well, and yet my feathers aren't ruffled. (And yes, as a Mormon I identify with Christianity.)

Oh, it was vaguely funny, and there was definitely a specific point to the OP. If there wasn't a very clear point to it, I would have already locked it as spam.


Really? Because any actual point to his rantings just flew right past my head. Also, if you look at his posts in other threads for context, it seems less likely that it has a point at all.

Oh, it was vaguely funny, and there was definitely a specific point to the OP. If there wasn't a very clear point to it, I would have already locked it as spam.

The issue is that people are going to get upset rather than getting the point, and I'll probably eventually have to close the thread for that reason.

Which would be a shame, because I'm finding this entertaining as hell.

The OP hasn't said anything more trollish or flame baiting than the average UB post.

But UB has never admitted to not believing all he says, where as the OP has.


If the OP has posted an identical thread but left out the criticism of atheists most of the complainers in this thread would be singing a different tune.


Nonsense.


And before my objectivity gets questioned, do remember that the OP criticizes Christianity heavily as well, and yet my feathers aren't ruffled. (And yes, as a Mormon I identify with Christianity.)

So? I'm not offended by anything he said either, I'm just finding him annoying.

I think it will too. I don't mind though; people may not like it, but it's not inflammatory or false.

There is so much blatantly false about this. I question your motives for creating this thread.

Either you're no more than a troll like figure, or you really are this idiotic and belive all that you write.

Which one then?

CuxilFirstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic. My beliefs about the universe are right, and all the evidence points my way of belief.
That's a poor assumption already, i know more than you is often what i hear from people of a certain age of between 2-7.

Your beliefs, however, are total lies and based on fallacies and erroneous positions and serve only to demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. Unless you agree with me, in which case you probably don't understand what it is we believe as well as me.
who are you talking to? attacking us or building up a strawman?


I bet you've heard this sort of arguement before, be you Christian or Atheist. To any other religions, you don't count because this is the internet and no one follows anything else. Still, you've no doubt heard this arguement before.
One a similar note, anyone with a belief system uses the same arguement.
Let's thinks of some examples...
Who says i've heard this argument before, other religions don't count because it's the internet? what religions are these?

ATHEISM.

Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance (except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically. At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.
A number of assumptions with no real examples, or any attempts to debunk "facts".
And it's an appeals to consequences, Athiests don't have moral guideance, so we should stick with my religion or else!

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.
easy way out? as opposed to what?
spiritually lazy? buh, so my soul decides to just sleep all the time then?
psychological weakness? how does belief link to psychological weakness?

Historially, they're doing *OK*. You used to have to be smart to be an atheist, now every psuedo-intellectual and his dog is an atheist, and atheist education consists of TV and internet ads. It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.
??? another attacking the person, you used to have to be smart.


CHRISTIANITY

Despite being a Catholic myself, the sheer overwhelming absurdity of Christianity leaves a lot to be desired. It's no particularly straightforward, and there are alot of competing ideas. Transubstantiation, trinity, triclavianism, duality, etc. The biggest problem with Christianity today is ignorance; Christians are too ignorant.
Christians are ignorant, so what's your definition of ignorance then?

This is not to say that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, au contrare, it is a religion of knowledge. Put simply, there is too much to know. Christianity is so jammed packed with 2000 years of philosophy, debate, conjecture, history amd tragedy. If anyone wants to be a real Christian, they have to LEARN. You start with the Bible, and then books about the Bible, outlining what you need to know. However, most people get put off and stop there because the bible is so silly, or just accept the whole thing as fact.
Few people manage to slip through and find out what it's all about.
"the problem with christianity today is ignorance", then "this is not to say that christianity is a religion of ignorance".
A horrible contradiction, euu this is getting ugly.
So what is christianity all about?

In the meantime, you get a whole lot of silly christians going around confusing the atheists, leading to a big mix up.
yes people like you.
ISLAM

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say Islam is a great religion. For the most part anyway...
The doctrines of Islam are sensible, moral, decent and clean, Theologically that is. Literally they are a bit overdone and are often taken a bit too extreme. The who anti-women thing is silly, and the whole Mohummad is AWESOME is just too much.
You're basically saying, Islam is good...and?

JUDAISM

Sneakiness aside, again, a sensible religion with a lot of emphasis on Justice. Way too much emphasis on MAN doing INJUSTICE on behalf of GOD, and how Israelis are above everyone else.
Jews are almost as elitist as Atheists. Almost.
Jews are elitist, what all of them? are you talking about the religion or the people in the religion?

BUDDHISM

One of the few beliefs that are right. However, Buddhism is not a big deal because it's all a load of hooey. It's not a big deal.
It's like having a "religion" based around being nice, with all the myths taken away. I don't know why it's such a big deal, it's just common sense. It's similar to atheism, except Buddhists tend to be nicer and much smarter. They lack a bit of conviction, but at least have some rules.
Buddhism is one of the few beliefs that are right, then it's all a load of hooey.
another contradiction?
So it's all good then? Buddhism has plenty of problems with it. i'm surprised you haven't noticed them.

PAGANISM

A sham. Pagans are weak individuals who believe in magick and so forth. It is the ultimate stamp of lacking a personality. Pagans are, without fail, morons who fear being similar to other people. So they pretend to adpot this outlandish silliness.
As another poster said, Jesus also used miracles to convince followers he was amazing, same as magick really.
Again attacking the person, "Pagans are, without fail, morons who fear being similar to other people", um why aren't you talking about the religion? i could tie in about half a dozen fallacies into this answer.

SCIENTOLOGY

A cult, right up there with Branch Davidian and Jonestown.
yes fair summary, but why? no reasons given.

HINDUISM

This looks to be more of a traditional thing than an actual religion.
So you don't actually know what it's supposed to be then?

SCIENCE

Not a religion, and is pretty unbiased. Contrary to popular belief, neither science nor logic lend credibility towards any belief system, especially atheism. Atheists say it does, and Christians say it lends credit to Christianity. Anyone invoking the "science and logic" arguement doesn't believe their own lies.
Why this?, "neither science nor logic lend credibility towards any belief system, especially atheism." oh and who said it does what are you doing trying to rebuke science and as many religions as possible?
"Atheists say it does", who? what athiests? attacking a person we can't see is worse than attacking a person that we can see.

To conclude your post is full of contradictions, you try to attack some religions without any facts or reasoning to back your statements (e.g. Hinduism), you for some bizzare reason like Buddhism. Full of attacks against people you don't specify. Then you try the insane and attack science as well?
And you try to debunk logic, sure it isn't perfect but what other ways can we debate arguments?
Also you mostly make a statement or imperative, then conclude that's how it should be without giving any reasons or arguments against things of the particular belief or religion you're trying to take out.

But UB has never admitted to not believing all he says, where as the OP has.

Hair-splitting.


Nonsense.


"There's none so blind as those who will not see."
-The Moody Blues


So? I'm not offended by anything he said either, I'm just finding him annoying.

For someone who's only annoyed you seem to be awfully well motivated to use the mods in to shut him down.

Anyone who is getting offended by this thread is... Goodness only knows! As deeply personal and whatnot as religion is, the fact is someone has a different viewpoint.

Just as Hydesland is getting upset by it all, others are talking, others are watching, and others are spamming.

And what's the deal with the "point"? Does it need to have a point? Since when does anything posted on forums have a point? Forums are when people gather together to discuss and rant on about pointless ideas. If I set out to convert someone with my eye opening expose of religion and non-religion, then it would have a point, but it would fail.

Really? Because any actual point to his rantings just flew right past my head. Also, if you look at his posts in other threads for context, it seems less likely that it has a point at all.

I've already looked at some of his other postings for context, mate. And you missing the point hardly means that there isn't one. You're very intelligent, but that fact doesn't mean that you're going to catch every point made.

There is so much blatantly false about this. I question your motives for creating this thread.

Either you're no more than a troll like figure, or you really are this idiotic and belive all that you write.

Which one then?

You could just read the thread.

As with Hydesland, there is something that bothered me about this thread and I suspect it carried over from the Nihilism thread for me, I don't normally bother with religious threads but, anyway...

EDIT: I guess I did similar with Dyakovo last week...

Fine, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a point to this 'satire', but stay out of this thread.

Fine, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a point to this 'satire', but stay out of this thread.

too late now, it's a shame threads like this reach well now it's at 65 posts. ah well i've added my own criticism of the OP, but well maybe i shouldn't have bothered.

I see the OP has reached that charming stage of adolescence wherein being intentionally obnoxious is confused with being smart, interesting, or edgy. Everybody seems to go through this phase at one point or another, and is temporarily enchanted with their own ability to get a rise out of others by poking at obvious hot-button topics, but eventually they'll come round and get over it.

Yes, you can tick people off by insulting their religious beliefs. That's very nice. Perhaps next you'd like to type up a little routine of "controversial humor" that is actually a recitation of the most common racist/sexist/homophobic stereotypes in our society? That never gets old, eh? You can be "controversial" by rejecting all that lame "PC" stuff, and then bag on all the squares who can't handle your brilliant and witty truths!

Meh. Nothing new here, really.

I think the benefit of a thread like this is that a few complacent people get their cage rattled.

Never a bad thing.

And what's the deal with the "point"? Does it need to have a point?
Unless forums are now blogs, yes, yes it does.

Ok, I just couldn't let this one go, last post I promise!


Just as Hydesland is getting upset by it all


Haha, don't kid yourself.


And what's the deal with the "point"? Does it need to have a point? Since when does anything posted on forums have a point? Forums are when people gather together to discuss and rant on about pointless ideas. If I set out to convert someone with my eye opening expose of religion and non-religion, then it would have a point, but it would fail.

Let the jury note, OP is practically admitting that there was no point to his rantings.

Hooray! Hydesland gives me the benefit of the doubt, an acheivment in itself. Well done on spamming your way past 9000 by the way.

I just read a few atheist arguments I missed the first time around

Utopian Soviet Union and Mad Hatters in Jeans...

To both of you, I say I don't care. Arguements for atheism always seem to be based on bagging out other religions, mainly because atheism doesn't have any good points. I DO believe it's a pretty easy religion without any basis.

If you don't believe in God, that's fine, but why should the likely hood be changed by the Catholic Church's record?

Specifically mad hatters; I got bored and didn't read alot of your post, so I'm going the easy way and assuming it was bollocks, tee hee

I think the benefit of a thread like this is that a few complacent people get their cage rattled.

Never a bad thing.

That, and potential trolls get a chance to hang themselves, point or no point.

Bottle; How very observant of you. It's almost as though everyone goes through the same progression of behavior online. Almost as though the number of posts a person has is representative of their life experience.

Threads don't need a specific point. I'm neither saying I did or didn't have a point to make. Truth be told, I set out with a point but it changed along the way. The point was something like "Bagging out religion is pointless" but then I forgot it. The first two paragraphs are not what I believe, they're just a breakdown of how most people put their religious beliefs forward.

That, and what I write is in itself meaningless; it's only how people interpret (or misinterpret) what is written that is matter. So if someone sees this whole thing as being pointless, then it is. If they don't, then it isn't.

Hooray! Hydesland gives me the benefit of the doubt, an acheivment in itself. Well done on spamming your way past 9000 by the way.

I just read a few atheist arguments I missed the first time around

Utopian Soviet Union and Mad Hatters in Jeans...

To both of you, I say I don't care. Arguements for atheism always seem to be based on bagging out other religions, mainly because atheism doesn't have any good points. I DO believe it's a pretty easy religion without any basis.

If you don't believe in God, that's fine, but why should the likely hood be changed by the Catholic Church's record?

Specifically mad hatters; I got bored and didn't read alot of your post, so I'm going the easy way and assuming it was bollocks, tee hee

Premise: Poster replies to your thread
Premise: Poster argues against you
Concusion: Poster must be talking rubbish.
yes because that's a logical way of thinking:rolleyes:.

By the way i'm not making an argument for anything i was pointing out your flaws, which there are many. Just because i show up your faulty reasoning on Athiesm does not automatically make me an Athiest, i could be a Jedi for all you know.

Point out the flaws, I know they're there. It's just an exaggerated opinion. I knew what I was writing was silly, but the fact that you took time to reply to it all... Well done!

Jedi? I don't care how many adherants there are, Jedism is a joke.

That, and potential trolls get a chance to hang themselves, point or no point.

Indeed.

Frankly I'd like to see more threads putting atheism on the defensive. It gets boring when every single argument that even remotely involves religion is expected to proceed from the baseline assumption that there's no God. People really freak out when you refuse to do that.

I think he needs to cover a few more religions.

Point out the flaws, I know they're there. It's just an exaggerated opinion. I knew what I was writing was silly, but the fact that you took time to reply to it all... Well done!

Jedi? I don't care how many adherants there are, Jedism is a joke.

You don't know the power of the Dark Side.

Point out the flaws, I know they're there. It's just an exaggerated opinion. I knew what I was writing was silly, but the fact that you took time to reply to it all... Well done!

Jedi? I don't care how many adherants there are, Jedism is a joke.

See down to the bottom right of the last person's post, every post in fact - there's a button saying 'quote'. Click that and the reply page will appear with the quote already there, you can write underneath.

See the icon next to it that looks like a page? You can go through the thread and click those per post and then click reply as usual and all the posts will appear.

Point out the flaws, I know they're there. It's just an exaggerated opinion. I knew what I was writing was silly, but the fact that you took time to reply to it all... Well done!

Jedi? I don't care how many adherants there are, Jedism is a joke.

Join us, join the dark side. (by the way i said, could be a jedi, doesn't mean i am one).
ah now i understand, you know you could read up on the religions from Wikipedia instead of irritate several posters here.

Bottle; How very observant of you. It's almost as though everyone goes through the same progression of behavior online. Almost as though the number of posts a person has is representative of their life experience.

I suppose, in a sense, that might be true, since a person who's been around a given forum for long enough will have pretty much seen it all. Somebody who is new to that forum is more likely to wander in and think they're being novel and shocking, while the "old timer" is somewhat less impressed because they've seen it all before.


Threads don't need a specific point. I'm neither saying I did or didn't have a point to make. Truth be told, I set out with a point but it changed along the way. The point was something like "Bagging out religion is pointless" but then I forgot it. The first two paragraphs are not what I believe, they're just a breakdown of how most people put their religious beliefs forward.

That, and what I write is in itself meaningless; it's only how people interpret (or misinterpret) what is written that is matter. So if someone sees this whole thing as being pointless, then it is. If they don't, then it isn't.
Ahh yes, the classic "I don't have a point...OR DO I?!" zen gambit.

Like I said, I'm sure you're delighted with the insight provided by this thread of yours on an internet forum. I'm sure you feel very smug about how you've pulled so many people's strings. We've all been there.

You'll just have to forgive me for my codger-like chuckling. It's all so familiar, you see. I can't count the number of times that somebody has come in and posted something deliberately intended to provoke, and then insisted that the point was that there's no point other than how people choose to react. It's one of the first little psychological experiments most people try when they've gotten a taste for internet forums. It's...well, it's really kind of adorable! It's like seeing a baby bird first testing its wings.

I think he needs to cover a few more religions.

Name some. I was going to keep going but I got antsy to post and couldn't remember anymore than I wanted to talk about.

Atheists should tell me...

What caused life?
What caused the universe to begin 14 billion years ago?

See down to the bottom right of the last person's post, every post in fact - there's a button saying 'quote'. Click that and the reply page will appear with the quote already there, you can write underneath.

See the icon next to it that looks like a page? You can go through the thread and click those per post and then click reply as usual and all the posts will appear.

nooooo don't help this person! he's doomed anyway, cut him/her loose i say.
the dark side will take care of him, oh yes.

Frankly I'd like to see more threads putting atheism on the defensive. It gets boring when every single argument that even remotely involves religion is expected to proceed from the baseline assumption that there's no God.
Or the even more complacent, "everyone who holds a religious belief must be a moron".

I don't personally believe in a god or gods, but the notion that all religious believers are somehow devoid of intelligence, or ignoring science, or something even more ridiculous, is insulting both to them and to me.

Indeed.

Frankly I'd like to see more threads putting atheism on the defensive. It gets boring when every single argument that even remotely involves religion is expected to proceed from the baseline assumption that there's no God. People really freak out when you refuse to do that.
I haven't seen people "freak out" at that suggestion much, unfortunately. Most of the time it just kills any chance at discussion, because you can't simply assume there is "a God." "A God" is so vague as to be meaningless, so what you really have to do is assume that a particular god-image is accurate and exists, and once you've done that there really isn't all that much to debate.

Hey, OP.
Why put all non-religious in the same box? You don't do that to all the religious.

See the icon next to it that looks like a page? You can go through the thread and click those per post and then click reply as usual and all the posts will appear.

I never knew that, thanks Baza

Or the even more complacent, "everyone who holds a religious belief must be a moron".

I don't personally believe in a god or gods, but the notion that all religious believers are somehow devoid of intelligence, or ignoring science, or something even more ridiculous, is insulting both to them and to me.

Indeed. I think it's done as a sort of lazy man's argument or ad hominem attack disguised as a reasoned conclusion. You even see people justify it from time to time with a construct similar to this:

-Belief in religion/God/gods is irrational
-My debate opponent believes in religion/God/gods
Therefore: He/she is irrational and thus wrong.

Which is bad enough, but the side effect is that this begins to creep into their heads:

-Belief in religion/God/gods is irrational
-I do not believe in religion/God/gods
Therefore: I am rational, and thus am ALWAYS right.

And that's when the real show begins.

Name some. I was going to keep going but I got antsy to post and couldn't remember anymore than I wanted to talk about.

Atheists should tell me...

What caused life?
What caused the universe to begin 14 billion years ago?

Sikhism, for example.

P.S. I also attribute everything to god-dust and probability.

I haven't seen people "freak out" at that suggestion much, unfortunately. Most of the time it just kills any chance at discussion, because you can't simply assume there is "a God." "A God" is so vague as to be meaningless, so what you really have to do is assume that a particular god-image is accurate and exists, and once you've done that there really isn't all that much to debate.

I think that's true of some debate subjects but not necessarily all of them. For example, if you're going to argue the veracity of Baptism by Immersion, then the whole discussion is predicated on the concept of the Christian God. In particular, you might even have to fine tune it down to the difference between the Mormon and the Evangelical/Catholic understanding of God.

On the other hand, if you're debating Intelligent Design, then the precise nature of God becomes less important unless you're after some specific facet of the discussion.

I suppose, in a sense, that might be true, since a person who's been around a given forum for long enough will have pretty much seen it all. Somebody who is new to that forum is more likely to wander in and think they're being novel and shocking, while the "old timer" is somewhat less impressed because they've seen it all before.

---

Ahh yes, the classic "I don't have a point...OR DO I?!" zen gambit.

Like I said, I'm sure you're delighted with the insight provided by this thread of yours on an internet forum. I'm sure you feel very smug about how you've pulled so many people's strings. We've all been there.

You'll just have to forgive me for my codger-like chuckling. It's all so familiar, you see. I can't count the number of times that somebody has come in and posted something deliberately intended to provoke, and then insisted that the point was that there's no point other than how people choose to react. It's one of the first little psychological experiments most people try when they've gotten a taste for internet forums. It's...well, it's really kind of adorable! It's like seeing a baby bird first testing its wings.


Maybe. This is however, not my first forum, either. My post count here is small.

As it so happens, it was in 2004 that I joined my first forum, it was called "Chik" forums. A friend linked me to it over MSN, it was a forum based on an Australian magazine called Chik. Being a male, I decided to be a bit of a troll, and named myself "Iamaguy". I ended up being put in the magazine a few times, and had a heap of merchandise sent to me as a form of payment I suppose.

Basically, I am no stranger to noobery and flame wars and trolling, and then maturing and so forth.

It just so happens that I like controversy, and has nothing to do with being a noob.

Sikhism, for example.

P.S. I also attribute everything to god-dust and probability.

He could also have set the Mormons separate. It usually makes the Christian Evangelicals feel better.

Or the even more complacent, "everyone who holds a religious belief must be a moron".

I don't personally believe in a god or gods, but the notion that all religious believers are somehow devoid of intelligence, or ignoring science, or something even more ridiculous, is insulting both to them and to me.

I really don't see that to be honest, what I tend to see is many intelligent posts correcting facts ignored and pointless claims reiterated.

I've yet to see a truly intelligent defense of religion beyond 'this is my belief, it's unprovable yet it doesn't contradict accepted knowledge so there...', which often correlates to reasonable and intelligent people making that statement. That's as much as I feel anyone can say, and one anyone can accept.

There's certainly those who don't feel they need to show evidence behind accepted knowledge, but I do see people write pretty knowledgeable science, way beyond me, who are completely ignored, or at least the intelligent points are ignored, and some bizarre quibble is made.

In any debate, there's fluff posts that don't add much. This thread, for me, once again, is an example of someone pretending to make a point but, when taken seriously, backs down very quickly.

I feel Hotrodia gave him an escape, it may have been the wise thing to do but Bottle's right in that, well there you go, between a puppet and a person trying to be clever, any real debate is lost.

I'm probably just bitter :)

He could also have set the Mormons separate. It usually makes the Christian Evangelicals feel better.

Why care about them feeling better? They don't want anyone else to.

Why care about them feeling better? They don't want anyone else to.

That wasn't a very mature reply.

That wasn't a very mature reply.

I think he was talking about Christian Evangelicals.

Sikhism, for example.

P.S. I also attribute everything to god-dust and probability.

Dust? Too much Philip Pullman eh?

Sikhism... Truth be told, I don't know much about it except they wear blue turbans and steel bracelets, and cover their hair. There's a Sihk temple maybe a kilometre from my house.

Time for some wikipedia...

It looks pretty unobtrusive and modest, more like a philosophy and way of living with ideas about a God?

I think he was talking about Christian Evangelicals.

I know he was. Still wasn't a very mature reply.

Dust? Too much Philip Pullman eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Debris

Also, Jains?

This thread, for me, once again, is an example of someone pretending to make a point but, when taken seriously, backs down very quickly.

I had a point to make, and I made it. What better way to get a point across than use religion?

I really don't see that to be honest, what I tend to see is many intelligent posts correcting facts ignored and pointless claims reiterated.
That also happens, and well it should, but there's definitely a strong undercurrent of vocal posters (and vocal persons in r/l) who denounce any discussion of the existence of a god or gods as unintelligent.

I've yet to see a truly intelligent defense of religion beyond 'this is my belief, it's unprovable yet it doesn't contradict accepted knowledge so there...', which often correlates to reasonable and intelligent people making that statement. That's as much as I feel anyone can say, and one anyone can accept.
I'd broadly agree with you there.

Is your point that people use these kinds of threads as an excuse to up their post counts?

If you are... Well...

+1 :D

I had a point to make, and I made it. What better way to get a point across than use religion?

Pff. Amateur. I made three different points simultaneously before I even entered this thread.

I feel Hotrodia gave him an escape, it may have been the wise thing to do but Bottle's right in that, well there you go, between a puppet and a person trying to be clever, any real debate is lost.

I'm probably just bitter :)

I just gave him a length of rope. Whether he will continue to tone things down and use that rope to climb to safety or be excessively controversial and use it to hang himself by getting banned...that remains to be seen.

That wasn't so much my point, but a truth that was demonstrated once again.

My point was religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs, and no matter what is said, if someone disagrees, they will say so, even though there are plenty of things to support and denounce either statements.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.

So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.

I just gave him a length of rope. Whether he will continue to tone things down and use that rope to climb to safety or be excessively controversial and use it to hang himself by getting banned...that remains to be seen.


???
Is controversial always offensive?
Are the topics about abortion, gay marriages or stem cell research not allowed here?
If someone said abortion is murder and evil, and someone who has had an abortion got offended, would that be allowed?

That wasn't so much my point, but a truth that was demonstrated once again.

My point was religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs, and no matter what is said, if someone disagrees, they will say so, even though there are plenty of things to support and denounce either statements.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.

So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.

Oooooh, so your point is that people have opinions that aren't based on logic. Wow, what a remarkable discovery.

...

+1

That wasn't so much my point, but a truth that was demonstrated once again.

My point was religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs, and no matter what is said, if someone disagrees, they will say so, even though there are plenty of things to support and denounce either statements.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.

Funny, because in the time I've been on NSG I've had two different people tell me that things I posted impacted their religious beliefs. One "deconverted" from Catholicism.

I've also known people in the real world who were converted either to or from Christianity.


So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.
Atheism can be a perfectly logical choice. So can religiosity. It really depends on the individual and their situation, and what premises they have to start with. It's extremely naive to assume that logic would lead all individuals to the same conclusion.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.
As an ex-Christian 'converted' to atheism, I can say that's simply not true.

I'm an ex-atheist who converted to Catholicism. There are exceptions to truth.

That also happens, and well it should, but there's definitely a strong undercurrent of vocal posters (and vocal persons in r/l) who denounce any discussion of the existence of a god or gods as unintelligent.


I'd broadly agree with you there.

To be honest, I agree with the last.

You CAN'T necessarily prove religion via the Scientific Method. (It may be possible but I don't know how.) Someone who's truly on top of their game will freely admit this.

Back when I first became Mormon I used to delight in debating against Evangelicals and Catholics on issues of Christian doctrine. During that time I encountered a fellow who absolutely believed that EVERY single verse in the Bible was scientifically provable.

So I asked him to show me proof of Noah's Ark.

He came back with some bizarre piece of software that simulates varous hull designs and shapes for sea going vessels and on th ebasis that this program was able to somehow come up with a hypothetical shape for the Ark (It looked like a shoebox with a hat on it) he had determined that not only was Noah's Ark historical fact, but that, and here's the important thing, it was okay to believe in it.

To this individual, faith meant nothing. But I digress.

The point is that the Scientific Method is not the only way to gain understanding and wisdom about the universe around us. While I'll freely concede that the existence of God is not provable by means of this method, I also maintain that a person who claims to limit their thinking to this method alone is not only prescribing a philosophy that limits their ability to perceive the universe, on some level they're lying to themselves anyway. Every single day we experience and accept truths without putting them through the rigors of the Scientific Method. Anyone who claims otherwise is using empty rhetoric.

/soapbox
Carry on.

That wasn't so much my point, but a truth that was demonstrated once again.

My point was religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs, and no matter what is said, if someone disagrees, they will say so, even though there are plenty of things to support and denounce either statements.

Atheists will not be converted, Christians will not be converted.

So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.

No, that's quite wrong - are religious people religious just because they want to be?

Plenty of people are converted one way or another every day.

People construct quite logical statements, whether people want to see them or not can be due to set belief and that's relevant either way, but the statements themselves - certainly not always - can be logical.

I've answered in reverse to your points.

I know he was. Still wasn't a very mature reply.

Perhaps not, check your telegrams.

To Cuxil, Logic isn't some solid belief system, it is a method of breaking down arguments, so it could be possible to use it to argue for various faiths or beliefs, what differs is the evidence or how well the logic is used to prove them.

So, for an atheist to say they follow logic, and that's why their an atheist, I believe is a lie. It's also assuming logic always leads to atheism, which I think is silly. Atheists are atheists because they want to be, not because they arrived at that conclusion logically.

This is true of believers and atheists alike. Everybody claims to have reasoned their way into what they believe but almost nobody actually does.

Perhaps not, check your telegrams.

To Cuxil, Logic isn't some solid belief system, it is a method of breaking down arguments, so it could be possible to use it to argue for various faiths or beliefs, what differs is the evidence or how well the logic is used to prove them.

I'd say that's true universally.

I'm an ex-atheist who converted to Catholicism. There are exceptions to truth.

Haha! Now we see where you're coming from.

I have a Bachelor of Applied Science.

I reasoned what I believe, but so did everyone else. Alot of atheists have a habit of thinking that other people's reasoning is inferior. I think everyone reasons where they want to go, and when they get there, they tend to stick to their guns.

The main reason for conversion isn't because they are proved or disproved, it's because they become unhappy. Unhappy in belief or disbelief. So they look for another answer, and when they find something that makes sense and makes them happy, they stick to it.

In the end, personal beliefs matter, but they sort of don't matter too. Unless someone's conduct radically changes, the little bits of personal beliefs are trivial (from a human point of view, as far as afterlife's concerned to some it's a big difference).

The point is that the Scientific Method is not the only way to gain understanding and wisdom about the universe around us.
Oh, definitely. I think, at least in the Western academic world, we've suffered a large amount from science being put on a pedestal, rather than being used carefully as a (incredibly important) tool to understand certain aspects of the universe around us.

Just see the bastardisation of the humanities into the 'social sciences' for a perfect example of the scientific method being misapplied.

It's a shame that when one brings this up, many react as if you've just suggested that we piss on the corpse of Einstein and go read some entrails for guidance.

While I'll freely concede that the existence of God is not provable by means of this method, I also maintain that a person who claims to limit their thinking to this method alone is not only prescribing a philosophy that limits their ability to perceive the universe, on some level they're lying to themselves anyway. Every single day we experience and accept truths without putting them through the rigors of the Scientific Method. Anyone who claims otherwise is using empty rhetoric.
Here, here!

*applauds*

???
Is controversial always offensive?
Are the topics about abortion, gay marriages or stem cell research not allowed here?
If someone said abortion is murder and evil, and someone who has had an abortion got offended, would that be allowed?

Most subjects are allowed here, most opinions are accepted, it's how you say more than what you say though what you say can also get you into trouble I suppose.

I suspect Mods have seen poster trends enough times to know when there's a hint of potential trouble, regardless of whether there's any intended potential - anyway, you've learned quotes so read some stickies just to be safe.

EDIT: I'd clarify that it's not solely in what's written but also in how other people tend to respond as well, it can lead to flame wars that were not intended by the poster but more a result of sensitivities piqued.

I have a Bachelor of Applied Science.

I reasoned what I believe, but so did everyone else. Alot of atheists have a habit of thinking that other people's reasoning is inferior. I think everyone reasons where they want to go, and when they get there, they tend to stick to their guns.

The main reason for conversion isn't because they are proved or disproved, it's because they become unhappy. Unhappy in belief or disbelief. So they look for another answer, and when they find something that makes sense and makes them happy, they stick to it.

In the end, personal beliefs matter, but they sort of don't matter too. Unless someone's conduct radically changes, the little bits of personal beliefs are trivial (from a human point of view, as far as afterlife's concerned to some it's a big difference).

Oh, definitely. I think, at least in the Western academic world, we've suffered a large amount from science being put on a pedestal

Hee.

I'm an ex-atheist who converted to Catholicism. There are exceptions to truth.

You just disproved your own statement... not sure you realised.

Firstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic.
Then let me start by saying that there seems to be no religion more partial to raping little boys or Nazism.
ATHEISM.

Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance (except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically. At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.
Genau.
But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.
I prefer discovering information for myself rather than being presented with a manual on exactly how nobody lives their life which is taken to be some utterly sacred artifact, despite the fact that each version of the thing and each gospel contradict the others.
atheist education consists of TV and internet ads.
Also books and generally Being Alive.
It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.
At least any ignorance of the members of our religion comes from themselves rather than being institutionalised, eh?

Here, here!

*applauds*

Sorry...off-topic...

I thought it was "Hear, hear!"?

Why my belief system is wrong?

It is wrong! And I know it. I am confused now as to which Big Toe I'm supposed to worship. The Left or the Right? It has created a lot of stress to me!

Damn you, Bann-ed!! You confused my belief system with yours!!


:p

Hee.
Very good. :p

Sorry...off-topic...

I thought it was "Hear, hear!"?
It appears as if you are correct:

Linky (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html).

Perhaps not, check your telegrams.


Replied to. :)

Oh, definitely. I think, at least in the Western academic world, we've suffered a large amount from science being put on a pedestal, rather than being used carefully as a (incredibly important) tool to understand certain aspects of the universe around us.

Just see the bastardisation of the humanities into the 'social sciences' for a perfect example of the scientific method being misapplied.

Agreed. I think this is momentum from the Renaissance, when the Church held on too tightly and cast itself as the enemy of science. The rift has yet to heal. Instead of finding ways to harmonize spirituality with intellect, people had a tendency to pursue a false dichotomy.


It's a shame that when one brings this up, many react as if you've just suggested that we piss on the corpse of Einstein and go read some entrails for guidance.

I think on some level people who are beholden to the Scientifc Method as the end all and be all of human thought are sort of hedging their bets. It gives them the excuse they need to ignore premises they don't accept while at the same time shielding them from the responsibility of knowing.



Here, here!

*applauds*

:: bows ::

Well, for all it's worth, I'm an atheist, yet don't think my reasoning is superior to theists/agnostics (heck, being able to stay on the fence requires a lot of balance, I suppose). While I don't know if I really do think so, I'm hoping that I'm open to the possibility of being given evidence of some deity's existence, and, if I find it to be satisfactory, be willing to convert. But I don't think I'd do this based on faith alone.

Of course, that raises the question of what kind of evidence would satisfy me, the answer to which I don't think I know.

I think this is momentum from the Renaissance, when the Church held on too tightly and cast itself as the enemy of science. The rift has yet to heal.
How quickly we inherit the problems of our predecessors.

Oooooh, I love the pagan part!

Sikhism, for example.

P.S. I also attribute everything to god-dust and probability.

I heard my name?

I heard my name?

uh....Goddust?

uh....Goddust?

No man! Sikhi.

Bole so nihal, sat sri akaal!:D

Replied to. :)

:: bows ::

I've sent you another telegram, i figured it would be better to avoid cluttering up the thread.

Humans are not some special magical animal that developed morals when other animals have not.

After the debacle of your OP I'd refrain from making any more sweeping statements if I were you. Many animals do have morals of a kind: in experiments it's been shown that a hungry monkey will refrain from eating food if it knows that another monkey will receive an electric shock as a result; herds of elephants have been observed to move at a reduced pace to allow a cow elephant to carry the corpse of her dead calf, giving her time to mourn her loss; and there are any number of animals which will share food with other members of their species if they can't find food of their own.

No man! Sikhi.

Bole so nihal, sat sri akaal!:D

Aww, Goddust would've been cool. You should get someone to name a kid that. And I have no idea what you said. :p

Aww, Goddust would've been cool. You should get someone to name a kid that. And I have no idea what you said. :p

He insulted your mother. You must react with avengance!:eek:

<snip>

HINDUISM

This looks to be more of a traditional thing than an actual religion.

<snip>
This is my favorite of the listed "arguments" because it is so obviously and idiotically ignorant that it can be used to discredit just about any other part of a biased religious argument, if handled right.

There seems to be alot of spammers looking to mindlessly get their post counts up, instead of actual posters.

I am also waiting for someone to rebut what was said, or the point behind it.
"What was said" was just a list of available arguments. What is there to rebut in that?

The "point behind it" seemed to be that these arguments are often made on the internet. I see nothing to rebut there, either.

After the debacle of your OP I'd refrain from making any more sweeping statements if I were you.


You are not me, deal.

Animals are not moral, they just act for the benefit of the community.

He insulted your mother. You must react with avengance!:eek:

*stabs something*

This is my favorite of the listed "arguments" because it is so obviously and idiotically ignorant that it can be used to discredit just about any other part of a biased religious argument, if handled right.

You fail at comprehension.

Animals are not moral

, they just act for the benefit of the community.

Normally this requires separate posts.

Animals are not moral, they just act for the benefit of the community.
Humans are animals.

Do we "just act for the benefit of the community"?

Moreover, there are uncountable instances of nonhuman animals acting outside some sort of community-driven motive. And finally, one could say that acting for the benefit of the community was a moral act.

Animals are not moral
This is true.
they just act for the benefit of the community.
What about non-social spiders etc.?

Those are amoral and don't benefit any community. Indeed they eat each other for daring to go near them and so on and so forth.

To both of you, I say I don't care. Arguements for atheism always seem to be based on bagging out other religions, mainly because atheism doesn't have any good points.

Erm... if the position one's arguing for is an entirely negative one (i.e. there's no good evidence for the existence of a God) then why is it unreasonable to use mainly negative arguments?

If you don't believe in God, that's fine, but why should the likely hood be changed by the Catholic Church's record?

Well, if one religion claims to have a direct line to God and to be an infallible arbiter of Right and Wrong then their complicity in genocide or child molestation, to take two examples, is strong evidence against the truth of their religion.

Animals are not moral, they just act for the benefit of the community.
"Moral" is a concept that exists only within animal tissue. "Moral" as we know it is nothing more or less than a notion generated within the central nervous system of a particular animal dwelling on the planet Earth.

In this sense, "moral" is completely and purely 100% animal.

You are not me, deal.

Thank Darwin for that.

Animals are not moral, they just act for the benefit of the community.

Wait, so any act which benefits others cannot be considered an example of morality?

You fail at comprehension.

You fail at common courtesy. Remember, you started this thread. Deal with the opinions of others and don't be so quick to judge just because someone doesn't has the same belief system as you.

You fail at common courtesy. And your started this thread. Deal with the opinions of others.
I'd say he's doing a great job at exemplifying precisely the kind of narrow-minded and dull thinking that he pretends to insult with his OP. :)

Thank Darwin for that.
Whilst Darwin was a cool guy, didnt afraid of anything etc. etc., I'm pretty sure he didn't personally change who you are today :p

What about non-social spiders etc.?

Those are amoral...
I think it would be less confusing to say that spiders have no mental capacity for moral behaviour, not that they are amoral (which implies that a moral capacity is there, but spiders choose not to use it).

*stabs something*

good good, next time make sure it isn't me you're stabbing, i'll have to go to hospital now.
Do you have any idea how much effort that would take? I'd have to make at least one phone call, oh what has the world come to?
*is slowly bleeding*

Whilst Darwin was a cool guy, didnt afraid of anything etc. etc., I'm pretty sure he didn't personally change who you are today :p

Heh, after the number of Christians who've claimed you can't say 'Thank God' or 'Damn' without tacitly acknowledging the truth of their religion I decided to try dropping the occasional secular alternative into conversation. It's worth it just for the funny looks I get. :p

I think it would be less confusing to say that spiders have no mental capacity for moral behaviour, not that they are amoral.
S'true.

I'd say he's doing a great job at exemplifying precisely the kind of narrow-minded and dull thinking that he pretends to insult with his OP. :)

Indeed he is. A pity because I don't think we need anymore people like that.

Aww, Goddust would've been cool. You should get someone to name a kid that. And I have no idea what you said. :p

'Bole so nihal, sat sri akaal'

'Blessed is he who says, God is true'

You are not me, deal.

Animals are not moral, they just act for the benefit of the community.

Bwahahaha, and that's not moral behavour is it, acting for the good of the community?

Animals are not moral creatures. Just because you do something that is "good" or beneficial, doesn't mean it's moral.

Morality is the guiding process behind it. Kohlberg's stages of moral development for example.

Animals, including humans, are not born with morals. My point was that morals were not innate. Animals do not innately possess morals.

Indeed, animals act out of social duty, which is at best 4th or 5th level of Kohlberg's stages. That, or they've just evolved to know it's best not to kill or harm their fellow creatures.

What I doubt is that they possess the mental capacity to accurately come to an ethical reasoning on the issue of moral concern.

Animals are not moral creatures. Just because you do something that is "good" or beneficial, doesn't mean it's moral.

Morality is the guiding process behind it. Kohlberg's stages of moral development for example.

Animals, including humans, are not born with morals. My point was that morals were not innate. Animals do not innately possess morals.

Indeed, animals act out of social duty, which is at best 4th or 5th level of Kohlberg's stages. That, or they've just evolved to know it's best not to kill or harm their fellow creatures.

What I doubt is that they possess the mental capacity to accurately come to an ethical reasoning on the issue of moral concern.

Altogether now:

HUMANS! ARE! ANIMALS!

My point was that morals were not innate.

Oooh, a specifically stated point. Now there's something to argue, isn't there?

Animals, including humans, are not born with morals.
What was the original point of this tangent?

People get their moral values from a whole ton of places. Their parents, education, culture and society around them as well as religion.

Animals are not moral creatures. Just because you do something that is "good" or beneficial, doesn't mean it's moral.

Morality is the guiding process behind it. Kohlberg's stages of moral development for example.

Animals, including humans, are not born with morals. My point was that morals were not innate. Animals do not innately possess morals.

Indeed, animals act out of social duty, which is at best 4th or 5th level of Kohlberg's stages. That, or they've just evolved to know it's best not to kill or harm their fellow creatures.

What I doubt is that they possess the mental capacity to accurately come to an ethical reasoning on the issue of moral concern.

You realise here in this one post that you have piled contradiction upon contradiction so that I am now unsure just what your stance is.

You say that animals have no morals, and then place their morlaity at the 4th or 5th stage. Which is it then they can't be at a stage of moral development, and have no morality?

You say that doing good has nowt to do with morality, then what is the definition of a moral act, and an immoral act?

Can you show us how morality is not innate?

If a being is born with the knowledge or the instinct not to kill, how is that not an inate sense of morality?

Humans are animals... Of course!

So?

I'm just going to say...

Morals come from God.

Humans are animals... Of course!

So?
If you're not going to have a point, why on Earth do you expect anybody else to have one?

I'm just going to say...

Morals come from God.
Pfft, boooooooring.

You can do better.

I'm just going to say...

Morals come from God.
Uhu... that's not really an argument, now, is it?

"My views say so".

If you weren't a recent convert, I'm sure you'd probably be more prone to realise that your now-found morals came from being a part of a new segment of society, with different cultural views to some other parts of society, that you yourself have taken on.

And that this is all there is to it.

I'm just going to say...

Morals come from God.

That is the silliest argument I've heard.

Morals come from God? You're suggesting that all cultures that have morals worship God and you know that's not true. Besides, if you study the Bible, specially the Old Testament, the things that God makes Abraham do to his son, although an order, could be considered immoral. Sacrifice your only child to a god?! This could well imply God possess no morals. And if your line of argument is understood by me, it would also imply humans do not have morals because these come from God and God seems to have none.

Give me hard proof that morals come from God and then we'll argue.

I don't see how anything I've said is wrong.

-Humans are animals
-Animals are not moral

Therefore, Humans are not Moral!

Except humans who have either been influenced by... Parents, teachers, priests, friends, books, stories... Basically other humans.

Because humans have been around for a long time, morals have been circulating for a long time

So, we are left with two possibilities.

1) Morals are nothing more than genetic coding about the best way to reproduce (which is flawed, because then we would be soley dedicated to reproduction, and all humans would have the same morals, such as cannibalism, abortion, when to kill, animal cruelty, slavery, etc)

or

2) Universal laws exist and humans are the only ANIMAL capable of understanding them. Humans are smarter animals.

I believe in universal law, that is, God's law.

That is the silliest argument I've heard.

Morals come from God? You're suggesting that all cultures that have morals worship God and you know that's not true. Besides, if you study the Bible, specially the Old Testament, the things that God makes Abraham do to his son, although an order, could be considered immoral. Sacrifice your only child to a god?! This could well imply God possess no morals. And if your line of argument is understood by me, it would also imply humans do not have morals because these come from God and God seems to have none.

Give me hard proof that morals come from God and then we'll argue.


God called off the sacrifice, and gave Abraham a Lamb.
Get your facts straight.

Also, that is just one depiction of God Mr Strawman

1) Morals are nothing more than genetic coding about the best way to reproduce (which is flawed, because then we would be soley dedicated to reproduction, and all humans would have the same morals, such as cannibalism, abortion, when to kill, animal cruelty, slavery, etc)

Technically the, ah, necessary morals could be different in different environments. From an evolutionary standpoint, aye?

2) Universal laws exist and humans are the only ANIMAL capable of understanding them. Humans are smarter animals.

I believe in universal law, that is, God's law.

That's really a bit of a conglomeration of viewpoints, innit?

God called off the sacrifice, and gave Abraham a Lamb.
Get your facts straight.

Also, that is just one depiction of God Mr Strawman

Hee. He's tossing about 'strawman', what fun.

No, from an evolutionary standpoint they could not be different accross different cultures, because we're all Homo sapiens.
That, and it's also been proved time and time again that we do not inherit the same moral position, so it's not genetic. It's social.

Do you not think someone using the Old Testement in an inaccurate way to represent someone else's God Straw Man?

How quickly we inherit the problems of our predecessors.

And fail to learn from them.

I've sent you another telegram, i figured it would be better to avoid cluttering up the thread.

Good call, especially since I think it would have been a threadjack. Replied.

This is true.

What about non-social spiders etc.?

Those are amoral and don't benefit any community. Indeed they eat each other for daring to go near them and so on and so forth.

Yeah well everybody knows spiders are evil, immoral bastitches that serve the devil...

...Hm. And yet I have a pet tarantula... Well she's an exception ;) Hasn't bitten me yet.

I don't see how anything I've said is wrong.

-Humans are animals
-Animals are not moral

Therefore, Humans are not Moral!

To be sure, you're doing a great job of making my earlier point for me, which is that logic can lead people to a huge range of possible conclusions depending on what premises they start with.

You are starting with one glaringly unsupported premise, but you are proceeding logically from that premise and reaching a conclusion which (obviously) many other logical people don't share.


Except humans who have either been influenced by... Parents, teachers, priests, friends, books, stories... Basically other humans.

Because humans have been around for a long time, morals have been circulating for a long time

So, we are left with two possibilities.

1) Morals are nothing more than genetic coding about the best way to reproduce (which is flawed, because then we would be soley dedicated to reproduction, and all humans would have the same morals, such as cannibalism, abortion, when to kill, animal cruelty, slavery, etc)

or

2) Universal laws exist and humans are the only ANIMAL capable of understanding them. Humans are smarter animals.

I bet if somebody offered you $10 million to come up with more possibilities, you'd be able to do it. Just for fun, why don't you try?

Right now you've got:
-Morals are genetic
-Morals are universal external concepts which humans alone are able to comprehend.

Let's see if we can't add to that list, shall we?


I believe in universal law, that is, God's law.
Nobody cares.

I'm not saying this to be mean, and it's nothing personal you understand, it's just that nobody cares when you simply share your personal opinion in that way. Nobody cares when anybody states their opinion in such a dull and useless manner, unless you want to count minor annoyance as caring.

If you want people to care, you have to give them the "WHY" side. Why do you believe that? What leads you to that conclusion? Basically, why should they care? Why do your opinions matter? Why are you choosing to blab them at people?

God called off the sacrifice, and gave Abraham a Lamb.
Get your facts straight.

Also, that is just one depiction of God Mr Strawman

Yes, God indeed called off the sacrifice. But He did order it, did He not? He put Abraham through a lot of pain. That's how Loving and Moral God was.:rolleyes:

And no, darling, this isn't a staw man. It's no more a straw man than all your arguements have been so far. Once again, give me proof that morals come from a God and then we'll argue. Otherwise, retire from the thread fully knowing just how much you've cemented the horrible opinion many have about orthodox Christians. You're contradicting yourself and the OP. Tsk tsk.

Morals are a social construct; since they're supported and promoted by the ruling classes of a society in order to keep the citizens more or less under control, it was always considered to be a smart move to slap the label "As Enforced By God The Almighty" on them. Over the millenniums, ruling classes have always claimed to be direct representatives of the civilization's most important deity/deities. It's all about keeping your behind in those seats of power.

Or maybe, as social animals who at one time actually found it a challenge to survive, we learned that harming your fellow man ended up lessening your chances of survival, because staying alive was a group effort. You needed people to hunt, gather fruit, raise and protect the children, etc'... And killing/eating/generally harming each other either ended up with the "pack" not being able to fend for itself and so dying off, or the disruptive person being cast away, and so left with no defenses or prospective mates.

And we kept those morals since they're apparently very conductive to living a good life in most cases.

Of course, this is just an unfounded idea proposed by a person with little knowledge on the subject.

No, from an evolutionary standpoint they could not be different accross different cultures, because we're all Homo sapiens.

Because there's no variation within species.

Or maybe, as social animals who at one time actually found it a challenge to survive, we learned that harming your fellow man ended up lessening your chances of survival, because staying alive was a group effort. You needed people to hunt, gather fruit, raise and protect the children, etc'... And killing/eating/generally harming each other either ended up with the "pack" not being able to fend for itself and so dying off, or the disruptive person being cast away, and so left with no defenses or prospective mates.

And we kept those morals since they're apparently very conductive to living a good life in most cases.

Of course, this is just an unfounded idea proposed by a person with little knowledge on the subject.
*GASP*

Lookit that! It's a possibility other than "morals are genetic" or "morals are from God"!

*dies of shock*

God called off the sacrifice, and gave Abraham a Lamb.
Get your facts straight.

Well that's okay then...

Also, that is just one depiction of God Mr Strawman

Well how many aspects do you believe God has?

If someone doesn't want to care, then someone should stop asking. You all seem pretty keen to read an reply, so that means you care. Agree, no, care, yes.

I say God made morals, you say God is immoral because of the OLD TESTEMENT? I do not believe in the old testement.

I believe God makes morals, you don't have to accept it. I've outlined my position, and if you don't agree, too bad.

You cannot dismiss my opinion because you don't agree. Well, you can, but that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.

If someone doesn't want to care, then someone should stop asking. You all seem pretty keen to read an reply, so that means you care. Agree, no, care, yes.

I say God made morals, you say God is immoral because of the OLD TESTEMENT? I do not believe in the old testement.

I believe God makes morals, you don't have to accept it. I've outlined my position, and if you don't agree, too bad.

You cannot dismiss my opinion because you don't agree. Well, you can, but that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.

If you don't believe in the OT, then how could the NT be worth anything when it's supposedly the fulfillment of the OT?

Well that's okay then...



Well how many aspects do you believe God has?

I'm not even going to pretend to know.

I believe in aq God that is...

Perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.

It was a straw man arguement. It's like saying Governments are evil because Kim Jong Il threatens with nuclear weapons.

If you don't believe in the OT, then how could the NT be worth anything when it's supposedly the fulfillment of the OT?

Easily.

Because there's no variation within species.
And different cultures don't exist either. Suddenly it all makes sense!

Ah, okay... I suppose I should have known you were a troll, but I guess that's the bad side of assuming good faith. Okay, you got me.

I'm not even going to pretend to know.

Yeah, well that's why I said believe ;)

I believe in aq God that is...

Perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.

It was a straw man arguement. It's like saying Governments are evil because Kim Jong Il threatens with nuclear weapons.

Sooo...

Which depiction of God was it?

Perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent.

Which implies...?

If someone doesn't want to care, then someone should stop asking. You all seem pretty keen to read an reply, so that means you care. Agree, no, care, yes.

Can't speak for anybody else, but I'm bored as hell right now. Before I had you to play with I was surfing aimlessly through an editorial cartoon archive. Slow day at the office, doncha know.


I say God made morals, you say God is immoral because of the OLD TESTEMENT? I do not believe in the old testement.

Again, nobody cares unless you add the "why" to this.

You pick and choose which parts of your own holy book you want to believe in. How? Why?


I believe God makes morals, you don't have to accept it. I've outlined my position, and if you don't agree, too bad.

You really haven't, you know. Outlined your position. You've made some random statements here and there, but you've provided almost no useful information.

You clearly are desperate to communicate something. So what is it?


You cannot dismiss my opinion because you don't agree. Well, you can, but that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.
You've been dismissed by a large number of theists so far. I don't see why their dismissal of you should reflect on atheists.

You cannot dismiss my opinion because you don't agree. Well, you can, but that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.

It's like saying Governments are evil because Kim Jong Il threatens with nuclear weapons.

Hee 2: Electric Boogaloo.

You fail at comprehension.
So do you.

How am I being a troll? Because I have a very complicated faith structure that I cannot be bothered to explain?

Essentially.

:headbang:

How am I being a troll? Because I have a very complicated faith structure that I cannot be bothered to explain?

Every time I say something, it is met with ignorance. Straw men arguements, questioning my faith as opposed to dealing with the topic of dicussion, and the repeated use of the word Troll.

Atheists, indeed.

:headbang:

How am I being a troll? Because I have a very complicated faith structure that I cannot be bothered to explain?

Every time I say something, it is met with ignorance. Straw men arguements, questioning my faith as opposed to dealing with the topic of dicussion, and the repeated use of the word Troll.

Atheists, indeed.
Oh quit whining. The internet is not going to be nice to you just because you're a poor poor Christian. If you can't handle the 'net then go outside and play. Otherwise stop complaining and get to the point.

What, am I not allowed to pick and choose what to believe? I didn't realize that I have to subscribe to FUNDIMENTALISM to be a Catholic.

I believe and do not believe some parts of the Bible, yes. I do not see why that is so shocking. It's almost as thought the idea of someone utilizing discretion is absurd.

What, am I not allowed to pick and choose what to believe? I didn't realize that I have to subscribe to FUNDIMENTALISM to be a Catholic.

I believe and do not believe some parts of the Bible, yes. I do not see why that is so shocking. It's almost as thought the idea of someone utilizing discretion is absurd.
Quit being so defensive and answer the question.

Making quite a name for yourself, aren't you? How do you like the forum thus far, Cuxil?

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

HAI, CAN U PLZ READ A BOOK K THX BAI!

-SNIP-

Wow, it's so amazing how you're entire argument is firmly against Catholic doctrine regarding other religions.

Oh quit whining. The internet is not going to be nice to you just because you're a poor poor Christian. If you can't handle the 'net then go outside and play. Otherwise stop complaining and get to the point.

Oh yes, the big bad internet with it's many intellectuals.

Boo Hoo! Mod intervention!

I've made my point, please make yours.

athieism is for the lazy man? not true, its easy to do good if you think your going to be rewarded by goin to heaven but doing good thrutfully for somebody else, thath requires heart

Oh yes, the big bad internet with it's many intellectuals.

Boo Hoo! Mod intervention!

I've made my point, please make yours.
Oy, and now you resort to "ppl on teh intarwebs r stoopid!"

Why all the diversionary tactics and defensiveness? Just answer the questions. It's not hard. You seem to love talking about yourself, so what's the problem?

Oh yes, the big bad internet with it's many intellectuals.
Intellectuals? On the internet, even? Sorry, but now I'm certain that you're deluded. I weep for thee, Cuxil.

What, am I not allowed to pick and choose what to believe?Yes, you are allowed to do so. Because it does not matter what you believe. Belief is a fundamentally flawed concept, because it is only an adherence to assumptions made without confirmation. Belief is ultimately pointless.

Wow, it's so amazing how you're entire argument is firmly against Catholic doctrine regarding other religions.

Yes, and I meant every word.

Making quite a name for yourself, aren't you? How do you like the forum thus far, Cuxil?

It is much like any other forum, some agree, some are indifferent, some disagree. I would have thought NationStates forum would be a tad more on the ball, but there are a remarkable number of slow pokes

Quit being so defensive and answer the question.

What question?

Yeah someone not being an intellectual pussy and tucking yourself in every night with the myths from humanitys' smelliest and stupidest days makes you "lazy".

"Oh Goooddddd..:fluffle: "

I don't even know where to begin,

Yes, you are allowed to do so. Because it does not matter what you believe. Belief is a fundamentally flawed concept, because it is only an adherence to assumptions made without confirmation. Belief is ultimately pointless.

I don't even know where to begin,

At the beginning, I'd hope.

What is this question I am supposed to answer? I have answered every question put to me so far, adequately. If you don't like it, too bad.

Why?

IIRC

What is this question I am supposed to answer? I have answered every question put to me so far, adequately. If you don't like it, too bad.

Damn Cuxil, I'd say you've effectively ruined your reputation on this board. You should just stop now. This thread is a waste of everyone's time.

Damn Cuxil, I'd say you've effectively ruined your reputation on this board. You should just stop now. This thread is a waste of everyone's time.
It had potential. Oh well.

Damn Cuxil, I'd say you've effectively ruined your reputation on this board. You should just stop now. This thread is a waste of everyone's time.


Oh noes!
Why would I care about my "reputation"? You people don't mean anything to me, you are just names to opinions.
Get off your high horse, and deal.

Oh noes!
Why would I care about my "reputation"? You people don't mean anything to me, you are just names to opinions.
Get off your high horse, and deal.

*pats horse* We rather enjoy things up here, s'why it's such a shame; you being where you are. ;)

If someone doesn't want to care, then someone should stop asking. You all seem pretty keen to read an reply, so that means you care. Agree, no, care, yes.

You've hit the crux of the matter. Some people care, some do not. And we do not have to agree at all. Deal.

I say God made morals, you say God is immoral because of the OLD TESTEMENT? I do not believe in the old testement.

Which means you conveniently believe what suits you. The Old Testament is part of Christianity's canon book, wether you want it or not.

I believe God makes morals, you don't have to accept it. I've outlined my position, and if you don't agree, too bad.

I want you to give me proof, not your position, that God indeed makes morals. Proof, evidence. What part of my post you do not understand?

You cannot dismiss my opinion because you don't agree. Well, you can, but that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.

No one here is dismissing your opinion or your set of beliefs. You're the one who is disregarding the beliefs of others with your prepotent thread title.

As long as you keep this up, people will take your opinion for granted. Learn from that.

So Cuxil, what made you embrace Christianity over the myriads of other dogmatic belief systems?

Firstly, let me beging by saying I am a Catholic. My beliefs about the universe are right, and all the evidence points my way of belief.

Your beliefs, however, are total lies and based on fallacies and erroneous positions and serve only to demonstrate your overwhelming ignorance. Unless you agree with me, in which case you probably don't understand what it is we believe as well as me.

Or is it?

I bet you've heard this sort of arguement before, be you Christian or Atheist. To any other religions, you don't count because this is the internet and no one follows anything else. Still, you've no doubt heard this arguement before.
One a similar note, anyone with a belief system uses the same arguement.
Let's thinks of some examples...

ATHEISM.

Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance (except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically. At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

Historially, they're doing *OK*. You used to have to be smart to be an atheist, now every psuedo-intellectual and his dog is an atheist, and atheist education consists of TV and internet ads. It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.

CHRISTIANITY

Despite being a Catholic myself, the sheer overwhelming absurdity of Christianity leaves a lot to be desired. It's no particularly straightforward, and there are alot of competing ideas. Transubstantiation, trinity, triclavianism, duality, etc. The biggest problem with Christianity today is ignorance; Christians are too ignorant.

This is not to say that Christianity is a religion of ignorance, au contrare, it is a religion of knowledge. Put simply, there is too much to know. Christianity is so jammed packed with 2000 years of philosophy, debate, conjecture, history amd tragedy. If anyone wants to be a real Christian, they have to LEARN. You start with the Bible, and then books about the Bible, outlining what you need to know. However, most people get put off and stop there because the bible is so silly, or just accept the whole thing as fact.
Few people manage to slip through and find out what it's all about.

In the meantime, you get a whole lot of silly christians going around confusing the atheists, leading to a big mix up.

ISLAM

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say Islam is a great religion. For the most part anyway...
The doctrines of Islam are sensible, moral, decent and clean, Theologically that is. Literally they are a bit overdone and are often taken a bit too extreme. The who anti-women thing is silly, and the whole Mohummad is AWESOME is just too much.

JUDAISM

Sneakiness aside, again, a sensible religion with a lot of emphasis on Justice. Way too much emphasis on MAN doing INJUSTICE on behalf of GOD, and how Israelis are above everyone else.
Jews are almost as elitist as Atheists. Almost.

BUDDHISM

One of the few beliefs that are right. However, Buddhism is not a big deal because it's all a load of hooey. It's not a big deal.
It's like having a "religion" based around being nice, with all the myths taken away. I don't know why it's such a big deal, it's just common sense. It's similar to atheism, except Buddhists tend to be nicer and much smarter. They lack a bit of conviction, but at least have some rules.

PAGANISM

A sham. Pagans are weak individuals who believe in magick and so forth. It is the ultimate stamp of lacking a personality. Pagans are, without fail, morons who fear being similar to other people. So they pretend to adpot this outlandish silliness.

SCIENTOLOGY

A cult, right up there with Branch Davidian and Jonestown.

HINDUISM

This looks to be more of a traditional thing than an actual religion.

SCIENCE

Not a religion, and is pretty unbiased. Contrary to popular belief, neither science nor logic lend credibility towards any belief system, especially atheism. Atheists say it does, and Christians say it lends credit to Christianity. Anyone invoking the "science and logic" arguement doesn't believe their own lies.

UPDATE: Atheism is actually correct, because it's oh so logical thanks to the helpful posters who defended atheism.
**Yawns**
So what is your point:confused:

I believe God makes morals, you don't have to accept it. I've outlined my position, and if you don't agree, too bad.

This is called the Euthyphro dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma).
So, how do you know that this "God" isn't some very powerful physical entity that is imposing his moral system on you? Was the endorsed genocide of the Canaanites in the OT good because God said it? Why do we have to follow the subjective value judgments of God? Might makes right, eh?

The thread's title is a JOKE. It is a tool, used to get people to read it. Do you think people will click on some random's post about belief systems? If you want to take everything I say as what I truly believe, go ahead.

I conveniently believe what I believe to be true. I'm not going to believe in something just because it fits nicely into someone else's idea of what I should believe.
Also, I feel it necessary to outline that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Scriptures should not be taken literally; It is called theology.

I am not a fundimentalist Christian, I don't see why that bugs you so much. I believe the Old Testement is a bunch of stories, and the New Testement is a bunch of accurate stories.

Again, I don't know why it even matters. You all seem to care waaaay too much about my belief systems. You are so desperate to get answers from me, and get all whingy when you don't get your way.

Quit trying to pass yourself off as some grand puppet master, and pretending that I'm some sort of plaything to you.

You are desperate to hear my wisdom.

You are so desperate to get answers from me, and get all whingy when you don't get your way.

religion or non religion is always defended from the position of the person's beliefs

SO it's a bit necessary for a proper dicussion, isn't it? On the other hand, should we try to forego your beliefs:

that just outlines my point that atheists are dismissive and ignorant.

Quit trying to pass yourself off as some grand puppet master, and pretending that I'm some sort of plaything to you.

Dance, daaance!

The thread's title is a JOKE. It is a tool, used to get people to read it. Do you think people will click on some random's post about belief systems? If you want to take everything I say as what I truly believe, go ahead.

I conveniently believe what I believe to be true. I'm not going to believe in something just because it fits nicely into someone else's idea of what I should believe.
Also, I feel it necessary to outline that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Scriptures should not be taken literally; It is called theology.

I am not a fundimentalist Christian, I don't see why that bugs you so much. I believe the Old Testement is a bunch of stories, and the New Testement is a bunch of accurate stories.

Again, I don't know why it even matters. You all seem to care waaaay too much about my belief systems. You are so desperate to get answers from me, and get all whingy when you don't get your way.

Quit trying to pass yourself off as some grand puppet master, and pretending that I'm some sort of plaything to you.

You are desperate to hear my wisdom.
**Yawns again**
What is it:rolleyes:

You are desperate to hear my wisdom.

Don't flatter yourself. You seem like one of those people who just loves to hear themselves talk.

Sir Lulzington the Third, your tea is ready...

"Hey guys...::spouts garbage about others' beliefs::...

DONT' RESPOND TO ME LIEK GETA LIFE ALREAYD. YOU JJUYST WANT MUY WISDOM LULZ"

I say God made morals, you say God is immoral because of the OLD TESTEMENT? I do not believe in the old testement.
Uhu... which editions/gospels do you believe in?

The thread's title is a JOKE. It is a tool, used to get people to read it. Do you think people will click on some random's post about belief systems? If you want to take everything I say as what I truly believe, go ahead.

You seem to be pretty altered for the thread title to be a JOKE. Recognize your shortcomings there.

I conveniently believe what I believe to be true. I'm not going to believe in something just because it fits nicely into someone else's idea of what I should believe.
Also, I feel it necessary to outline that the official position of the Catholic Church is that the Holy Scriptures should not be taken literally; It is called theology.

You do not know what theology means. Your senseless arguments show it.

I am not a fundimentalist Christian, I don't see why that bugs you so much. I believe the Old Testement is a bunch of stories, and the New Testement is a bunch of accurate stories.

12 years of Catholic dogma. I know this crap by heart. But after taking theology in college I realized that, wether I like it or not, the Old Testament is part of the canon book.

Need I remind you that it was the very Catholic Church the one who debated this issue. Need I quote to you the 2 senseless councils carried out by the Church on the subject? Does the Nicea Council I and Nicea Council II ring a bell?

Again, I don't know why it even matters. You all seem to care waaaay too much about my belief systems. You are so desperate to get answers from me, and get all whingy when you don't get your way.

You're very conceited, aren't you?

Quit trying to pass yourself off as some grand puppet master, and pretending that I'm some sort of plaything to you.

To quote you: What are you to me that I must care about you or wether you feel like a plaything or not. This is of no consequence to me.

You are desperate to hear my wisdom.

Wisdom? You don't know the meaning of that word. You, wise? Please, don't make me laugh. Read your posts. I don't think you'll find any examples of wisdom there. That's of course, if you know what wisdom means.

You are desperate to hear my wisdom.
I think we're all desperate for a way to boost our collective self-esteems, and thrashing someone in an argument is a pretty effective way to do so.

*yawn*

Damn, is it summer already?

Do they? Show me one culture that doesn't value altruism, that does not form family groups, that does not punish unlawful killings, that encourages lying or that endorses and rewards laziness?

Besides, animals do have morals. Look up the behaviour of capucin monkeys some time. How would you explain that, since they're hardly religious after all?

Also one should point out that most of the "Commandments" that are the morals of Catholicism and Christianity were in fact LAWS before the belief systems were introduced


Religious morals are generally no different that Non-Religious ones. Today, that is.

Like it or not, Western society is pretty much ground in Judeo-Christian ideals. Ethics in our society stem from religion, and atheists adopted them because they make good sense.
I'm not sayin Morals cannot come from atheism, I just saying they didn't.

They didn't come from Christianity either. In fact the first morals such as Killing is bad, theft is wrong, X. Came not from religion but SOCIETAL ideals. The fact that most people find child molestation immoral doesn't come from religion either. Or the way we find the treatment of women or racism wrong is in fact in opposition to things we find in religion.

The Ku Klux Klan, for example, believe they are doing God's work because Man was created in God's image and black men must therefore be created by the Devil because they are not created in OUR image. Religion teaches us that God created women to SERVE Man and from man so you can pretty much do what ever you want to them. They're not important.

Religion borrows morality and assigns a punishment forfailing to follow that morality as a scare tactic to enforce it's beliefs.

I also notice the lack of Mormon, Agnostic, Voudon, and Catholocism. If this were meatn to truly be satirical there would need to be a point of Catholicism mentioned that would paint it as "right" in the same way everything else was painted wrong

I'm not really saying atheists lack morals, I'm saying they lack moral guidance outside religion and religion in society.

And that is a problem?

I agree with some of the OP's statements... Atheism has become too "cool," and more kids are going to it for shock value, whether they've really questioned the decision or not. Christianity does require a lot of thinking to understand, and sadly, most Christians don't think very hard at all. They spout phrases like "Christ died for you!" but have no idea just what that means. I like Islam... there's something admirable about it.

But the comments were far from sensitive and I'm surprised you didn't immediately get shut down for flamebaiting.

I like you. You're alright.

You like people who demonstrate their ignorance?

You'd be surprised what people will reply to.



Huh?

Apparently if someone says things that are false and slightly demeaning to you and you correct them it shows weakness on your part.
:rolleyes:

Also one should point out that most of the "Commandments" that are the morals of Catholicism and Christianity were in fact LAWS before the belief systems were introduced


And that our current legal system is in fact NOT based on them. Just compare them, only two of the 10 commandments are actually crimes, and one of them is actually directly in contradiction with current law.

Arguements for atheism always seem to be based on bagging out other religions, mainly because atheism doesn't have any good points. I DO believe it's a pretty easy religion without any basis.

I know what your purpose was in making this thread, you felt the unbridled need to demonstrate your ignorance.

Atheism is not a religion.

Religious morals are generally no different that Non-Religious ones. Today, that is.

Look around you. Seriously.

Like it or not, Western society is pretty much ground in Judeo-Christian ideals. Ethics in our society stem from religion, and atheists adopted them because they make good sense.

The Bible says "Love your neighbor as yourself", and the Bible also says "You shall not lie with mankind as with womankind, for it is an abomination." Historically, both Judaism and Christianity have advanced both these ethical positions.

If my atheist ethics have their origin in religion, why do I think the first expresses a valuable moral ideal while the second is a representation of contemptible bigotry?

I agree with some of the OP's statements... Atheism has become too "cool," and more kids are going to it for shock value, whether they've really questioned the decision or not. Christianity does require a lot of thinking to understand, and sadly, most Christians don't think very hard at all. They spout phrases like "Christ died for you!" but have no idea just what that means. I like Islam... there's something admirable about it.

But the comments were far from sensitive and I'm surprised you didn't immediately get shut down for flamebaiting.

Atheism is shocking?

No, saying you're pregnant, loudly, in a store, while you are, in fact, a male, is shocking.

I agree with some of the OP's statements... Atheism has become too "cool," and more kids are going to it for shock value, whether they've really questioned the decision or not. Christianity does require a lot of thinking to understand, and sadly, most Christians don't think very hard at all. They spout phrases like "Christ died for you!" but have no idea just what that means. I like Islam... there's something admirable about it.

But the comments were far from sensitive and I'm surprised you didn't immediately get shut down for flamebaiting.

Atheism doesn't require thinking? How odd... because it took me a good few years of very hard and uncomfortable thinking to turn from Catholic to agnostic to atheist.
Christianity requires thinking? That's odd, too. See, in my experience, religions (no matter which) require first and foremost a lot of faith, often despite your rational thinking telling you something entirely different...

I just don't get why pagans get their balls busted for believing in magic. I'm pretty sure magic exists in every single religion that has ever existed, to one degree or another. And no, I don't spell it magick. I like Aleister Crowley as much as anybody else, perhaps even moreso, but I don't like to intentionally misspell words for dramatic effect.

To be honest, I agree with the last.

You CAN'T necessarily prove religion via the Scientific Method. (It may be possible but I don't know how.) Someone who's truly on top of their game will freely admit this.
It isn't possible, there is no way to test for god.

The thing about faith...faith is part of the requirement. If God could be proven to exist, where would the faith be needed? Since God can't be proven, you have to be a true follower of your God, whoever that may be to have faith in your God.

God called off the sacrifice, and gave Abraham a Lamb.
Get your facts straight.

Also, that is just one depiction of God Mr Strawman

How exactly do you figure that that is a strawman?


She presented an example showing how it could be construed that Yahweh has acted immorally, thus showing a possible weak link in your argument.

It was a straw man arguement.
No, it wasn't
It's like saying Kim Jong Il is evil because Kim Jong Il threatens with nuclear weapons.

Fixed

*yawn*

Damn, is it summer already?

Not sure when does summer start exactly - is it a specific date based on something astronomical like an equinox or is more of a weather thing or what? Does it vary from country to country?

ATHEISM.

Atheist has a lot going for it; Atheists don't have moral guidance (except "humanism", right? hahaha!) so get to act pretty hedonistically. At the very basic level, you can't go wrong with atheism because it's nothing more than a dismissal of everything else. It's easy to back up with "facts" that merely disprove myths and atheists love to bag out religion, because religion has so many pitfalls that it's a no brainer.

But, Atheists are spiritually lazy and psychologically weak. You don't have to stick to any concrete rules in life, and take the easy way out. They have conviction about lacking conviction. You don't need alot of knowledge to be an atheist either.

Historially, they're doing *OK*. You used to have to be smart to be an atheist, now every psuedo-intellectual and his dog is an atheist, and atheist education consists of TV and internet ads. It's religion for the ignorant and lazy man.


UPDATE: Atheism is actually correct, because it's oh so logical thanks to the helpful posters who defended atheism.

Well although I am late to this party I am pleased to see reason has prevailed.

Well done lads & lasses ;)

How exactly do you figure that that is a strawman?


She presented an example showing how it could be construed that Yahweh has acted immorally, thus showing a possible weak link in your argument.

Oh, Dyakovo, but I don´t know any better because, according to Cuxil here, he doesn´t believe in the Old Testament, even though it´s part of the Bible, the book of the doctrine he claims to follow. He also stated that he conveniently chooses in WHAT to believe.

And I´m the one who constructs strawmen...:rolleyes:

this thread only helps further the fact that Discordianism is #1 :p

this thread only helps further the fact that Discordianism is #1 :p

It´s a close tie between Blindness, Ignorance and Discordianism...

I agree with some of the OP's statements... Atheism has become too "cool," and more kids are going to it for shock value, whether they've really questioned the decision or not. Christianity does require a lot of thinking to understand, and sadly, most Christians don't think very hard at all. They spout phrases like "Christ died for you!" but have no idea just what that means. I like Islam... there's something admirable about it.

But the comments were far from sensitive and I'm surprised you didn't immediately get shut down for flamebaiting.

No, actually what christianity requires is not thinking.

Oh, Dyakovo, but I don´t know any better because, according to Cuxil here, he doesn´t believe in the Old Testament, even though it´s part of the Bible, the book of the doctrine he claims to follow. He also stated that he conveniently chooses in WHAT to believe.

And I´m the one who constructs strawmen...:rolleyes:

Not believing the OT is a point in his favor, he just has no idea what a strawman argument is.

I miss the days when we had trolls that knew what they were doing.