Religion

[The Dudeh]

I am a Catholic and do believe in God, but I very rarely go to church.

[deadpie]

I am a Catholic and do believe in God, but I very rarely go to church.

Yeah, I think all Catholics believe in God. Last time I checked there wasn't any Catholics that believed in Allah.

[Magus]

Yeah, I think all Catholics believe in God. Last time I checked there wasn't any Catholics that believed in Allah.

But, Allah is God. In the arabic version of the bible, Allah is used instead of God.

[deadpie]

But, Allah is God. In the arabic version of the bible, Allah is used instead of God.

Well, I meant as in the Muslim version of God.

[Raiders]

'Mean' is a subjective term. One person may be refuting another person's core beliefs by pointing out logical fallacies which they think is acceptable whilst the other person takes offense at having what they've been brought up to believe at infancy being told to be false and think the other person is being mean.

True...but im not going to get mad at some or belittle them because of their beliefs, like i said its what you believe and thats cool. This probably wasnt the best thread for me to post on...haha

[embers]

I am not going to visit Pakistan, until I see reformation and stopping the Baluchi genocide.

Like that's EVER gonna happen. My friends have been recently asking me if the pro-democracy protests in the Middle East would spread into Pakistan. Well, they won't, seeing as nobody there WANTS democracy, it seems that we all WANT to plunge ourselves into the hell we're close to becoming.

I feel pity towards that Christian Pak who asked for reforming some rules, instead he gets killed by some extremest. Oh, yeah, religion of peace, I can now clearly see that.

I'm not surprised, actually. We do have an execution law for apostasy, you know.

[Willydude]

I sorta consider myself as a Wiccan but I tend to experiment with earths natural energy and less that of deities Its gotten to such an extent that it is almost isolated from any other religion i know

[Sage]

I sorta consider myself as a Wiccan but I tend to experiment with earths natural energy and less that of deities Its gotten to such an extent that it is almost isolated from any other religion i know

What do you believe "natural energy" is?

[embers]

Well, I meant as in the Muslim version of God.

Allah literally translates to God in Arabic, and the concept of 'Allah' existed before Islam came about (as did practises like Hajj). The Muslim version of God is the Christian version of God. Same stories, same everything, except for of course Muhammed.

[Perseus]

Allah literally translates to God in Arabic, and the concept of 'Allah' existed before Islam came about (as did practises like Hajj). The Muslim version of God is the Christian version of God. Same stories, same everything, except for of course Muhammed.

And the what's his face and Ishmael split.

[Spook]

One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right? Very true! I don't think we eve can be sure until we die. :P

I think that every major religion in the world holds a piece of the truth. If they all started acting in the manner they say they should, then maybe we could find the real truth. Also true--people say their religion is "peaceful and caring of the human race" but they make war with the other religions! How is that for peaceful?

I don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, though. I believe that if you die and your not worthy of God and the light, your soul stays here on Earth. That sounds much better than burning down there. :/

When it comes to the Islam world's anger at the Pope's statements, here's what I have to say:

1) The Pope quoted the writing that stated the Islam is violent and evil.
2) The Islam responds how? By violence! Yep. Like I said above, people say their religion is of peace, but to any other religion they are violent.

What do you believe and why do you believe it? I am a Christan, but I am not those super-strong Christians that have these morals about what you can and cannot do--I think that's up to the person. Also, I don't believe in nuns. It's just...ugh. They are religious, sure, but giving up having children, and having love??? It's kind of sad to me. God put us on earth to serve him and to thrive.

All in all, very good thread. It got me thinking. :D

[deadpie]

Allah literally translates to God in Arabic, and the concept of 'Allah' existed before Islam came about (as did practises like Hajj). The Muslim version of God is the Christian version of God. Same stories, same everything, except for of course Muhammed.

This. (http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm)


One question that really has been on my mind...and other opinions.

First off, why do members of one faith criticize members of another? How can we know for sure that our faith is right? Very true! I don't think we eve can be sure until we die. :P

Criticizing religion is not disrespectful. Tumblr friend wrote this -

Religion should not be exempt from criticism because is very unlike things we typically refrain from criticizing (gender, sex, race, ethnicity, heigh, weight, looks, ability). Those things are innate to a person and are not a telling of a person’s character. You know the saying, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. Religion is not part of the cover, it’s part of the pages. Religious garments and jewelry aside, you cannot tell a person’s religion just by looking at the person. Religion is of the mind; it is alterable; it is a belief system, like an ideology or world view. We don’t hesitate to criticize or challenge someone’s political belief, especially if we find it unjust and can reason why. Debating political views is extremely common, but debating religion is “offensive”? Pointing out inconsistencies or errors in someone’s belief system is not insulting and it is not disrespectful any more than talking to them about their interpretation of “Fahrenheit 451” is. Criticizing the religion is not a personal attack on the person’s character or personality, it’s a criticism of the belief.

[Continuum]

This. (http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm)


Now everything sounds against Islam, I feel it's contemptibly biased.

[Nihilus]

I'm Jewish, but to me G-d is the unknown; things we can not comprehend or what we haven't discovered. For the big bang theory, where did the particles come for the explosion. I would use G-d for that.

[Perseus]

I'm Jewish, but to me G-d is the unknown; things we can not comprehend or what we haven't discovered. For the big bang theory, where did the particles come for the explosion. I would use G-d for that.

It is speculated that everything that happened in the Big Bang existed once the explosion happened, i.e. the explosion ejected all this stuff and created things. Look it up since I can't explain it that well. Also, why are you censoring out the "o"?

[deadpie]

Also, why are you censoring out the "o"?

For jewish people it's a traditional way of respect towards "God". There's another reason that's really strange and has something to do with how not fully writing the name out keeps others from destroying the name of "God".

[Magus]

Now everything sounds against Islam, I feel it's contemptibly biased.

No. That was a near accurate and correct description on Islam and its differences between Christianity.

[embers]

This. (http://www.dianedew.com/islam.htm)

That is so damn biased I literally rubbed my eyes. Plus, I know it's an overused argument, but there is no good in taking quotes out of context... so many of Islam's calls for war were not commands and guidelines for the future to follow, but commands from Allah to Muhammed in order to take over a tribe or village of some sort. And also, they seemed to completely avoid the topic of violence in the Old Testament.

No. That was a near accurate and correct description on Islam and its differences between Christianity.

It seems to be completely incapable of differentiating between religious history and religious teachings.

[Unknown.]

The question should be "Whats your religious orientation" because Atheism is not a religion rather a lack of.

[Sage]

The question should be "Whats your religious orientation" because Atheism is not a religion rather a lack of.

You're right! I can't believe no one's ever pointed that out before.

[anonymous.john]

I've been an atheist/anti-theist for two years, and I'm a lot happier now.

I'd like to point out that the poll makes an incorrect distinction between gnosticism and theism. Agnostic and Christian, or Agnostic and Atheist are not mutually exclusive. You can be both. In fact, most people are agnostics. Gnosticism only refers to whether or not you claim to know that God/Gods do or do not exist. Theism refers to whether or not you believe a god exists. Most people who practically consider themselves "Agnostic" can, in reality, be considered Atheists. An Atheist is simply someone who is not, overall, convinced that a God exists. If you doubt that a god exists (not have doubts, but think that it's improbable) or are unsure of a god's existence, then you are an atheist. An anti-theist is someone who actively holds the position that no (theistic/personal) gods exist.

[whodatbe]

i'm christian, methodist to be exact, and i support whatever choices people make: it's their life not mine

[SilentlyCrying]

I'm atheist; I do not believe in god, heaven, hell, or anything in between. I was born Roman Catholic, but failed to keep it. I think that the bible was written by some people, who worked very hard at getting to the good qualities in a person, but missed some along the way. These people work well as fictional characters to teach young children lessons, but other than that, I think it's wrong because some of it is just plain mean.

[Death]

I'm atheist; I do not believe in god, heaven, hell, or anything in between. I was born Roman Catholic, but failed to keep it. I think that the bible was written by some people, who worked very hard at getting to the good qualities in a person, but missed some along the way. These people work well as fictional characters to teach young children lessons, but other than that, I think it's wrong because some of it is just plain mean.

Worked hard? What about all the inconsistencies in the bible? I agree with the rest of what you say though.

[anonymous53]

Atheist, for many reasons. I believe religion in it's purest form is a good thing, but once people start twisting it for their own means it becomes corrupt.

[Death]

Atheist, for many reasons. I believe religion in it's purest form is a good thing, but once people start twisting it for their own means it becomes corrupt.

"it's purest form"? Really?

No, I'm not getting at the grammatical ("it is") error. I'm getting at the logic.

What do you mean by its purest form? If you look in the bible there are many downright awful quotes. Therefore, if people followed the bible exactly, then they would be expected to follow said bits.

[music is my soul]

im christian and i beleive that the bible is correct for the most part. im not saying i never question what it says but i beleive it is true and understanding those "down right awful quotes" is one of the things you have to understand as your growing up christian. im not saying any of you guys are wrong with what you say, im just saying that you guys just may not understand it to the fullest extent of a preist or someone who has lived with the bible in their household for generations.

[Sage]

im christian and i beleive that the bible is correct for the most part. im not saying i never question what it says but i beleive it is true and understanding those "down right awful quotes" is one of the things you have to understand as your growing up christian. im not saying any of you guys are wrong with what you say, im just saying that you guys just may not understand it to the fullest extent of a preist or someone who has lived with the bible in their household for generations.

Do you "understand it"?

[Death]

understanding those "down right awful quotes" is one of the things you have to understand as your growing up christian.

How do you understand them?

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. Zechariah 13:3 (kill all 'false' prophets)

If a man lies with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they have both commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13 (kill all male homosexuals)

These two of a redicilous amount of examples seem pretty clear to me.

[music is my soul]

not to the extent of a preist but yeah i understand tot the point that any thirteen year old christian with parents and grandparents that grew up chirtian. and i go to a roman catholic school so i kinda have to. now im not saying im better than anyone for knowing the bible if anyone takes it that way

[Death]

not to the extent of a preist but yeah i understand tot the point that any thirteen year old christian with parents and grandparents that grew up chirtian. and i go to a roman catholic school so i kinda have to. now im not saying im better than anyone for knowing the bible if anyone takes it that way

What about my bible quotes? Do you agree with them?

[music is my soul]

okay let me put it this way. you cant just understand what two bible quotes mean. in catholic schools they put aside an entire period to help the students understand the bible and the ways of catholics. same with sunday school and church. and for those bible verse i am not a hundred percent sure what you mean. but zachariah and leviticus are two of the lesser taught books of the bible.

[Death]

okay let me put it this way. you cant just understand what two bible quotes mean.

Oh lawd, what have these people taught you? No offense, but I fail to see how you would be unable to understand what the bible clearly says. And even then, couldn't you just read the context (which may or may not help you knowing how unreliable the bible is likely to be given the sheer amount of writers and thus differing opinions)?

in catholic schools they put aside an entire period to help the students understand the bible and the ways of catholics.

Really? Just for that? What a waste of time. That period should either be spent on understanding more about the facts of religion on the whole or on other subjects or purposes.

same with sunday school and church. and for those bible verse i am not a hundred percent sure what you mean.

What part of what I said can you not comprehend?

but zachariah and leviticus are two of the lesser taught books of the bible.

If you don't mind me asking, what exactly do you mean by "lesser" in this context?

[music is my soul]

it wasnt that i could comprehend them it was i couldnt comprehend the wording. i searched the two verse and i found one i could better understand. listen ive got to go but ill pm you later if your not on in an hour or two and i will glady try to explain what you want as best as i can.

[Sage]

it wasnt that i could comprehend them it was i couldnt comprehend the wording. i searched the two verse and i found one i could better understand. listen ive got to go but ill pm you later if your not on in an hour or two and i will glady try to explain what you want as best as i can.

Do you believe other religions are true?

[music is my soul]

okay this ones hard to answer. i beleive that everyone has their religion and if they want to follow it go ahead im not stopping anyone. but i beleive that catholisism(sry if i misspelled it) is the one true religion. but heck techneclly everyone with a religion is taught to beleive that their religion is the one true religion. so yes i do beleive in other religions. do i beleive that they teach the same as christianity no. sry if im confusing you but it was a question that could go two ways.

[Sage]

but i beleive that catholisism(sry if i misspelled it) is the one true religion.

Why?

[music is my soul]

because thats the way ive been raised and taught.

[Sage]

because thats the way ive been raised and taught.

So you just believe everything adults tell you?

[music is my soul]

theres a difference in beleive something someone has told and faith. in my case it is faith. if i didnt beleive in christianity or had faith in it i would have converted by now.

[Sage]

theres a difference in beleive something someone has told and faith.
Not really. Neither require you to think very hard.

if i didnt beleive in christianity or had faith in it i would have converted by now.
But why do you believe it and not any of the other religions? There's nothing to suggest your beliefs are any more valid than any other religious beliefs.

[music is my soul]

thats where faith plays its role. and yes theres a difference in beleiving in something someone has told you and faith. but you have to be willing to except it to be able to understand it. now please dont take this the wrong way cause i am really not trying to look down on anyone or trying to make anyone feel bad. i am just stating what i think. now i bleive that athiest dont have the exact same sense of the word faith then christians do. its something very few people can explain. i know i cant i can try but it might be different then the next persons. any more questions because i can talk all night if you want me to.

[Sogeking]

How do you understand them?

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. Zechariah 13:3 (kill all 'false' prophets)

If a man lies with mankind as he lieth with a woman, they have both commited an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13 (kill all male homosexuals)

These two of a redicilous amount of examples seem pretty clear to me.

Your pulling quotes out of context here.

[Sage]

now i bleive that athiest dont have the exact same sense of the word faith then christians do.

No, both parties have the exact same sense of what 'faith' means. Faith is the belief in something with no evidence to support it. The only difference is that atheists think it is stupid to believe in something without reason where as Christians do not. It is stupid to believe in something with no good evidence.

[music is my soul]

have you been reading our conversation? cuase it would be nice for you to jump in so we can have another voice in this.

[Sage]

No, both parties have the exact same sense of what 'faith' means. Faith is the belief in something with no evidence to support it. The only difference is that atheists think it is stupid to believe in something without reason where as Christians do not. It is stupid to believe in something with no good evidence.

have you been reading our conversation? cuase it would be nice for you to jump in so we can have another voice in this.

It'd be nice if you addressed the point I just made.

[music is my soul]

sry wasnt trying to reject your point. anyway, i think your putting every single christian in one point and you think that all christians are the same. even if we practice the same religion it doesnt mean we are all the same. we are human. we are all different. i know i think more outside the box in the sense of religion more than my friends do (they are christian to). and what do you mean by without reason?

[deadpie]

Your pulling quotes out of context here.

v59b0iTRIs4

Yeah, about that.

[Sage]

sry wasnt trying to reject your point. anyway, i think your putting every single christian in one point and you think that all christians are the same.
All christians have faith, and thus they all believe in something without reason or evidence. That's not generalizing- that's a fact. I'm completely correct and fair in what I'm saying, because on this most basic level, what I'm criticizing christians for does apply to each and every single one.

and what do you mean by without reason?
I mean there is no evidence for any of the gargantuan claims in the Bible. There is no evidence that the Red Sea was ever parted, there is no evidence that curses fell upon the land of Egypt, there is no evidence that dragons (http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=dragon&searchtype=all&version1=9&spanbegin=1&spanend=73) ever walked the earth, or that the earth was ever flooded, or any of these things.

[music is my soul]

accually there is evidence that a large flood accured in the east. the black sea over flowed and wiped out everything between it and the mediteranian sea. and there are texts stating that there were great famens during the time of moses. maybe you should brush up on your facts before you try to make me look stupid. but yeah not everything can be proven because all of this happened thousands of years ago. but some of the things can and have been proven to have happened.

[Sage]

maybe you should brush up on your facts before you try to make me look stupid.

Maybe you should provide sources for those "facts" before you succeed in making yourself look stupid. I'm not sure if you're aware, but a flood between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean...

http://i55.tinypic.com/2db5gz9.jpg

...doesn't really stack up to the flood described in the Bible.

http://i56.tinypic.com/zj9xn7.jpg

[anonymous53]

"it's purest form"? Really?

No, I'm not getting at the grammatical ("it is") error. I'm getting at the logic.

What do you mean by its purest form? If you look in the bible there are many downright awful quotes. Therefore, if people followed the bible exactly, then they would be expected to follow said bits.

Purest form. The lowest level, what it started out as. A set of guidelines to live your life by. Not the bible.
This means all religions.

[Sage]

Purest form. The lowest level, what it started out as.

How do you know what religion started as?

[music is my soul]

oh my gosh a flood can receed you do know that right. and the time of noah was before moses so it was at least three to four thousand years ago. and i was watching some show on the history channel, and you know those facts have to be right or extremely close to the truth to get on TV.

[Sage]

and you know those facts have to be right or extremely close to the truth to get on TV.

http://i52.tinypic.com/30a8awz.gif

No, I'm afraid that's now how the world works. A worldwide flood is physically impossible. You need only do a simple search on Youtube and you'll find many videos wherein actual scientists will explain how it isn't possible. Even if it did happen, are you really going to argue that Noah got ALL species of life on Earth aboard his boat? What about the termites, and the woodpeckers? Even if he did do that, with only two of every species alive to mate with eachother, their offspring would have to mate incestuously and the species would die off in only a few generations due to lack of genetic diversity in their DNA structures and the abnormalities that come with incest.

[deadpie]

accually there is evidence that a large flood accured in the east.

The Flood would have no purpose unless it flooded the entire earth to the mountain tops, but there is not enough water on earth to flood every continent to the top of the highest mountains. Forty days of the heaviest rain imaginable would scarecely make a difference and, in any case, rain comes from the sea and would quicky drain back into the sea.

The Bible vaguely mentions water from the deep - under the earth - but there never was any such water. In any case it would have to defy the laws of gravity to reach the surface, and to stay there for a whole year.

The Bible says that Noah lived for a further 350 years after the Flood. Having personally talked to God, been rescued from the greatest disaster in human history, and being the direct ancestor of every living person, it is inconceivable that no written record exists of the subsequent life of this great man. No one sought Noah's advice, and even the worship of the God who had saved Noah had totally disappeared by the time of Abraham, who knew nothing of his supposedly still-living ancestor.


The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers
Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius
Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers
Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers
The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.
Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level
= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3
Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest
= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3
The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3
Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

Sources: Here. (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_some_proofs_against_the_Biblical_flood)
Here. (http://www.space.com/)
Here. (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm)

[music is my soul]

it was not a world wide flood it was a flood that happened between the black sea and the medateranian sea that receeded a few thousand years ago. and dew to that information he only took two of every animal that was native to the area. and heck maybe by some freak of nature those animals that were there with noah mutated or what ever you want to call it during or after the flood andbecame the animals we know of today.

[Sage]

it was not a world wide flood it was a flood that happened between the black sea and the medateranian sea that receeded a few thousand years ago. and dew to that information he only took two of every animal that was native to the area. and heck maybe by some freak of nature those animals that were there with noah mutated or what ever you want to call it during or after the flood andbecame the animals we know of today.

A flood on that scale alone would still leave a considerable amount of evidence behind, none of which you are sharing. Saying you saw a documentary on TV is not evidence and if that's all you have to debate with then I'm afraid this argument isn't going to be a pleasant experience for you.

Besides- false things are broadcasted on TV all the time. You can't trust TV anymore than you can trust human beings, like your parents and clergy.

[music is my soul]

okay well just google it just to see if im right or wrong. im mean really if im wrong im wrong. its not like the world hangs in the balance over this one conversation. if im wrong i will admit it. you will have semi proof. but then again werent you the one that said that you cant beleive everything your told.

[Sage]

okay well just google it just to see if im right or wrong. im mean really if im wrong im wrong. its not like the world hangs in the balance over this one conversation. if im wrong i will admit it. you will have semi proof. but then again werent you the one that said that you cant beleive everything your told.

Why be wrong when you can be right? That's an incredibly poor outlook on life.

[Sugaree]

okay well just google it just to see if im right or wrong. im mean really if im wrong im wrong. its not like the world hangs in the balance over this one conversation. if im wrong i will admit it. you will have semi proof. but then again werent you the one that said that you cant beleive everything your told.

It's nice to see that you go from one set of opinions to a completely different set in just a few posts. That's definitely how to debate. Don't come into a debate and say "google it" to someone who is arguing against your point. For future reference, why not try reading this (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=23512), because you might get some useful tips from it.

[music is my soul]

im not saying im wrong. im saying i am willing to be wrong if someone has the facts to back it up. and thats not my outlook on life.

listen murdoc. thanks for the help but i can fight my own fight.

[deadpie]

it was not a world wide flood it was a flood that happened between the black sea and the medateranian sea that receeded a few thousand years ago. and dew to that information he only took two of every animal that was native to the area. and heck maybe by some freak of nature those animals that were there with noah mutated or what ever you want to call it during or after the flood andbecame the animals we know of today.

Story of Noah's Ark was a universal flood. The flood your thinking of is from the "Black Sea deluge theory", which has nothing to do with religion. Good try though. Allot of dumb-asses will say that universal is supposed to mean everything Noah could see from a distance, but that doesn't fit the definition so that's why they're dumb-asses.

Also,

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?

From one of the links in a previous post.

[Sage]

im not saying im wrong. im saying i am willing to be wrong if someone has the facts to back it up.

No, that's not how debates work. You're the one making the claim: "There was a flood between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea." It's not up to us to disprove it, it's up to you to prove it. All we've been saying is that you have yet to bring up any evidence that supports that claim, and again, saying you saw a documentary on TV is not evidence.

Even if there was a flood, you would still have to prove that a man named Noah existed, you'd have to prove that he built a boat and got all those animals on it, you'd have to prove that God exists and that only he could have caused such a flood... the list goes on.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[music is my soul]

okay try thinking of all this as if you were living back then. a flood that covered a large area of land to the point that water was completly surrounding you for hundreds of miles would seem like it covered the whole planet. and they were only on the sea for forty days and forty nights. you gotta think at that point they also thought the earth was flat.

[Sage]

you gotta think at that point they also thought the earth was flat.

You also gotta think that they have since been proven completely wrong.

[deadpie]

okay try thinking of all this as if you were living back then. a flood that covered a large area of land to the point that water was completly surrounding you for hundreds of miles would seem like it covered the whole planet. and they were only on the sea for forty days and forty nights. you gotta think at that point they also thought the earth was flat.

There! You just proved the Bible is bullshit! Congratulations. The thread is over and we can all go home to eat some pie.

[music is my soul]

i did not say the bible is bull shit i was saying that it has its rough spots and i was trying to show you guys that some of the things the bible talks about really happened. but obviously you guys are to blinded by what you understand.

[deadpie]

i did not say the bible is bull shit i was saying that it has its rough spots and i was trying to show you guys that some of the things the bible talks about really happened. but obviously you guys are to blinded by what you understand.

Bible has rough spots = Bible is bullshit.

Bible is unreasonable = Bible is bullshit.

There's no evidence of the flood = Flood is bullshit.

Noah didn't exist = Noah didn't exist.

Ok! Seems like we're done here. Can I go home now?

[Bougainvillea]

i did not say the bible is bull shit i was saying that it has its rough spots and i was trying to show you guys that some of the things the bible talks about really happened. but obviously you guys are to blinded by what you understand.

I think you're just blinded by ignorance, and your god delusion.

[music is my soul]

okay two things who said the bible was unreasonable and who said noah didnt exist? what the fuck stop making shit up.

[Sage]

okay two things who said the bible was unreasonable and who said noah didnt exist? what the fuck stop making shit up.

Noah's existence has yet to be proven, actually.

[Bougainvillea]

You just said it had rough spots. You said they wrote what they could only see.
okay try thinking of all this as if you were living back then. a flood that covered a large area of land to the point that water was completly surrounding you for hundreds of miles would seem like it covered the whole planet.

That has an unreasonable undertone to me.

you gotta think at that point they also thought the earth was flat.

This sentence (roughly speaking) pretty much says it.

[deadpie]

okay two things who said the bible was unreasonable

You said "it has its rough spots", which is a watered down meaning of you saying that The Bible has unreasonable bullshit. You just don't want to admit you agree because that would mean you would be wrong.

and who said noah didnt exist? what the fuck stop making shit up.

I'm making shit up? Last time I checked it was The Bible with all the made up shit. Noah didn't exist because there's no factual records to prove his existence (other than The Bible ((Which isn't factual)) ).

Don't get angry man. I know it sucks being wrong. Trust me, I'm wrong all the time. I just failed a math test.

[music is my soul]

im sry but that just crossed the line sweet pea.

and is it really three against one.

[Bougainvillea]

im sry but that just crossed the line sweet pea.

and is it really three against one.

Why? You just called them ignorant.

Yes.
Because you're the only person who's willing to argue that humans, and dinosaurs coexisted, and that an invisible cloud man controls all.

[Sage]

im sry but that just crossed the line sweet pea.

and is it really three against one.

It doesn't matter how many people are against one if the one person has facts and evidence on their side. Unfortunately, you do not.

[music is my soul]

there you go again crossing the fucking line. listen guys i dont care about being wrong but im fighting for what i beleive in just like you guys. now if you guys want to keep fighting about it tomorrow i will happylly. ill be back on tomorrow. and im not giving up this fight.

[Sage]

and im not giving up this fight.

Are you going to start using evidence?

[music is my soul]

i guess i have to dont i? trust me i will find something and even if i dont ill still fight winning or not.

[Peace God]

there you go again crossing the fucking line. listen guys i dont care about being wrong but im fighting for what i beleive in just like you guys. now if you guys want to keep fighting about it tomorrow i will happylly. ill be back on tomorrow. and im not giving up this fight.music is my soul...now I know that your putting faith in your church members and what they tell about the bible because they "understand" it. But you should take the time to understand it yourself. A lot of us here have been saying that the bible isn't true and you should be looking to decide for yourself whether or not it's true. I mean seriously, this (http://youtu.be/kviHx7bEstw) is what happens when you really understand the bible and believe it to be true. Probably not what most of your church members or priests would agree with.

So try to ignore how heated the debate may seem. And come to your own conclusions on what you believe in and feel free to discuss them once you do.

[Amnesiac]

there you go again crossing the fucking line.

What is this 'line' you keep talking about? From what I see here, it's you against three of VT's skeptics who are conducting a pretty formal debate based on evidence and scientific theory. There's no personal attacks going on here.

You keep getting angry because the beliefs that you chose to bring to Ramblings of the Wise are being challenged. Why is it that, once religion is brought into the equation, it suddenly becomes unacceptable to challenge it? Why does a 'line' have to be established?

If you want anyone here to take you seriously, you need to let go of these unreasonable emotional attachments you have to the subject and debate it using evidence, instead of distorted stories from an ancient text.

[Sage]

i guess i have to dont i? trust me i will find something and even if i dont ill still fight winning or not.

You're supposed to find evidence before coming to a conclusion. You're not supposed to come to a conclusion right off the bat and find evidence to back it up. Also, there's nothing noble or admirable about being unreasonably stubborn.

[deadpie]

listen guys i dont care about being wrong but im fighting for what i beleive in just like you guys.

Don't debate if you don't care about being wrong. Seriously the debate can't go anywhere if one of the debaters admits they won't listen or prove anything they say right. The debate can't go anywhere if people aren't willing themselves to be proven wrong.

Either admit you're wrong or present facts and evidence to prove what you say.

[music is my soul]

no no commander awesome its more of a mental (for lack of a better word) limit for me. i personally cant stand it when someone goes out and just makes fun of my God(as a catholic) and says he doesnt exist. and im sure any catholic would feel that way.

[Amnesiac]

no no commander awesome its more of a mental (for lack of a better word) limit for me. i personally cant stand it when someone goes out and just makes fun of my God(as a catholic) and says he doesnt exist. and im sure any catholic would feel that way.

Well, you should get rid of that mental limit. It's obviously not healthy, and it's not going to come in handy later in life.

Besides, nobody's "making fun" of your God, we're simply debating why the points you've raised are implausible. You need to understand that you can't simply believe in your religion, talk about it, and then curl up into a ball when someone presents an alternate opinion.

[Bougainvillea]

no no commander awesome its more of a mental (for lack of a better word) limit for me. i personally cant stand it when someone goes out and just makes fun of my God(as a catholic) and says he doesnt exist. and im sure any catholic would feel that way.

What if we get offended by you implying "God" does exist?

It's not a one way street, man.

you can't simply believe in your religion, talk about it, and then curl up into a ball when someone presents an alternate opinion.

That's what religion is about though. To them, there are no alternative opinions.

[deadpie]

no no commander awesome its more of a mental (for lack of a better word) limit for me. i personally cant stand it when someone goes out and just makes fun of my God(as a catholic) and says he doesnt exist. and im sure any catholic would feel that way.

We're not making fun of your God. We're just disproving his existence and everything else you say. If you can't handle a debate, then you probably shouldn't have even started posting in a debate thread in the first place. I'm done with replying to you until you start posting some factual evidence to prove your points. Until then I'm going home to eat some pie already.

[Sage]

I can respect your right to hold a belief without respect the belief itself. Believe whatever you want- I just think that the stunning lack of evidence to support it makes it incredibly childish and stupid.

[Death]

no no commander awesome its more of a mental (for lack of a better word) limit for me. i personally cant stand it when someone goes out and just makes fun of my God(as a catholic) and says he doesnt exist. and im sure any catholic would feel that way.

Why does that really upset you? If you are so immature that you have to resort to 'taking offense' when people do not agree with your babble, do you really think that you should be posting in RotW, a place to debate? Unless you want to fall flat on your face on every argument, I suggest you actually try to argue back maturely with real refutals with evidence to back them up instead of just whinging about how you are supposedly being attacked and having an imaginery line crossed.

EDIT: I also notice how you haven't really adressed any of the points I made 3 pages ago. Any particular reason for that?

[bvboy]

Noah's existence has yet to be proven, actually.

I think all they've found is like pieces of the ark or something, but still, so much of the bible is symbolic, not literal. Adam and Eve is obviously symbolic. Noah's ark might be too. Or the story of Jacob, may be at least partially symbolic. I think only the new testament is supposed to be taken literally. The rest is like half/half.

Peace

[deadpie]

I think all they've found is like pieces of the ark or something, but still, so much of the bible is symbolic, not literal. Adam and Eve is obviously symbolic. Noah's ark might be too. Or the story of Jacob, may be at least partially symbolic. I think only the new testament is supposed to be taken literally. The rest is like half/half.

Peace

YES! SYMBOLIC! I just LOVE it when Christians use the symbolic excuse! Was the story of Jesus symbolic too? Were the nails driven into his hand supposed to represent how useless of a sacrifice he was? What the hell is so symbolic about Noah's Ark?

Think about this: Why did the flood happen? God wanted to kill all the "wicked" humans on the earth.

OBVIOUSLY it didn't work.

The story is a pile of heaping bullshit on fire at my front door and I have to keep stomping on it to put the flames out. How much more do I need to give you Christians to prove Noah's Ark wrong?

You know, I really wish Ripple wasn't banned so there was at least one Christian who would be willing to give evidence and try to prove us Atheists wrong with good debates.

[bvboy]

YES! SYMBOLIC! I just LOVE it when Christians use the symbolic excuse! Was the story of Jesus symbolic too? Were the nails driven into his hand supposed to represent how useless of a sacrifice he was? What the hell is so symbolic about Noah's Ark?

Think about this: Why did the flood happen? God wanted to kill all the "wicked" humans on the earth.

OBVIOUSLY it didn't work.

The story is a pile of heaping bullshit on fire at my front door and I have to keep stomping on it to put the flames out. How much more do I need to give you Christians to prove Noah's Ark wrong?

You know, I really wish Ripple wasn't banned so there was at least one Christian who would be willing to give evidence and try to prove us Atheists wrong with good debates.

Ok, calm down... I thought this was civilized, no need to call the bible bullshit. And even if it isn't true, that doesn't disprove the existence of God. The existence of God isn't proven by a bunch of books written 2000+ years ago, it is proven by reasoning. The whole contingency theory, I think there are like five theories from Thomas of Aquinas that are metaphysical reasonings of why God does in fact exist.
Physical proof? I don't think anyone will ever find it really, I mean, even the Shroud of Turin, which is pretty amazing, isn't really direct proof that God exists. But I mean there isn't physical proof about so many other things that people do believe exist.

Now specifically about the bible, I believe I said some of the things written were symbolic, so like parables in the New testament, but Jesus's death did actually happen, and there is actually scientific and historical proof that a) He existed, and b) that He died the way it's described in the bible.

Now, please, don't respond in some pissed off "the bible is bullshit" way, because it does diminish your credibility. I respect your opinion and your arguments.

[Magus]

Now specifically about the bible, I believe I said some of the things written were symbolic, so like parables in the New testament, but Jesus's death did actually happen, and there is actually scientific and historical proof that a) He existed, and b) that He died the way it's described in the bible.


According to the Quran, Jesus didn't die the way bible describes it, and there is are several 'scientific' evidences by Muslim clerics about how Jesus died and or existed.

[bvboy]

Oh, What does the Qoran say?
In this case, it would be which ever evidence is more provable I guess, because if the two theories are contradictory in some way, they can't both be true. anyhow, Judaism, christianity and Islam believe in the existence of the same God.

[Jess]

let me ask you, music is my soul. The Bible says - not directly - that the Earth is 6000 years old (not sure if this is right, sorry if I'm wrong :/). do you believe that? and there are fossils that are wayyyyyy older than that, aren't there? Millions of years old?

[music is my soul]

no i dont. but you gotta think some of the events in the old testament were most likly taking longer than stated. like in genesis. it says the earth was created in six days. but facts have shown that it must have taken millions of years. so most likly the proportions were told differently then they are measured today. therefore (with the facts given) the earth must be older than stated in the bible. now dont go yelling at me that i just stated that the bible is wrong becuase like i said before the proportions were most likly measured differently.

[Death]

no i dont. but you gotta think some of the events in the old testament were most likly taking longer than stated. like in genesis. it says the earth was created in six days. but facts have shown that it must have taken millions of years. so most likly the proportions were told differently then they are measured today.

There you go. Evidence that genesis is bullshit. But then, this was already obvious. (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/2010/1/genesis-wrong-scientifically-1.htm)

therefore (with the facts given) the earth must be older than stated in the bible. now dont go yelling at me that i just stated that the bible is wrong becuase like i said before the proportions were most likly measured differently.

We're not yelling, we're actually debating.

[music is my soul]

how is that bullshit.

[Death]

how is that bullshit.

Did you read the link I sent you? Genesis was obviously written by an idiot(s) who knew nothing about the laws of science. What does that say about its credibility?

Besides, you just said the the proportions are wrong. Come on, talk about obvious questions.

[music is my soul]

they didnt know half of the laws of science. the book of genesis was writen thousands of years ago. and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

[Death]

they didnt know half of the laws of science. the book of genesis was writen thousands of years ago. and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

What the hell do you think it has to do with? I'm telling you exactly why a huge chunk of the bible's false and therefore why you shouldn't believe every story from it. Do you really take a literal or near-literal interpretation of its stories? Like Noah's Ark? Or the story of creation? Besides, if either of these stories were true, we'd all be commiting incest when we breed.

[Bougainvillea]

It has everything to do with what a lot of people in today's society base their beliefs on.

[music is my soul]

okay this may help you guys see the way i think. i believe that God created the earth through science. i believe that He created us through evolution. and i believe that religion and science are really very closly inter twinned. but thats the way i think. and i know i am a very confusing person.

[Death]

okay this may help you guys see the way i think. i believe that God created the earth through science.

Everything works through science.

i believe that He created us through evolution.

Wrong. Evolution is not a theory which explains how we were created. It explains how we change.

and i believe that religion and science are really very closly inter twinned.

Apart from their ability to co-exist, how the hell are two completely different subjects similar to each other? For starters, one's based on facts and evidence (and theories based on this); the other is based on nothing but the opinion of a few misinformed bigots through history.

but thats the way i think. and i know i am a very confusing person.

Then try harder to make us understand. I've lost count of the number of points you've never adressed and ignored from the five people who have debated with you so far.

[Perseus]

they didnt know half of the laws of science. the book of genesis was writen thousands of years ago. and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

Isn't the Bible the word of God, though? It should be verbatim from God's mouth.

[slappy]

I don't believe in god at all

[embers]

Everything works through science.

This (http://www.cracked.com/article_17679_7-awesome-acts-nature-that-science-cant-explain.html) and that (http://www.cracked.com/article_18508_6-terrifying-diseases-that-science-cant-explain.html) are things you brought to my mind but aren't really counter-arguments to what you said.

[Severus Snape]

they didnt know half of the laws of science. the book of genesis was writen thousands of years ago. and what does that have to do with anything anyway.

I am going to infer you are a Christian based on your previous posts. Let me help you explain how science has systematically and over the centuries slowly chipped away at the facade that is general religious ignorance.

Justifying the old testament is useless, as it is simply an incoherent collection of desert scribblings written by the Middle East's first (popular) single god worshiping culture.

but I digress. The problem with Christianity right now is that dogmatic, central tenets of the faith have been disprove by science. This leaves its adherents stranded intellectually stranded. The result of this is the development of a particularly odious sect of apologists attempting to reconcile scientific truth with ancient dogma. They are failing. They are failing miserably. The development of concepts such as intelligent design is a moral failing of the apologists who think it is ok for them simply to doctor up the ignorance of two thousand years of Christian thought with a simple reworking of their principles to fit the facts. Its a pathetic attempt to save face in an almost futile attempt to save organized religion from itself.

[Death]

This (http://www.cracked.com/article_17679_7-awesome-acts-nature-that-science-cant-explain.html) and that (http://www.cracked.com/article_18508_6-terrifying-diseases-that-science-cant-explain.html) are things you brought to my mind but aren't really counter-arguments to what you said.

Interesting, and I can accept that science doesn't know everything. But it doesn't pretend it does.

[Continuum]

No. That was a near accurate and correct description on Islam and its differences between Christianity.

Religion of Peace, huh.

Interesting, and I can accept that science doesn't know everything. But it doesn't pretend it does.

Well, at least it tries to discover more of the indiscoverable.

[Sogeking]

lol
http://www.shwiggie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/atheism.jpg#atheist%20idiots /joke

[Severus Snape]

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a set of beliefs.

[deadpie]

lol (picture)

It's funny because allot of Christians do think this is what everything atheist believes in. They literally think every atheist believes in the big bang and evolution - nothing else.

[Death]

lol
image (http://www.shwiggie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/atheism.jpg#atheist%20idiots) /joke

You reminded me of this:

http://whitemaleoppressor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Christianity.jpg

[Peace God]

You reminded me of this:

image (http://whitemaleoppressor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Christianity.jpg)

WVJ-Wlacc-E

[Genghis Khan]

Religion's a bit like wanking. It's personal and you shouldn't shove it in other people's faces... crude man. I'm an Atheist, btw.


lol
image (http://www.shwiggie.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/atheism.jpg#atheist%20idiots) /joke

Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. You may argue that that would take just as much faith but I can answer this question with a question, does it take as much faith to disbelieve in bigfoot than it does to believe in bigfoot?

Btw. On a side note, Atheism and evolution aren't linked, neither is Atheism an ideology/dogma. It's a single position that states you reject the supernatural.

Damn, that felt good :cool:

[Jess]

^

you know that Sogeking put /joke? He knows it's not a belief.

[embers]

^

you know that Sogeking put /joke? He knows it's not a belief.

Yeah my brother's a noob. :)

[Genghis Khan]

^

you know that Sogeking put /joke? He knows it's not a belief.

My bad, yeah I am a n00b. I only looked at the picture, not the 'lol' or /joke next to it.

[Jody Jackson]

Salvationist

[Death]

Salvationist

I fucking hate their name. It suggests that non-Christians aren't getting to Heaven and are instead roasting in Hell.

[Blake1994]

I'm Roman Catholic.

[Magus]

I'm Roman Catholic.
Hi! And I am Salafi Sunnite Muslim!

[Death]

I'm Roman Catholic.

And your reasoning (which you probably won't give)...

[Blake1994]

And your reasoning (which you probably won't give)...

What do you mean my reasoning? There is no reasoning dude. That's what my entire family is. I was baptized as a Catholic when I was born. I don't see what you mean by reasoning.

[Death]

What do you mean my reasoning? There is no reasoning dude. That's what my entire family is. I was baptized as a Catholic when I was born. I don't see what you mean by reasoning.

*Facepalm*, you're in a fucking debate forum (RotW - "a place to debate"), for goodness sake. Unless you have reasoning, you shouldn't post here. I'm sick of telling you people.

[georgiamay]

What do you mean my reasoning? There is no reasoning dude. That's what my entire family is. I was baptized as a Catholic when I was born. I don't see what you mean by reasoning.

Just out of curiousity...
You say you were raised a catholic, is that the only reason you continue to follow this religion? Because your family does?

[Blake1994]

Just out of curiousity...
You say you were raised a catholic, is that the only reason you continue to follow this religion? Because your family does?

It's a big part of it. But I'm pretty happy with it. I'm not devout Catholic, but I am happy with my religion.

[NomSan]

I'm Atheist.

[Death]

I'm Atheist.

Why?

It's a big part of it. But I'm pretty happy with it. I'm not devout Catholic, but I am happy with my religion.

If your family views are a big part of why you believe them, then that suggests that they're not worth shit. If you were brought up in India, you may well have been a Hindu. If you were brought up in ancient Greece, you may well have been believing in gods like Thor. But then again, I don't know why I'm bothering to refute you since you're probably not going to justify your arguments anyway, just like I guessed.

[Blake1994]

Why?



If your family views are a big part of why you believe them, then that suggests that they're not worth shit. If you were brought up in India, you may well have been a Hindu. If you were brought up in ancient Greece, you may well have been believing in gods like Thor. But then again, I don't know why I'm bothering to refute you since you're probably not going to justify your arguments anyway, just like I guessed.

Thor wasn't a Greek God. He was a Norse God. And you know nothing about my family or my family views, so think what you like dude.

[JoshPagan]

I'm what it says in my name, Paganism, very related to Wicca. I guess you could say Paganism is the relative of Wicca. They both share the same traditions.

As we say, Blessed Be!

[georgiamay]

I'm an atheist. I used to go to church with my step mum and her family, and I did the whole God thing, but after a while, I started to think for myself.

If there was a God, I don't think he'd create such a flawed species. Humans are so flawed, we continuously give in to temptation, we continuously look at others in a lustful way (no matter how much you deny it, everyone has), and that's not our fault, that's just our brain telling us that the person we're looking at has nice genetic material to create an offspring with.

I'm going to focus on Christianity here, but if God really made us in his image, why does he tell us not to do the things he's built us to naturally do?

Also, I find the catholic Church rather hypocritical. They say we should help the poor, feed the hungry and cloth the sick, and yet there's the pope, in that huge building next to the church that's worth millions. They're so rich, it's unbelievable. And yet, the vatican is filled with poor people begging for money so that they can feed themselves, but do they help them? No, they leave them to get the odd euro off a tourist.

I also think the whole concept of a "hell" is stupid. When you punish a child for stealing, you only punish them temporarily, so that they know never to do it again. So what's with eternal punishment? What is the point in it? We're already dead, so we're not learning anything from it, we're hardly going to do it again if we're already dead.

I also think religion was "founded" (I couldn't think of an appropriate word) by rich leaders who used it to manipulate and control the poor and less fortunate people;
"No, don't rise against us so you can have a good live, because God will reward you in the next life if you're good."

They're the only reasons that seem to spring to mind right now.

[NomSan]

Why?


Because I don't believe in a God, I respect others that do have a religion, but I don't believe in one myself :)

[Sith Lord 13]

If you were brought up in ancient Greece, you may well have been believing in gods like Thor.

Thor is Norse, not Greek.

[embers]

*Facepalm*, you're in a fucking debate forum (RotW - "a place to debate")

A place to debate and discuss your ideas. If you haven't noticed, this is a poll asking people what their beliefs are - not to justify them.

[Peace God]

This fucking thread...
http://www.gameroo.com/covers/0000/0426/duck-hunt.jpg?1232971769

[jokoko]

Because I don't believe in a God

That's not answering why. You just restated your atheism. Glad to see that you respect what others believe.

[Apparitions]

I'm an atheist. I used to go to church with my step mum and her family, and I did the whole God thing, but after a while, I started to think for myself.

If there was a God, I don't think he'd create such a flawed species. Humans are so flawed, we continuously give in to temptation, we continuously look at others in a lustful way (no matter how much you deny it, everyone has), and that's not our fault, that's just our brain telling us that the person we're looking at has nice genetic material to create an offspring with.

I'm going to focus on Christianity here, but if God really made us in his image, why does he tell us not to do the things he's built us to naturally do?

Also, I find the catholic Church rather hypocritical. They say we should help the poor, feed the hungry and cloth the sick, and yet there's the pope, in that huge building next to the church that's worth millions. They're so rich, it's unbelievable. And yet, the vatican is filled with poor people begging for money so that they can feed themselves, but do they help them? No, they leave them to get the odd euro off a tourist.

I also think the whole concept of a "hell" is stupid. When you punish a child for stealing, you only punish them temporarily, so that they know never to do it again. So what's with eternal punishment? What is the point in it? We're already dead, so we're not learning anything from it, we're hardly going to do it again if we're already dead.

I also think religion was "founded" (I couldn't think of an appropriate word) by rich leaders who used it to manipulate and control the poor and less fortunate people;
"No, don't rise against us so you can have a good live, because God will reward you in the next life if you're good."

They're the only reasons that seem to spring to mind right now.
Great post. My thoughts on religion and shit are pretty much exactly the same as yours. I was also a good Christian (Catholic) until I reached 13 or so and stopped going to Church ever week and started thinking for myself. When you stop going to Church and stop being fed endless amounts of bullshit, contradictions and inaccuracies about 'God', I'd bet a lot of people would become Athiests.

A place to debate and discuss your ideas. If you haven't noticed, this is a poll asking people what their beliefs are - not to justify them.

In case you haven't yet realised, the thread has evolved (O LOOK, EVOLUTION...) into one where people debate and justify shit. If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned, why state them in the first place?

[anonymous53]

It's quite hard to explain what I am. I guess it would be atheist.

[Death]

Thor is Norse, not Greek.

Thor wasn't a Greek God. He was a Norse God.

Okay, so I confused a Greek god with a Norse god, sorry. But, my point (which has still not been addressed) still stands.

And you know nothing about my family or my family views, so think what you like dude.

I never claimed I did. But you are coming into a debate forum and refusing to justify yourself. Do you expect people to take your 'argument' seriously?

A place to debate and discuss your ideas. If you haven't noticed, this is a poll asking people what their beliefs are - not to justify them.

I would respond to this, but Apparitions (glad to have you back, by the way ;)), has very kindly explained:

In case you haven't yet realised, the thread has evolved (O LOOK, EVOLUTION...) into one where people debate and justify shit. If you can't handle your beliefs being questioned, why state them in the first place?

[deadpie]

It's a big part of it. But I'm pretty happy with it. I'm not devout Catholic, but I am happy with my religion.

So you just believe in what you're told to believe without any other reasoning or questioning of the belief itself? What can you bring to the table to maybe prove your religion is true? I mean, this is a debate room, so I'm interested in any proof or evidence you have.

Really I'm sick of people just going in this thread saying, "I'm Atheist", "I'm Catholic", etc... and then getting bothered that they're being debated. Why would you even post in here in the first place? Do you not realize you're probably going to have someone debating and asking you questions?

Pardon me for not wanting this to be another pointless survey thread, but actually have it somewhat interesting or make people think, but then again I don't think in the slightest sense that I've made a single religious person here think. Why? Because they don't want to listen to anything that tackles their beliefs. They try to shut off anything that might harm their faith.

If you're not going to listen to the other sides of the debate you shouldn't be debating and if you're not going to have a point in your debate then that's just stupid.

End statement.

[Blake1994]

So you just believe in what you're told to believe without any other reasoning or questioning of the belief itself? What can you bring to the table to maybe prove your religion is true?

WRONG. I am not told to believe in anything. I believe what I believe because I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT. I have never tried to prove my religion is right. I've never ever thought that, and I'm not trying to bring anything to the table. I simply said my religion is Roman Catholic, because this thread was a survey thing from what I first saw. I admit I did not take the time to read through the miles of postings in this thread. I obviously did not realize this had become a debate thread. I have nothing to prove, and I'm not going to argue or debate my beliefs with anyone. I don't criticize you or anyone else for what you believe, so accept it.

END OF DISCUSSION.

[Death]

WRONG. I am not told to believe in anything. I believe what I believe because I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT.

And here was me thinking you said you were brought up to believe it. But then me expecting you to keep your story straight is probably naive. I mean really, there's a reason you have pretty negative reputation.

I have never tried to prove my religion is right. I've never ever thought that, and I'm not trying to bring anything to the table.

This is the one thing you're supposed to do in a debate forum. If you're not going to do this, kindly leave. However, I'd rather you swallow your pride and actually addressed my points I made to you despite them questioning your 'unquestionable' (as fucking if) beliefs.

I simply said my religion is Roman Catholic, because this thread was a survey thing from what I first saw. I admit I did not take the time to read through the miles of postings in this thread.

Yes, I get that, but the ability to adapt is a good trait. Giving up, when things don't turn out as you expected, just like this won't be a good outlook later in life.

I have nothing to prove

Look at my signature. See that? It's the flying spaghetti monster. And you know what, it exists! What evidence do I have? None! But I expect people to take its existence seriously anyway. If you are going to make a claim, the burden of proof lies on you. If this wasn't the case, we'd have to believe any old crap from any person just because they say it.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Does that mean you'll ignore us? I sure hope not.

[Apparitions]

I wish we'd get more religious people on this thread that are ready to explain/debate their beliefs. It will get boring very quickly if all people do is say what religion they are and refuse to explain why, despite the very low probability of it being true, they are part of a religion and are sure their God exists etc. What happened to people like that guy with 'Reverend' in his username who continually quoted Bible passages?

Apparitions (glad to have you back, by the way ;))O HAI THERE, BRO :D !

[Death]

I wish we'd get more religious people on this thread that are ready to explain/debate their beliefs. It will get boring very quickly if all people do is say what religion they are and refuse to explain why, despite the very low probability of it being true, they are part of a religion and are sure their God exists etc.

I. Couldn't. Agree. More.

[Iceman]

WRONG. I am not told to believe in anything. I believe what I believe because I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE IT. I have never tried to prove my religion is right. I've never ever thought that, and I'm not trying to bring anything to the table. I simply said my religion is Roman Catholic, because this thread was a survey thing from what I first saw. I admit I did not take the time to read through the miles of postings in this thread. I obviously did not realize this had become a debate thread. I have nothing to prove, and I'm not going to argue or debate my beliefs with anyone. I don't criticize you or anyone else for what you believe, so accept it.

END OF DISCUSSION.

This is a debate thread. THe discussion will go on without you as VT isn't all about you. Now if you choose not to accept criticism then please do not post in the debate thread.

Oh and back to the thread, I'm agnostic.

[embers]

I wish we'd get more religious people on this thread that are ready to explain/debate their beliefs. It will get boring very quickly if all people do is say what religion they are and refuse to explain why, despite the very low probability of it being true, they are part of a religion and are sure their God exists etc.

This. I do want a good discussion with a religious person.

I am a pantheist of some sorts in that I believe the universe and what's out there should be considered more important than the main religions, which are mainly just holding us back in so many areas of study. Also, I hold the universe and everything in very high regards because of its beautiful complexity. But I like to challenge mono/polytheists because I see no reason to believe in the God(s) of a religion, or a creator.

[Blake1994]

And here was me thinking you said you were brought up to believe it. But then me expecting you to keep your story straight is probably naive. I mean really, there's a reason you have pretty negative reputation.



This is the one thing you're supposed to do in a debate forum. If you're not going to do this, kindly leave. However, I'd rather you swallow your pride and actually addressed my points I made to you despite them questioning your 'unquestionable' (as fucking if) beliefs.



Yes, I get that, but the ability to adapt is a good trait. Giving up, when things don't turn out as you expected, just like this won't be a good outlook later in life.



Look at my signature. See that? It's the flying spaghetti monster. And you know what, it exists! What evidence do I have? None! But I expect people to take its existence seriously anyway. If you are going to make a claim, the burden of proof lies on you. If this wasn't the case, we'd have to believe any old crap from any person just because they say it.



Does that mean you'll ignore us? I sure hope not.

DUDE, JUST GIVE IT A REST. You can keep trying to argue with me all you want, but I'm not changing my mind on anything. My views are my views, and your views are your views. End of story. I do not need to justify anything about what I think or believe to anyone, especially you. Oh, and I could care less about your Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really don't give a damn. Worry about you and I'll worry about me.

[Vonn]

DUDE, JUST GIVE IT A REST. You can keep trying to argue with me all you want, but I'm not changing my mind on anything. My views are my views, and your views are your views. End of story. I do not need to justify anything about what I think or believe to anyone, especially you. Oh, and I could care less about your Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really don't give a damn. Worry about you and I'll worry about me.

You don't want to or you're unable to?

[Iceman]

Let's cool this down a little big guys. Part of being a good debate is respecting other people's views also. As you expect him to respect the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you need to respect who he sees as God.

[Blake1994]

You don't want to or you're unable to?

I REFUSE TO.

I refuse to answer to anyone about my personal beliefs. I am done with this thread.

[jokoko]

Hey, I am a Christian. To specify, I believe what is written in the Nicean creed.

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.*
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.*

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy ... Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come."

As for why I believe this, let me give it to you in parts. First, the reason I believe the world was created is because nothing can come out of nonexistence, and because if the universe has, in fact, always been here then I wonder at how there are stars that still burn and how entropy hasn't worn all activity away. This is my reason for a God, but at this point I am still at the level of a deist. The reason I believe in a God that is intimately involved with his creation is that we, humans, all have a sense of right and wrong, a sense of how we should behave. If the creator of the universe wasn't personally involved with us, he wouldn't really care about how we behaved and wouldn't have given us this sense of good and bad (in terms of morality). And to avoid an avalanche of questions and refutes, I will pause here to answer/reply to your questions/arguments that I know are just itching to spew from your debate loving selves. Also, please be respectful and try not to be caustic in your replies. This forum is for people to share what they believe and why, not for people to harass others for thinking differently.

[Rainstorm]

Let me ask you a question, jokoko.

Do you find God as an infinite being or that he has been in human forms?

[Drake14]

Atheism isn't a religion, but ok. I chose that.

[deadpie]

As for why I believe this, let me give it to you in parts. First, the reason I believe the world was created is because nothing can come out of nonexistence

The good ol' something can't come from nothing debate. Well, that's not what the big bang theory claims. Creationists just like to jump to conclusions and skim through things pretending they know that they're talking/debating about. John Dalton also said that "atoms can’t be created nor destroyed", so that means there has always been something, right? Also, something can come from nothing in the case of quantum physics and virtual particles.

I saw this somewhere on a blog a long time ago -
"Something uncaused = caused by nothing??
If God is uncaused = caused by nothing??"

(sarcasm) Oh, something can't be uncaused, except God. Only God and nothing else. (end sarcasm)

[Death]

Let's cool this down a little big guys. Part of being a good debate is respecting other people's views also. As you expect him to respect the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you need to respect who he sees as God.

Just to clarify, I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster so I don't expect him to be respected. I was using that as a debate tactic only.

DUDE, JUST GIVE IT A REST. You can keep trying to argue with me all you want, but I'm not changing my mind on anything. My views are my views, and your views are your views. End of story. I do not need to justify anything about what I think or believe to anyone,

Like you gave it a rest in this topic (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=101424&page=5)? But that's beside the point. Why do you hold your views? And why are you trying to withdraw reason in a debate forum? I honestly want you to have a proper argument on this one. Don't just give up your position because I know you must be able to say something.

especially you.

Is this a personal attack I'm sensing? Why? What's special about us? What's wrong with atheism in your eyes?

Oh, and I could care less about your Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So you do care about my flying spaghetti monster then?

EDIT: Oh my god, you actually PMed me saying:

"Go get fucked and stop living your pathetic, sad, pitiful excuse of a life on a website. Judging by the amount of posts you've made on this site, that's apparently all you do with your life. Or better yet why don't you go fuck the magical flying spaghetti monster you little Limey Shit."

Well that explains everything.

[Magus]

"Go get fucked and stop living your pathetic, sad, pitiful excuse of a life on a website. Judging by the amount of posts you've made on this site, that's apparently all you do with your life. Or better yet why don't you go fuck the magical flying spaghetti monster you little Limey Shit."

Well that explains everything.
Oh my god. I laughed so fucking hard on that one.

[Death]

Oh my god. I laughed so fucking hard on that one.

LOL, I know, right? If only more people would actually make proper debates against me instead of just trolling. This thread would be so much better. I'm not even joking.

[Death]

I have something to debate, but I'm still waiting for someone to debate with. As I said, I do wish this thread had more religious people in. So, anyone disagree with me? Feel free to speak up, for the sake of this thread at least (just trying to keep it going).

[iangillan]

So ,let`s talk about religion.
Question for you Death.Are you Religious.What you think about religion,and what about people who represent Religion,like priests,imams...etc.

And question for All. What do you think about burning Koran,by priest Jones.Would be OK that Muslims went to Mosque and burn the Bible.

[Magus]

I have something to debate, but I'm still waiting for someone to debate with. As I said, I do wish this thread had more religious people in. So, anyone disagree with me? Feel free to speak up, for the sake of this thread at least (just trying to keep it going).If you want to practice debating, then here I am. I will do as a devil's advocate.

Allah do exist, and he sent prophets to rely the message that his the one true god. With this, we know from the holy scriptures that he revealed to those prophet that he created the universe and all the living beings, and we are to worship him only, if we don't believe or worship him, we will suffer forever. There also exist demons/djinns, and angels.

Your turn.

[Death]

So ,let`s talk about religion.

What a bloody good idea.

Question for you Death.Are you Religious.

I used to be somewhat religious up until I was about seven when I started to question the necessity of a god in today's world.

What you think about religion,and what about people who represent Religion,like priests,imams...etc.

It really depends on the person. For some people, religion can be comforting, but unfortunately, it can be bad for others. What I mean is evangelists who insist on shoving it down the throats of the unwilling. Take the bible for instance, it can be interpreted in several ways. Although this can be benign for some followers, other people may follow its bad bits and start spreading hatred because of it.

Allah do exist, and he sent prophets to rely the message that his the one true god.

What makes Allah any different from, say, the Christian view of God?

and we are to worship him only, if we don't believe or worship him, we will suffer forever.

Is this what a good god should be saying? Why would an omnipotent being be bothered if people don't worship him given the lack of evidence?

[iangillan]

I think that Bible is unique,also like Koran,but problem is that people take only what they like,and what they don`t like they leave.
You are very popular in religion-based threads,Death,what`s your opinion about Terry Jones and burning Koran (about 1 month ago).Is this inicing hatred or what.

[Magus]

What makes Allah any different from, say, the Christian view of God?There is nothing different between the Christian God, and the Muslim God. The only difference is that Islam believes that Allah is one God, not 3, but one.



Is this what a good god should be saying? Why would an omnipotent being be bothered if people don't worship him given the lack of evidence?From the Quran and from Hadith, we know that Allah has 99 contrasting qualities. Being Merciful, he is also Uncompassionate to the unbelievers.

It's the lack of believe in him, even after sending messengers to warn the people; people gave their backs on them, and telling them that God is just a myth or that god and prophet is false. He is testing their believes, without giving a direct evidence of his existence.

[Death]

I think that Bible is unique,also like Koran,but problem is that people take only what they like,and what they don`t like they leave.

Very true. This is why you'll find conflict even within individual religions.

You are very popular in religion-based threads,Death,

Really? Well, thanks. That strokes my ego just nicely. ;)

what`s your opinion about Terry Jones and burning Koran (about 1 month ago).Is this inicing hatred or what.

Depends on whose koran it was. It is probably disrespectful, but I would only really take issue if it wasn't his.

There is nothing different between the Christian God, and the Muslim God. The only difference is that Islam believes that Allah is one God, not 3, but one.

I'm not sure if that's entirely what most christians believe. Don't they think of God as something of a shamrock? As in it's one thing but with 3 parts.

From the Quran and from Hadith, we know that Allah has 99 contrasting qualities. Being Merciful, he is also Uncompassionate to the unbelievers.

Isn't that a bit two-faced? Claiming to be merciful whilst screwing over non-muslims?

It's the lack of believe in him, even after sending messengers to warn the people; people gave their backs on them, and telling them that God is just a myth or that god and prophet is false. He is testing their believes, without giving a direct evidence of his existence.

How come I haven't received a messenger?

[Magus]

I'm not sure if that's entirely what most christians believe. Don't they think of God as something of a shamrock? As in it's one thing but with 3 parts.God in three independent entities are three different Gods, not one.

Isn't that a bit two-faced? Claiming to be merciful whilst screwing over non-muslims?He is merciful to whomever he wishes to be. But the deniers will ultimately will face his judgement - he clearly states that if you don't believe, then that's up to you but you will be punished nonetheless(kinda reminds me of that youtube video about the Tax collector).

How come I haven't received a messenger?
Every people had their messenger. But Mohammad came as the final messenger for everyone in this world.

[iangillan]

Depends on whose koran it was. It is probably disrespectful, but I would only really take issue if it wasn't his.

How do you mean whose Koran was.Koran is Muslim holly book,and Muslims respect them.
My opinion is that this wolud just initiate hatred,especialy at this time when half World is in war with Muslims.

[Death]

God in three independent entities are three different Gods, not one.

You know, I don't really buy into it either, but that's what the christians claim.

He is merciful to whomever he wishes to be. But the deniers will ultimately will face his judgement - he clearly states that if you don't believe, then that's up to you but you will be punished nonetheless(kinda reminds me of that youtube video about the Tax collector).

What are your thoughts on this?

Every people had their messenger. But Mohammad came as the final messenger for everyone in this world.

Who would my messenger have been?

How do you mean whose Koran was.Koran is Muslim holly book,and Muslims respect them.

The Quran is a book, right? Yes, it symbolises a religion, but it was his property, then he only destroyed what was rightfully his, even if it does seem disrespectful. If, however, he burned a Quran that doesn't belong to him, then I would see that as an attack (and of course vandalism).

My opinion is that this wolud just initiate hatred,especialy at this time when half World is in war with Muslims.

It probably would, yes. As for half the world being at war with muslims, why do you think this is? And yes, I am genuinely interested in your personal answer.

[Magus]

You know, I don't really buy into it either, but that's what the christians claim.It's one of the things Muslim use against Christians(that Christians altered everything to suit their liking). That trinity thing does not make any sense. Plus, the trinity does not exists in the bible is one argument. And the Holy spirit is a complete post-christian concept made years after Christianity originally established.

What are your thoughts on this?
I will agree with Austine Cline of atheism.about.com - I remember in one of his article said that if God truly exist, he should judge people's action towards one another and towards humanity - are they negative or positive or are they destructive or constructive, and on not how many times you chant his name or bow to him and stroke his ego.

Who would my messenger have been?
I have not the slightest idea, hombre.

[Death]

It's one of the things Muslim use against Christians(that Christians altered everything to suit their liking). That trinity thing does not make any sense. Plus, the trinity does not exists in the bible is one argument. And the Holy spirit is a complete post-christian concept made years after Christianity originally established.

Well, it suits their purposes, so I'm not surprised.

I will agree with Austine Cline of atheism.about.com - I remember in one of his article said that if God truly exist, he should judge people's action towards one another and towards humanity - are they negative or positive or are they destructive or constructive, and on not how many times you chant his name or bow to him and stroke his ego.

In a way, this is like what my signature says, and I agree completely.

I have not the slightest idea, hombre.

Don't you? Why? This is your religion is it not?

[Magus]

Don't you? Why? This is your religion is it not?
You said who would your messenger be, I said prophet Mohammad, and then repeated the question, then I didn't understand what you are saying.

And, technically, this is not my religion. I, now, follow other atheistic philosophies, but mostly Naturalism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/).

Of course, I live in a society where such ideas are shunned - if anyone is drifting from mainstream ideas and philosophies, they will have terrible consequences(People like Salman Rushdie, for example). So, I don't publicise my ideas for the sake of my own safety, as you can see(you know what they do to apostates? Yeah, exactly, khft*knife slashing neck gesture*).

[Death]

You said who would your messenger be, I said prophet Mohammad, and then repeated the question, then I didn't understand what you are saying.

All I'm saying is if people were really given messengers, I was excluded.

And, technically, this is not my religion. I, now, follow other atheistic philosophies, but mostly Naturalism (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/naturalism/).

This may be so, but you did used to follow Islam, didn't you? Or at least know about it? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

Of course, I live in a society where such ideas are shunned - if anyone is drifting from mainstream ideas and philosophies, they will have terrible consequences(People like Salman Rushdie, for example). So, I don't publicise my ideas for the sake of my own safety, as you can see(you know what they do to apostates? Yeah, exactly, khft*knife slashing neck gesture*).

If you don't mind me asking, which part of your continent is this?

[Magus]

All I'm saying is if people were really given messengers, I was excluded.Why are you excluded?(I am confused).
This may be so, but you did used to follow Islam, didn't you? Or at least know about it? Forgive me if I'm wrong.
I still follow Islam(not to blow my cover), and yes, I have studied about Islam(Muslims are obliged to take 1 class 3 days a week in school, in any school). And I have tomes, cassettes, and Islamic channels as my resources.
If you don't mind me asking, which part of your continent is this?Middle East.

[Death]

Why are you excluded?(I am confused).

That's exactly what I'm asking you. I have had no fancy messenger telling me about Allah or Islam. Shouldn't you be answering this?

I still follow Islam(not to blow my cover),

I don't think that will really matter here.

Middle East.

Do you think the lack of democratic development has had anything to do with recent wars?

[Magus]

That's exactly what I'm asking you. I have had no fancy messenger telling me about Allah or Islam. Shouldn't you be answering this?Me neither, I never had a messenger telling about Allah or Islam, it is the people who told me about the specific messenger of some certain God or Religion.
Do you think the lack of democratic development has had anything to do with recent wars?I am not a politician nor a political analyst. So, I don't have any idea about any war.

[Death]

Me neither, I never had a messenger telling about Allah or Islam, it is the people who told me about the specific messenger of some certain God or Religion.

What does this say about Islam's creditibility?

[Magus]

What does this say about Islam's creditibility?
It sure has lowered it down. There is a lot of hadith(saying of prophet); some of them are different version - but the clerics pick the hadiths that are best compatible with the teaching of Quran. And the Quran has not never changed since its inception.

[embers]

This is what I've been saying. If I posted here, right now, that I believed in God (and this is hypothetical, I don't really), I'd be attacked left right and centre. Why do you expect people to respect your beliefs (or lack thereof) as an atheist if you can't respect people's views as theists?

But I enjoyed reading that argument. It was hilarious.

[Perseus]

This is what I've been saying. If I posted here, right now, that I believed in God (and this is hypothetical, I don't really), I'd be attacked left right and centre. Why do you expect people to respect your beliefs (or lack thereof) as an atheist if you can't respect people's views as theists?

But I enjoyed reading that argument. It was hilarious.

See, this is why I don't like saying I'm atheist to people. Because all of these militant atheists give us a bad name. They always jump down people's throats. People like me are a minority. I don't violently question people.

[Death]

This is what I've been saying. If I posted here, right now, that I believed in God (and this is hypothetical, I don't really), I'd be attacked left right and centre. Why do you expect people to respect your beliefs (or lack thereof) as an atheist if you can't respect people's views as theists?

But I enjoyed reading that argument. It was hilarious.

Attacked by whom?

[embers]

Attacked by whom?

You specifically, plus I suppose some others. What I'm saying is just that if anyone even happens to mistake this for a simple poll (from which I gather it has now developed into a debate) and state their religion, you would assume they are here to justify it and argue why it is more credible than any other.

[Korashk]

you would assume they are here to justify it and argue why it is more credible than any other.
No, I'm pretty sure he would want them to do this, not assume that they want to. Plus, how is that "attacking" them?

[Death]

You specifically,

Don't be stupid, you know damn well I've done nothing of the sort. If a religious person argues with me properly instead of just ignoring everything I say and actually adresses what I say, I'll be glad to debate with them. But obviously the guy who's been debating with me and the others hasn't done this.

plus I suppose some others.

I can probably say the same for most of them as far as I can tell.

What I'm saying is just that if anyone even happens to mistake this for a simple poll (from which I gather it has now developed into a debate) and state their religion, you would assume they are here to justify it and argue why it is more credible than any other.

But he had a chance to justify himself. You had to see him refuse.

No, I'm pretty sure he would want them to do this, not assume that they want to. Plus, how is that "attacking" them?

Exactly what I would like to know.

[embers]

Don't be stupid, you know damn well I've done nothing of the sort. If a religious person argues with me properly instead of just ignoring everything I say and actually adresses what I say, I'll be glad to debate with them. But obviously the guy who's been debating with me and the others hasn't done this.

The guy who you've been debating with recently hasn't, I know that. But it seems like you'd jump down any religious person's throat for simply being a theist.

Edit: Sorry, I missed out reading an entire page's worth of posts by you and Faris. I must have sounded random. I was referring to the Catholic guy you were debating with earlier.

Exactly what I would like to know.

You come across as a very militant atheist. Basically this:

Because all of these militant atheists give us a bad name. They always jump down people's throats. ... I don't violently question people.

[Peace God]

Attacked by whom?
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1990/duckhuntpsp.jpg

[jokoko]

WOW, this thread progresses much faster than I expected. sorry for the delay.
Let me ask you a question, jokoko.

Do you find God as an infinite being or that he has been in human forms?
Please define infinite. like what about him would I be saying is or isn't infinite.

And as I assume was stated in my previous post, God took the form of Jesus who was a human.

I am not too sure that agreeing with God being "infinite" would mean a contradiction of him taking a human form, so I don't know if your sentence should be an either-or statement. Once again, depending on what you mean I could be wrong, so please restate your question in more detail.

P.S. What is your view? Please expound/explain as to why and any other info you think is relevant. I am very interested in hearing opinions.

As for the other guy who quoted me, (sorry I can't remember your username; I forgot to include your quote when writing this.) I believe the quote you stated is in reference to Thomas Aquinas (something about God being the "uncaused cause") That made NO sense to me when I first read it, but it was later explained to me. What I said is that nothing can come from nothing, What that quote says about God isn't that He came from nothing, it means that God did not "come" at all (yes, I realize the hidden meaning. Yes, I laughed about it.) It does not mean to say that God began from nothing. It means to say that God did not begin but is the original cause of everything that ever did have a beginning. You can find out more by reading the Summa Theologica I read an abridged version called the Summa of the Summa "summa" meaning highest in Latin, so Summa Summa would mean highest of the highest, a clever play on words by the guy who abridged it. Sorry for the rabbit trail. I'll stop.

[Death]

image (http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1990/duckhuntpsp.jpg)

Did you see the PM he sent me earlier? I've already posted it, but I'll do it again:

"Go get fucked and stop living your pathetic, sad, pitiful excuse of a life on a website. Judging by the amount of posts you've made on this site, that's apparently all you do with your life. Or better yet why don't you go fuck the magical flying spaghetti monster you little Limey Shit."

This is the problem I had back then.

Although your image was still kinda funny.

The guy who you've been debating with recently hasn't, I know that. But it seems like you'd jump down any religious person's throat for simply being a theist.

Edit: Sorry, I missed out reading an entire page's worth of posts by you and Faris. I must have sounded random. I was referring to the Catholic guy you were debating with earlier.

You come across as a very militant atheist. Basically this:

And you come across someone whose judgment could use some work. I am only militant to those who pay no attention to me and post rude comments like the one I quoted above. I find it interesting how you appear to be oblivious to all the times I have debated with a good christian and have not been militant at all. It isn't the religiocity that annoys me, it is attitudes like the ones we've just had.

[deadpie]

God did not begin but is the original cause of everything that ever did have a beginning.

You can find out more by reading the Summa Theologica I read an abridged version called the Summa of the Summa "summa" meaning highest in Latin, so Summa Summa would mean highest of the highest, a clever play on words by the guy who abridged it. Sorry for the rabbit trail. I'll stop.

That's so filler. God happened and then everything happened? It cannot be proposed that that's even possible. The Big Bang it is just a spacetime point of infinite density. We will never be able to prove your point is possible unless we make a God somehow that makes another universe somehow. It's all batshit crazy. There's no way you can prove that God is the beginning of everything. It's all based on theory.

You would of gotten along really well with this user named Ripplemangle, who's an apologetic.

I'm guessing you're catholic. You know Aquinas said that stupidity was a sin? You know that means all mentally challenged people are pretty much going to be swimming in a lake of flames - mainly for something they can't control? Also, he died before Darwin was ever born, so he didn't have a clue on what Natural Selection meant, which is another problem with Aquinas' Teleological Argument.

Taken from atheismwiki -


Premise: every event has a cause.
Premise: there can be no infinite regress.
Premise: there exists some event e0.
From (1) and (3), it follows that e0 has a cause e1, which in turn has a cause e2, and so on, in an infinite regress.
From (2) we know that there can be no infinite regress, which contradicts (4).
Therefore, at least one of the premises must be false.

[embers]

And you come across someone whose judgment could use some work. I am only militant to those who pay no attention to me and post rude comments like the one I quoted above. I find it interesting how you appear to be oblivious to all the times I have debated with a good christian and have not been militant at all. It isn't the religiocity that annoys me, it is attitudes like the ones we've just had.

I admit the attitude you just encountered was absolute dickheadedness, but I must be wrong if you expect me to read through the 90+ pages of this thread looking for your arguments with Christians. Yeah, my judgement was premature and I apologise for that, but the PM you received was only after you jumped at him for stating he was Catholic.

But anyway, that argument is kind of off topic.

[Blake1994]

I am only militant to those who pay no attention to me

That's because you aren't worth paying attention to.

[embers]

That's because you aren't worth paying attention to.

Way to go, you just justified Death's point.

[Magus]

Yeah, my judgement was premature and I apologise for that, but the PM you received was only after you jumped at him for stating he was Catholic.Yeah, you usually do that. One thinks this is a poll about what's that person religion is, when they post, they find people trying to debate them(in which they didn't came here for in the first place) - that's what ticks them off. It is just like what happened to Blake007.

[Death]

That's because you aren't worth paying attention to.

What's the matter? Baffled by my intelectual superiority? Unable to hold a candle to my arguments? Your ignorance (and in a way, hypocrisy) has been obvious throughout this entire thread. In fact, I could barely stop fucking laughing at this.

I admit the attitude you just encountered was absolute dickheadedness, but I must be wrong if you expect me to read through the 90+ pages of this thread looking for your arguments with Christians. Yeah, my judgement was premature and I apologise for that, but the PM you received was only after you jumped at him for stating he was Catholic.

Would you be so kind as to quote something of mine that you dislike? I wouldn't mind reading it.

Yeah, you usually do that. One thinks this is a poll about what's that person religion is, when they post, they find people trying to debate them(in which they didn't came here for in the first place) - that's what ticks them off. It is just like what happened to Blake007.

I understand Blake's predicament, but he didn't have to then respond with all the stuff he did, so it's still his choice in a way.

[embers]

Would you be so kind as to quote something of mine that you dislike? I wouldn't mind reading it.



And your reasoning (which you probably won't give)...

*Facepalm*, you're in a fucking debate forum (RotW - "a place to debate"), for goodness sake. Unless you have reasoning, you shouldn't post here. I'm sick of telling you people.

Basically, you feel that everybody who posts here should be sucked into the debate and forced to justify what they believe in. You don't seem to want people to believe in what they believe and you want them to put forward some sort of argument, when they come here simply because it's a poll. In Blake's case:

I have never tried to prove my religion is right. I've never ever thought that, and I'm not trying to bring anything to the table. I simply said my religion is Roman Catholic, because this thread was a survey thing from what I first saw. I admit I did not take the time to read through the miles of postings in this thread. I obviously did not realize this had become a debate thread. I have nothing to prove, and I'm not going to argue or debate my beliefs with anyone.

But people took it further which sparked the shitstorm of religious ignorance on one side and the intellectual logic shit on the other.

Yeah, you usually do that. One thinks this is a poll about what's that person religion is, when they post, they find people trying to debate them(in which they didn't came here for in the first place) - that's what ticks them off. It is just like what happened to Blake007.

Yeah, that was my point.

[Death]

Basically, you feel that everybody who posts here should be sucked into the debate and forced to justify what they believe in. You don't seem to want people to believe in what they believe and you want them to put forward some sort of argument, when they come here simply because it's a poll.

Is that it? Do you have earlier posts or are you basing your entire judgement over how this started?

As for the quotes you've pulled out, it's not like I didn't have an issue with Blake even before this, stuff you would not know about. How else would I have been able to accurately predict the fact that he wouldn't give me reasoning (and he actually said there plain wasn't)?

[embers]

Is that it? Do you have earlier posts or are you basing your entire judgement over how this started?

As for the quotes you've pulled out, it's not like I didn't have an issue with Blake even before this, stuff you would not know about. How else would I have been able to accurately predict the fact that he wouldn't give me reasoning (and he actually said there plain wasn't)?

Because usually in religious debates on this forum the religious person doesn't form an argument from a logical perspective.

But, I give up. All I was trying to say is that you seemed like a very militant atheist from the way you jumped at Blake, and if you had your own reasons for that from events beforehand then I apologise, because I don't read every single thread on this forum.

[Death]

Because usually in religious debates on this forum the religious person doesn't form an argument from a logical perspective.

But they could if they tried, and I remember seeing it before. Remember Ripplemagne? He did just that. It's almost a pity that he had to go get himself banned.

But, I give up. All I was trying to say is that you seemed like a very militant atheist from the way you jumped at Blake, and if you had your own reasons for that from events beforehand then I apologise, because I don't read every single thread on this forum.

I'm not blaming you, I'm just clarrifying.

[embers]

But they could if they tried, and I remember seeing it before. Remember Ripplemagne? He did just that. It's almost a pity that he had to go get himself banned.

Hmm, Ripplemagne must have been around before I joined. But fair enough to that point.