My OperaYou need to be logged in to post in the forums. If you do not have an account, please sign up first.
Atheist v/s Christian views.
Well, this is a story about two neighbours. One an atheist and the other a Christian. The former was always critisizing the latter, trying to convince him otherwise.One day the Christian had financial problem and he prayed to GOD "Dear Father, I have no money and no food! Help me Lord." The atheist heard him pray and he devised a plan. So, he went to the grocery store and bought groceries for his neighbour without him knowing it. Early in the morning, he left the groceries at his neighbours door and went back home.
Soon afterwards, the Christian came out and found groceries in his front door. He happily shouted out, "Thank you Father for responding to my prayer!" The atheist came out with a slip showing him that he paid for the food. "Now, are you saying I'm your god? I heard your prayer."
The Christian said,"Thank you Lord for providing me with all the resources I need!" and he looked at his neighbour and said, "And thank you for letting the devil pay for them." And he smiled.
Just gets to show you that you can't change them two types.
Anyway, I don't know what happened next. Just thought we can share this.
Tizz.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I really wish some folks here would discuss or debate and not bash .
Well then, by all means, put forth something for us to debate.
What old chestnut shall we discuss again? Proof for Elohim, YHWH, Allah, Odin, Thor, Mithra, the FSM's existence? Yes, no?
Or perhaps we could tackle why exactly Immanis rightfully calls your god (YHWH) and his religion "evil". (Though I wouldn't call it "evil", rather I would say "sad".)
If none of that suits you, perhaps we could debate a personal favourite of mine that is rather tiresome for others? Would you like to be a proponent for Creationism?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Respect my opinion and I will respect yours .
I respect your opinion full well, I just lose my patience at times when your lot use the old grievance card when your points have no evidence and it is pointed out to y'all.
Oh yes, before I forget; welcome back Bantay (trout0211). I had wondered how long you would be away.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by aziffle:
Don't feel it would do much good to complain to moderators because as i have observed the " Welcoming committee " goes along unchecked and they seem to be the ones whom squeal " Moderator !!! " so often .
Not really, you can only scream "Moderator" when someone break the rules and old time D&D posters know better. In the other hand, newcomers often can't make a distinction between the ideas and themselves, get personal and break the rules.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Didn't mention that but that does seem to be the what your implying of my faith with your post ..... Hmmmm sure glad there was no opportunistic heathens around back in those early days of humanity to help us evil Christians pilfer , loot and rape as you pointed out .
Is the same nowadays, just take a look at the new age crap and the more recent ones (mormons, scientologists, etc). Thats not specific to theists (raelians technically are atheists), religion is about power and control and to gain both you need to play with the fears and hope of the people.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I didn't say you would be tortured in any way after your death
If you are a Christian you believe that is going to happen to me, and you believe I deserve it. It doesn't matter if hell is true or not, thats exactly what you all believe. And you willfully follows a deity that will throw all of us there for not other reason that don't believing on it without any evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Respect my opinion and I will respect yours
Thats not the way it works, not all opinions deserve respect because not everyone follows the golden rule. Apparently you are new in D&D, but from time to time some people post the most disgusting things, specially in religion debates. If it serves as consolation the
Originally posted by aziffle:
I can see why many people post and leave D&D , The " Welcoming committee " tends to turn into a feeding frenzy when a person of faith steps forward to discuss ANY topic .
Now that's demonstrably wrong.
Originally posted by aziffle:
It isn't easy to speak your mind knowing full hardy you will be attacked and underhandedly insulted by the ones here who deem themselves superior to anyone with a separate point of view , You don't discuss or debate you insult .
So much for 'ANY topic'
Originally posted by aziffle:
God invokes such rage and blasphemous arrogance from you ( Some here are just wanna be fit ins that agree with the " Welcoming committee " to be " Cool ". )
In other words, you want to preach to the choir and shut up anyone who hurts you precious little religious feelings
Originally posted by aziffle:
Hey , I'd rather believe in my God and know there's more to life than just being a another organism . I don't see my faith as being as you do and thats fine with me , In the end when our bodies hit the dirt for the last time I will have the comfort of knowing my soul will ascend to heaven and if indeed there is nothing beyond death , I died trying to be a better man to all I encountered in life .
I see, atheists don't 'try to be better men' - strong the hypocrisy is in this one
Originally posted by aziffle:
Question is : How do you think the " Welcoming Committee " will receive you if your wrong .
And now he's threatening us with his imaginary friends. Too bad dead people lack the mental capacity to give a shit about your childish revenge fantasies. Or anything else for that matter.
Originally posted by aziffle:
And before one of you says your gonna get banded or cast insult at me , Unlike the " Welcoming committee " I have a life outside this forum . If banding me is the price I pay then let it stand that you do not intimidate me with your boorish behavior .
Don't let the door hit you in the arse on the way out.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by aziffle:
Don't feel it would do much good to complain to moderators because as i have observed the " Welcoming committee " goes along unchecked and they seem to be the ones whom squeal " Moderator !!! " so often .
And here I thought spouting outright lies was a sin in your book. Silly me
Originally posted by aziffle:
My rant is what it is , And I didn't point out a specific poster just a possible group ( But if the shoe fits by all means wear it ) . As for evil , Didn't mention that but that does seem to be the what your implying of my faith with your post ..... Hmmmm sure glad there was no opportunistic heathens around back in those early days of humanity to help us evil Christians pilfer , loot and rape as you pointed out . I didn't say you would be tortured in any way after your death , Just posed a question as to what a greeting party from the opposing side of your view may be like ( Once again if the shoe fits .... what am I saying you guys don't believe in hell right ? ) I aint trying to win friends and influence enemies , I really wish some folks here would discuss or debate and not bash . Respect my opinion and I will respect yours .
You want respect? For the load of incoherent rubbish you just posted? Maybe, if you could get yourself to stop being a bloody hypocrite and do as you demand from us, you may be able to earn it. Not that I'm holding my breath though.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
A god that doesn't do anything verifiable
The concept of God it's the only possible answer to the primordial question: why something exists rather than nothing?
Everything else it's irrelevant.
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it. Creating everything (including all the possibilities) from total nothing. A creative concept (or principle) that it's antecedent to the existence of everything we have conscience, today, tomorrow and forever.
That's the beginning of the concept of God, just the very beginning.
This is a concept that has to be "logical needed" and the very support of our own consciousness.
But we are able to infer some of the characteristics of God just with normal reasoning besides it gets obviously to be intentional.
It has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Simple consequences of such a concept like this one. And with a slightly more deeper logical analysis he has to be Good, since we do have free will.
Proof, reason, demonstrations and everything the human mind can think are just an infinitesimal part of God. God it's not reachable, at least by our own will and effort. And atheists keep on saying proof me God; show me God; I want to measure him, weight him; show-me God's equation (first degree equations, I suppose); and so son, and so on..
Do Atheism understands the concept that it so much denies?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by aziffle:
Mac you Sir , Alien or whatever lack the ability to walk into a conversation without toting baggage from a previous post .
It's called 'context'. Look it up.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by aziffle:
Quite simply you nor I can prove physically the existence of GOD nor can you debunk it .
As I can't prove that there isn't a Tooth Fairy. Only the person asserting the existence of gods, physical or otherwise, shoulder the burden of proof. It isn't necessary to debunk assertions about the existence of anything. What I can say is that I can see no reason to believe such assertions. And since you've admitted that you can't prove the existence of "GOD", there's nothing to discuss.
Pretty much every person I know is a believer, and that bothers me not a whit. Believe away, believer.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
The concept of God it's the only possible answer to the primordial question: why something exists rather than nothing?
Everything else it's irrelevant.
And who or what created that initial impulse? Why there is a God instead of anything? Your reasoning is flawed, you are using special pleading and argument from ignorance in the same sentence.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent
Evidence, please? Even if a God of sorts created the universe, it does not necessarily means that it did it for a purpose, that it can interact with the universe, that is looking at the small stuff or know what is happening everywhere. It can be even dead at this time or don't give a rat ass for us. Hell, it may well be that it has not noticed us at all in the great vastness of the universe.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Do Atheism understands the concept that it so much denies?
Usually more than you do, because most of you never ever have made a serious attempt to see things from our perspective, and in most cases you become an atheist after stumbling in one or more religions. And we are willing to change our views at any time, as long as someone show us good evidence to do so.
Originally posted by Immanis:
And who or what created that initial impulse?
God it's the initial impulse existing beyond our concept of cause/consequence. He has created that concept, remember?
Originally posted by Immanis:
Evidence, please?
Simple consequences of such a concept like that one.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Do Atheism understands the concept that it so much denies?
I'd argue do christians understand the god they claim to follow? further more how could you?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
But we are able to infer some of the characteristics of God
Surly such an omni-being wouldn't need guess work to explain... However, a figment of your imagination would.
If he is everywhere... where is he? More over where was he? God as you see him is just the latest god in a long line of gods that man has created.
chrisianity is not the only religion... seems other people "infer" different things. Hell, y'all can't even figure it out between yourselves, causing countless denominations because this omni-being can't even explain what he wants good. Say's alot for his awesome powers of perception. You fail to realize the man made influences. Your all so holy bible comes mostly from Constantine, who picked what he wanted it to say and threw out the rest... O, then your church spent hundreds of years killing everyone who had the other stories.... and that's how you get what you "Infer" outta your religion.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it.
No, that's just where you choose to stop looking for an explanation. After all where did god come from? I already know what you'll say to that... And that answer makes no sense.
In the end your left with a omni-being who isn't identifiable thus not omni anything... And you have to realize either he's not there, or don't care about you. By your own assessment god is a heartless, murdering coward. because he after all created the tensions between religious factions with his omni-powers of confusion and does nothing to solve it.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
God it's the initial impulse existing beyond our concept of cause/consequence. Hes has created that concept, remember?
Why there was God instead of nothing? Last time I checked, God is something, so its implied in your question: why something exists rather than nothing?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
If is that simple, why don;t you point to the evidence or detail your reasoning in a way we poor skeptics can accept as valid?Simple consequences of such a concept like that one.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
The concept of God it's the only possible answer to the primordial question: why something exists rather than nothing?
...
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it.
You pose a "primordial" question that you can't answer, then answer it out of the air. You might explain why god exists rather than not. Did he exist in the absence of a creative impulse? I know. He always existed!
Some aspect of the "universe" has always existed. There was never non-existence in any meaningful sense. How do I know these things? God whispered them in my ear.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
After this refreshing interlude, back to what I was saying:
Originally posted by Macallan:
A god that doesn't do anything verifiable
The concept of God it's the only possible answer to the primordial question: why something exists rather than nothing?
Everything else it's irrelevant.
Umm, no. It's nothing but special pleading and it doesn't even solve the problem, only shoves it a little bit further away. Assuming you're right it begs the question - before there was a universe, why was there your god and not nothing?
And, if you god can 'just exist' - why can't anything else?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it.
If your god 'created existence' then it must have existed before existence did, which is nonsense.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It has to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Simple consequences of such a concept like this one. And with a slightly more deeper logical analysis he has to be Good, since we do have free will.
And now you're just pulling crap out of your arse again. None of that follows from your already horribly flawed premise, you're just jumping to conclusions.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Proof, reason, demonstrations and everything the human mind can think are just an infinitesimal part of God.
Special pleading / argument from ignorance again
Originally posted by Belfrager:
And atheists keep on saying proof me God; show me God; I want to measure him, weight him; show-me God's equation (first degree equations, I suppose); and so son, and so on..
If it's undetectable, unreachable and doesn't interact in any measurable way with anything then by all practical means it does not exist.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Do Atheism understands the concept that it so much denies?
You don't seem to understand your own posts.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Jaybro:
God whispered them in my ear.
You can whisper in your own ear?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Immanis:
Why there was God instead of nothing?
Simple. Because if you admit that "nothing" is able to create things than you have to deny science who states that it's not possible. I don't deny science.
Originally posted by Immanis:
If is that simple, why don;t you point to the evidence or detail your reasoning in a way we poor skeptics can accept as valid?
Omnipresent, because he created all possible places.
Omnipotent, because nothing could have more power than such a concept.
Omniscient, because he knows everything created, be it material or immaterial as sciences, laws, beliefs, demonstrations, ideas, etc.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.5. July 2010, 17:40:14 (edited)
Originally posted by Jaybro:
You pose a "primordial" question that you can't answer, then answer it out of the air.
QFT.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Immanis:
Why there was God instead of nothing?
Simple. Because if you admit that "nothing" is able to create things than you have to deny science who states that it's not possible. I don't deny science.
Ignoring, warping... it's a thin line.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omnipresent, because he created all possible places.
Sorry, what? By the same logic I'm omnipresent all around the world because of molecules that were once part of what I call my body. Unless you're saying the universe is God's body.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omnipotent, because nothing could have more power than such a concept.
Being (a lot) more powerful than us isn't quite the same thing as omnipotent, although the difference might not be relevant in practice.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omniscient, because he knows everything created, be it material or immaterial as sciences, laws, beliefs, demonstrations, ideas, etc.
That makes about as much sense as the omnipresence.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
God whispered them in my ear
Not nice telling secrets...
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Immanis:
Why there was God instead of nothing?
Simple. Because if you admit that "nothing" is able to create things than you have to deny science who states that it's not possible. I don't deny science.
How do you know there ever was nothing but nothing? Last time I checked that was pure speculation at best.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Immanis:
If is that simple, why don;t you point to the evidence or detail your reasoning in a way we poor skeptics can accept as valid?
Omnipresent, because he created all possible places.
Doesn't follow. I can create stuff and put it somewhere where I've never been and where I'll never be.
Putting stuff somewhere does not require my presence at the place it ends up in.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omnipotent, because nothing could have more power than such a concept.
The maximum over <whatever> is not necessarily infinite. In fact, you're extremely unlikely to find anything infinite outside pure mathematics. Go ahead and show me something infinite in real life. Good luck, you'll need it.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omniscient, because he knows everything created, be it material or immaterial as sciences, laws, beliefs, demonstrations, ideas, etc.
Doesn't follow either, just because I created something I don't necessarily know everything there is to know about it.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Sorry, what? By the same logic I'm omnipresent all around the world because of molecules that were once part of what I call my body. Unless you're saying the universe is God's body.
If you prefer that what what you deny it's everywhere, be my guess. And he is everywhere, at the same time, as obvious.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Being (a lot) more powerful than us isn't quite the same thing as omnipotent, although the difference might not be relevant in practice.
I know, you are right. Omnipotent remains.
Originally posted by Frenzie:
That makes about as much sense as the omnipresence.
God it's omniscient because nothing can be not know by god, if you prefer it this way.
There are so many the reasons for the theist hypothesis that we can adapt them to personal customization..
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Macallan:
You can whisper in your own ear?
Do you understand now?
Originally posted by Frenzie:
QFT
Quantum field theory?
.........................................
Why do I think that this isn't going anywhere? Could it be that assertions are not explanations?
.........................................
Interlocutor #1: How do you know that God exists?
Interlocutor #2: E=MC2
Interlocutor #1: Oh. Now I get it.
5. July 2010, 19:43:41 (edited)
Originally posted by aziffle:
Quite simply you nor I can prove physically the existence of GOD nor can you debunk it .
No, but we Atheists can demonstrably prove the probablility against any god's existence.
Originally posted by aziffle:
You maybe believe your a direct descendant of a ape , Zeus or T,F,S,M or as others here suggest that they are in fact GOD . Pity Huh ? "
Nope, again, we can demonstrably prove that apes are our and your descendant. You cannot prove the bible's rubbishy 7 day rubbish true.
We can prove evolution by natural selection.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Now with that I say " GOD RULES !!!!
So prove his existence. I've already asked you what you want to debate and discuss, yet you seemingly ignored my suggestions.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
why something exists rather than nothing?
I see you use Thomas Aquinas' 5 "proofs" in your arguments.In this case, it's the long-ago refuted "Unmoved Mover" argument.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it.
*chuckles* Here is #2 on Aquinas' "proofs"; in this case "The Uncaused Cause".
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Do Atheism understands the concept that it so much denies?
As a former christian, I understand your rubbish better than most.
The two "proofs" of Aquinas' that you use rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke god to terminate it. They both make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally give to an Abrahamic god: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing about of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. It hasn't escaped logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If your god YHWH is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means that he is not omnipotent.
I once read an interesting little verse:
Can omniscient God ,who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
This posts utterly dismisses your little omnipotence and omniscience argument Belfrager.
Edit: Befrager is also using the argument from blindness which goes like this:
1. Atheists are spiritually blind.
2. Therefore, God exists.
Funnily enough, there also could be another argument used along that rubbishy logic:
1. God is love.
2. Love is blind.
3. Stevie Wonder is blind.
4. Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
5. Therefore, God exists.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Simple. Because if you admit that "nothing" is able to create things than you have to deny science who states that it's not possible. I don't deny science.
You don't even know if there was a time when there was NOTHING (especially since time and space are bound together as far as science can tell).
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omnipresent, because he created all possible places.
That won't follow. You can create an explosion by lightening fireworks and you (usually) won't be present in the place it explodes.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omnipotent, because nothing could have more power than such a concept.
Ditto. You can light a firework but that doesn't means that you can change its trajectory or behavior.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Omniscient, because he knows everything created, be it material or immaterial as sciences, laws, beliefs, demonstrations, ideas, etc.
Ditto. You can light a firework but that doesn't mean you will know the trajectory and behavior of every individual spark.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
If you prefer that what what you deny it's everywhere, be my guess. And he is everywhere, at the same time, as obvious.
Not that obvious or there won;t be any atheists. Anthitheists or apostates perhaps, but not atheists.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by aziffle:
You maybe believe your a direct descendant of a ape , Zeus or T,F,S,M or as others here suggest that they are in fact GOD . Pity Huh ?
Nope, again, we can demonstrably prove that apes are our and your descendant. You cannot prove the bible's rubbishy 7 day rubbish true.
We can prove evolution by natural selection.
Better yet, you still are an ape and a monkey and a mammal and a vertebrate and so on. Just check the taxonomic definitions and see by yourself.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
"Well, if he’s (Obama) such a student of history, has he not understood that you know that’s the one thing you don’t do, is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?” - Michael Steele
Can you believe that idiot actually said that!? I think his days are limited.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Can you believe that idiot actually said that!?
No, I can't.
It is encouraging though to see that those at the top of the GOP begin to see the error in their ways and the error Obama is foolishly following.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
I think his days are limited.
I agree.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by aziffle:
Science has not as yet been able to explain the complexity of our universe
Of course saying goddunit explains everything and stops the need to research anything ever again. Especially if it may make the size of the gaps, aka God's territory, smaller.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I personally think early man was alot smarter than the Einsteins , Plato's and Newtons because they had a simple and direct path of understanding how the Earth worked and mans proper place here .
When survival is the only thing on your mind, you haven't got much time to think about anything else.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I refuse to believe atheist didn't exist to a degree back then and likely sat around a campfire grunting about the same issue UUGAMUGGA ( Wooly Mammoth ) couldnt be father of all existence , He taste too good , He's got big ears and ours are small and so on . At the end of the evening the tribe broke up and created warring factions .
Make that more like an atheist was happily living his hunter-gatherer life and suddenly an annoying believer came bugging him about his sacrifice to the gods. The atheist refused to give good food/children/whatever kind of sacrifice was in that year away and suddenly the believers decided to sacrifice the atheist.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Man with the ability to rationalize and question fell prey to his own arrogance ( He put himself above his creator or attempted to explain him away into non existence )
Message to the creator: it's really not that hard to convince me of your existence. Let's just do a little experiment. I have a notepad in front of me. On, say, the third page (which I can't see), write "I exist." I'll post back in a few minute with the results. Anyway, explaining away? You realize the majority of people on this planet still haven't even heard of your creator?
Originally posted by aziffle:
The only thing that is infinite to mortal mans understanding is the ability to question and of course his arrogance .
Oooh, what a one liner. It's a bloodbath.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Without asking a caveman or a ancient Assyrian personally no one knows what lead them to worship a deity of sorts
So without avoiding questions as you have very nicely done thus far, tell me, did the caveman come before or after they mythological Adam and Eve/Lillith walked in "The garden of eden"? You say the cavemen grunted, why did they grunt and Adam and Eve/Lillith apparently speak?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Science has not as yet been able to explain the complexity of our universe
Yes it has, you just go to great lengths to not acknowledge it.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I personally think early man was alot smarter than the Einsteins
I was going to respond to this, but this is on such a level of stupidity that I can't bring myself to answer.
Originally posted by aziffle:
In the end as I see it God created all things great and small , Man being one of those creations was put here with a specific purpose to love and care take over his creation on Earth . Man with the ability to rationalize and question fell prey to his own arrogance ( He put himself above his creator or attempted to explain him away into non existence ) Can't imagine that boded well with God after all
And here you use the old chestnut, Paley's argument from Design, a.k.a. God of the Gaps, a.k.a. Design/Teleological argument which states:
(1) If there is a designer, then God must exist.
(2) If I find a watch in a forest, there must be a designer.
(3) [Throws watch into forest.]
(4) Therefore, God exists.
*chuckles* You and Belfrager are providing some excellent amusement today, afizzle.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by aziffle:
Science has not as yet been able to explain the complexity of our universe and I seriously doubt it will without creating some form of snare that will unleash a host of misery upon man
The first half of your argument is 100% true, but the irony on this is that the model of universe science has is waaay more complex than the one religion ever had. One of our most common gripes is that God is the greatest cop-out ever invented to avoid the complexities of the universe. As for the second half, science is neither good nor evil and the same knowledge can be used for the greater good or can wipe us from existence. The rest depends on us.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I personally think early man was alot smarter than the Einsteins , Plato's and Newtons because they had a simple and direct path of understanding how the Earth worked and mans proper place here
Perhaps, but their knowledge of the world was flawed and as a rule they where too busy either trying to survive or keeping the slaves in order to make your argument meaningful.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I refuse to believe atheist didn't exist to a degree back then and likely sat around a campfire grunting about the same issue UUGAMUGGA ( Wooly Mammoth ) couldnt be father of all existence , He taste too good , He's got big ears and ours are small and so on
Yes, they did exist and some of them still survive nowadays, but is was (and still is) easier to believe that death is not the end of the road, justice prevails in the end and so on.
Edit: Oh Jaygod, always excuses. If you're not dependable enough I might switch gods; I'm warning you!
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Jaygod...I like that.
What about Ehlojay or Jallah?
Originally posted by Frenzie:
My hypothesis is almost ready to become an adult!
Nothing quite like a good old God Hypothesis.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by aziffle:
Dawgy boy , I didn't attend a school of theology and best I can tell you didn't either .
No, aziffle, old hat, I am not attending a school of theology.
I have however, in the past two semesters studied the history of the muslim world as well as a very through survey course of the 3 Abrahamic religions. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). I notice that you rely heavily on Thomas Aquinas as does Belfrager. That begs the question to you then; what do you think about Maimonides or Al-Ghazali's assertions?
That is assuming you are aware of who they are.Originally posted by aziffle:
I will attempt to answer your question nevertheless with my personal theory
Thanks I suppose.
Originally posted by aziffle:
( After all science is full of theory so you shouldn't have a problem with that )
*chuckles* Are you quite sure you are aware of what science actually is?
Originally posted by aziffle:
What we do know to be the creature " Cave man " was another form of ape that was created prior to man as we know them ( There is no missing link a.k.a evolution ) two separate things .
Hmm, I see. So you are asserting that apes were on this earth prior to the philosophical argument of the Talmud, Bible and Qur'an?
Interesting.... So then unlike most others of your religion, you propose that animals were created before Adam and Eve/Lillith?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Please note that God being the creator of all things including time as we think we know it , It would be safe to believe he or it would not consider a day in mans concept of time one in the same .
You, like Belfrager, want to cling to the notion that your god (YHWH) is both omnipotent and omniscience and omnipresence. I have already dealt with that:
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
The two "proofs" of Aquinas' that you use rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke god to terminate it. They both make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally give to an Abrahamic god: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing about of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. It hasn't escaped logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If your god YHWH is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means that he is not omnipotent.
I once read an interesting little verse:
Can omniscient God ,who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Why are there no signs of this modern man prior to a what archeologist have found then ?
You show your lack of knowledge of science yet again. Modern science has only been around from the mid to late 1700's.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Ancient societies all over the universe record a cataclysm that caused a flood
I'm afraid I have to call your bullshit here. The only things that record your "Great Flood" are the Talmud, Bible (via old testament which is the Talmud) and the Qur'an. Nothing else documents such rubbish.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Where land masses existed are now gone and buried deep in the worlds oceans
Ever heard of Global Warming?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Apes share alot of human characteristics and similar complex skills
Are you really quite sure that you have ever opened a science book? Or ever read the theory of evolution?
Originally posted by aziffle:
As a side note I will open another thread to inquire of your opinions on a book I am considering purchasing .
Um, ok.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Maimonides or Al-Ghazali
Al-Ghazali is awesome if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not sure who Maimomides is.
5. July 2010, 22:36:43 (edited)
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Al-Ghazali is awesome if I'm not mistaken, but I'm not sure who Maimomides is.
I'll help you out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Judaic_and_philosophical_works <---- I have studied his Treatise on Logic and Guide for the Perplexed.
As for Al-Ghazali:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali#The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers <--- I have studied several of his works, though the only one I could agree with, if any, is his arguments regarding the utter "bs" in the Trinity logic.
I wouldn't normally post a paper that I wrote, but here is an excerpt from one I wrote on comparing Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas and Al-Ghazali and will underline the differences in them (aziffle, you should take note of this, seeing as how you ask several things that are in this):
" While comparing this reading to the Maimonides reading, I noticed several similarities. Maimonides stressed repeatedly that no characteristics could be attributed to God because he was not bound by time, nor was he bound by physical attributes. So one of the first things one thinks is: Is a name a characteristic? Saint Thomas Aquinas makes quite the effort to address this in his 12 Articles. In his first article, he asks “Whether a name can be given to God?” Under that article title, he lists three objections and three responses to these objections. In them, one sees a great deal of the same things that were written in the Maimonides reading. For example, in his third objection he states “Further, nouns are taken to signify substance with quality; verbs and participles signify substance with time; pronouns the same with demonstration or relation. But none of these can be applied to God, for He has no quality, nor accident, nor time.” This is very similar to much of what Maimonides stressed. Another similarity that I spotted between the Maimonides reading and this one is that they both wrote nearly identical things about understanding God. This was under his first article “The reason why God has no name, or is said to be above being named, is because His essence is above all that we understand about God, and signify in word.” I cannot remember exactly what Maimonides wrote, but what Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote seems nearly identical to Maimonides’ writings on the understanding of God.
Both writings seemed for the most part to be similar. I did see one writing in particular by Saint Thomas Aquinas that stood out to me and was vastly different from the Maimonides reading. In his twelfth and final Article, Saint Thomas Aquinas writes “What is of faith cannot be false. But some affirmative propositions are of faith; as that God is Three and One; and that He is omnipotent. Therefore true affirmative propositions can be formed about God.” This is substantially different from Maimonides assertion that there is only one God.
And from another paper of mine:
Contrary to Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas readings, al-Ghazali’s argument is different in that he says “His attributes reside in His essence”. This is very similar to Maimonides’ argument which stated that physicalness and time cannot be applied to God because he is above that. This is also quite similar to Saint Thomas’ argument about even giving God a name, as seen here: “The reason why God has no name, or is said to be above being named, is because His essence is above all that we understand about God, and signify in word.”
Al-Ghazali’s writings are very similar in nature to both Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ overall argument in that all three basically stress that attributes cannot be attributed to God because he is in fact, God and God is omnipotent. Another similarity I saw was that just like Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ writings, when arguing about God’s essence you can run into problems because it is in fact, your terminology. That leads on to the stressing about how we are mere humans and how God is so far above our understanding.
One noticeable difference that I spotted between al-Ghazali and Saint Thomas Aquinas’ arguments is that al-Ghazali’s writings seem to indicate that he agrees with Maimonides that there is but one God. As is known, Saint Thomas Aquinas had no problems with the Trinity. Maimonides and al-Ghazali seem to vociferously disagree. Yet another difference I spotted was that al-Ghazali took a completely different approach to arguing. Whereas Maimonides approached his writings with the intent to dismiss claims such as time and physicalness and other attributes of God, and while Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote to do basically the same thing with the exception of disagreeing with Maimonides on the Trinity concept, al-Ghazali shakes up the pattern a little bit. As is said in his writings “We wanted to shake your faith in your own claims.”
Lastly, I found it quite amusing that al-Ghazali wrote at great lengths about “rational claims” and how they do not apply to God because he is omnipotent. This is ironic in the fact that faith in itself is believing in that which cannot be proven. Some might say that is irrational, while others such as al-Ghazali would disagree. This is also different from what Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote.
(Yeah, I tried to conceal my views as best as possible, but slipped a bit.
)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
As for Al-Ghazali:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali#The_Incoherence_of_the_Philosophers <--- I have studied several of his works, though the only one I could agree with, if any, is his arguments regarding the utter "bs" in the Trinity logic.
Looks like I was mistaken. Who's a famous Moorish philosopher more from like the 12th or 13th century?
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
As a former christian, I understand your rubbish better than most.
And as a Catholic, I understand your rubbish better than most.
Not to mention being, for sure, someone maybe slightly more educated both formal and empirical than average. And here, we don't classify people with "American tests" choosing answers between the least absurd ones as a demonstration of knowledge.
Studying St Thomas of Aquin, relating the nature of God, it's a good step to your reflexions. Not only regarding that but regarding all his work.
Unfortunately you are obviously lacking quality professors to teach you. I've already told you, remember?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Frenzie:
Who's a famous Moorish philosopher more from like the 12th or 13th century?
There are hundreds of them.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
And as a Catholic, I understand your rubbish better than most.
How so?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Not to mention being, for sure, someone maybe slightly more educated both formal and empirical than average.
Oh? You're a priest are you?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
And here, we don't classify people with "American tests" choosing answers between the least absurd ones as a demonstration of knowledge.
What on earth are you rabbiting on about? Who in the heck classified people with "American tests"?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Studying St Thomas of Aquin, relating the nature of God, it's a good step to your reflexions. Not only regarding that but regarding all his work.
I have read a good deal of his work. I disagree with a lot of it, but I do respect it. For his time, they were exceptional pieces of work.
His Trinity assertions remain, in my most humblest opinion, rubbish.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Unfortunately you are obviously lacking quality professors to teach you.
I have had a Frenchman from Quebec teach me about the history of the muslim world, and a Yank from Boston (very populous Catholic area I might add) whose specialty is the Middle Ages regarding the Catholics and the beginning of the Islamic religion.
I have no idea what your definition of "quality" is, but she knew what she taught quite masterfully. I rather enjoyed writing papers for her, as she always welcomed differing opinions at the end of papers.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I've already told you, remember?
Can't say that I do.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
so when did Jesus say, if you don't have any good points, just say they are dumber than you and can't understand?
Try the infancy gospel of Thomas.
(joke)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
How so?
The same way you've said it referring me. Equality.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Oh? You're a priest are you?
Nope, I'm what I said. Read it again.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
What on earth are you rabbiting on about? Who in the heck classified people with "American tests"?
I know American pedagogic theories. I've to compare them with ours on professional, formation, training and other things. That I'll be glad to clarify at some other thread. This one it's already entertaining.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
His Trinity assertions remain, in my most humblest opinion, rubbish.
Holy Trinity it's a particular challenging problem. But fundamental.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
as she always welcomed differing opinions at the end of papers.
Yes, I imagine. Unfortunately studying it's not about opinions.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Can't say that I do.
Ah ah, you even wanted me to pay your little trip. That's a characteristic of Mississippians?
The last remark it's a joke not an argument for the theist hypothesis
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Yes, I imagine. Unfortunately studying it's not about opinions.
How can you say that right after this...
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Holy Trinity it's a particular challenging problem. But fundamental.
this is your Catholic's opinion gone crazy...lol, fundamental. If that is so then It's the fundamental flaw in you superstition.
Ghost, son and father... just a bad patch to questions raised by disillusion followers.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Sorry, what? By the same logic I'm omnipresent all around the world because of molecules that were once part of what I call my body. Unless you're saying the universe is God's body.
If you prefer that what what you deny it's everywhere, be my guess. And he is everywhere, at the same time, as obvious.
And jumping to unsupported conclusions again
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Being (a lot) more powerful than us isn't quite the same thing as omnipotent, although the difference might not be relevant in practice.
I know, you are right. Omnipotent remains.
No. Infinite power is not the same as having more power than anything else. Not by a long shot.
Also, you never showed why there can't be anything more powerful than your god, you just pulled that one out of your arse again.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
That makes about as much sense as the omnipresence.
God it's omniscient because nothing can be not know by god, if you prefer it this way.
Which is - again - not supported by any of your 'arguments'. I'm beginning to see a pattern here
Originally posted by Belfrager:
There are so many the reasons for the theist hypothesis that we can adapt them to personal customization..
In other words you make it up as you go along.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by aziffle:
Quite simply you nor I can prove physically the existence of GOD nor can you debunk it .
No, but we Atheists can demonstrably prove the probablility against any god's existence.
No need to go there, smells too much like creationists and their unhealthy fondness of bad maths.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
[
Originally posted by aziffle:
Now with that I say " GOD RULES !!!!
So prove his existence. I've already asked you what you want to debate and discuss, yet you seemingly ignored my suggestions.
He just wants to bitch & whine about his precious little religious feelings. Don't expect anything remotely resembling an argument from him any time soon.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
why something exists rather than nothing?
Before there was a universe, why was there god and not nothing? Or is his god nothing?
Never mind the fact that neither he or anyone else ever showed any evidence that there actually was nothing but nothing at some point.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Only a creative impulse (God) able to create existence (both material as things and planets or immaterial as ideas, reasoning and dreams) from nothing can explain it.
*chuckles* Here is #2 on Aquinas' "proofs"; in this case "The Uncaused Cause".
That's what we call special pleading
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
The same way you've said it referring me. Equality.
The way I use it is thus: I have been involved with or studied (used to be both) Christianity for 12 years.
I argue based on my knowledge of the "Big 3" with an emphasis on Christianity and in some aspects, Islam.
Unlike the theologians, I argue based on fact. Theologians like to argue based on opinions masquerading as facts.
So, how do you argue?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Nope, I'm what I said. Read it again.
I've read what you said. It tells me the same as before.
Would you like to elaborate?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
That I'll be glad to clarify at some other thread.
Feel free to in this one if you like.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
This one it's already entertaining.
Agreed. Though I wonder how you find it entertaining when those who agree with you have yet to make a point that has stood up to scrutiny.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Yes, I imagine. Unfortunately studying it's not about opinions.
I'm well aware of that.
Still, it was quite refreshing being allowed to post my opinions of them in 3 sentences or less.
(And unlike my forum self, I had to maintain just a questioning position. Same as in real life really. I have to be very careful about my questioning as the following link will indicate why. Jaybro very excellently posted this the other day, you should enjoy the figures: http://pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx )
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Ah ah, you even wanted me to pay your little trip.
Ah yes, I vaguely remember that comment now. Originally posted by Belfrager:
That's a characteristic of Mississippians?
Pretty much, yes. They want socialist programs but want to protest them vehemently.
(I daresay that I was kidding when I said that though.
)Originally posted by Belfrager:
The last remark it's a joke not an argument for the theist hypothesis
Got ya.
I notice that you have no response to the 3 "O" attributes that you give to old YHWH.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
The two "proofs" of Aquinas' that you use rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke god to terminate it. They both make the entirely unwarranted assumption that god himself is immune to the regress. Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, simply because we need one, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally give to an Abrahamic god: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing about of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts. It hasn't escaped logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If your god YHWH is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means that he is not omnipotent.
I once read an interesting little verse:
Can omniscient God ,who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
Just saying..... http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by ensbb3:
and there lies the error in religious logic... omni means obvious really... everywhere and all, this just isn't the case. the proof being you even have to debate this. shows a complete lack of omni, huh?
Well, you're not jumping to his conclusions therefore you obviously don't understand the concept. Feeble human mind and all that nonsense
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
I do get tired of that tho, attacks on Americanism.
If i defend my country i'm arrogant. If I don't i'm stupid.
It don't matter where you are from or how the educational standards are in that area. Anyone can seek out knowledge and gain intelligence without limits. some of the smartest people to ever live were self taught. and some of the biggest blunders in history were made by "well educated" people.
if you have to state your qualifications, then your not appearing to be very qualified.
just wanted to get that out.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
The same way you've said it referring me. Equality.
Sure, but the difference is that he was in your shoes at some point on his life. Has you ever been an skeptic? If that is the case, can you share with us the reasons for the change of mind? In the process you may be saving people from the depths of hell as is your duty as a christian.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I know American pedagogic theories. I've to compare them with ours on professional, formation, training and other things. That I'll be glad to clarify at some other thread. This one it's already entertaining.
Irrelevant to the topic. Most of the posters are not even american, so your point is moot. And speaking of education, can you focus on a single subject at the time and stop jumping to unrelated topics? It looks like you are simply dodging the (not so difficult) questions. Thats your right of course, but it looks bad in a debate.
6. July 2010, 00:26:17 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
As a former christian, I understand your rubbish better than most.
And as a Catholic, I understand your rubbish better than most.
Another claim of yours which is not supported by anything.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Not to mention being, for sure, someone maybe slightly more educated both formal and empirical than average. And here, we don't classify people with "American tests" choosing answers between the least absurd ones as a demonstration of knowledge.
Oh dear, now he's trying to pull an argument from assumed authority on us
'slightly more educated both formal and empirical than average' - I bet most or all of us are, one way or another.
Never mind the fact that your 'slightly above average education' should tell you that this kind of wanking has absolutely no relevance to the validity of your arguments.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
I have been involved with or studied (used to be both) Christianity for 12 years.
Me for the triple of that regarding Catholicism. I'm not interested in "Christianity" as you use to define it and even less on compared religions.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Unlike the theologians, I argue based on fact. Theologians like to argue based on opinions masquerading as facts.
So, how do you argue?
Theology its the interpretation of God's will, not debating the existence of God, witch is what I'm doing. I don't have any interest on Theology besides some (small) intellectual curiosity about the connection between the evolution of Protestant Theology and, I admit, some decline on the Catholic side regarding the number and vitality of papers.
Answering to your question I argue based mainly at a rational approach avoiding pre-formed concepts. You say that you base yourself on facts. Facts about God? That's why I've started my post with an hypothesis to answer a question that seems to me to be the only logical one to explain it.
Originally posted by Macallan:
Jaybro very excellently posted this the other day,
I've read it, being gentleman for not comment it.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Me for the triple of that regarding Catholicism. I'm not interested in "Christianity" as you use to define it and even less on compared religions.
in other words you are happy to ignore anything that may refute your views...
FINALLY, got to the bottom of it.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I'm american... how could i ever hope to understand anything.
Apparently he thinks we all are, which doesn't reflect well on his - umm, 'argument'
Originally posted by ensbb3:
I do get tired of that tho, attacks on Americanism.
If i defend my country i'm arrogant. If I don't i'm stupid.
Well, that kind of 'argument' tells more about him and that 'slightly above average education' he likes to wank about than anything else.
Originally posted by ensbb3:
if you have to state your qualifications, then your not appearing to be very qualified.
Exactly.
People who actually have a good education put it to good use instead of wanking about it.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Me for the triple of that regarding Catholicism. I'm not interested in "Christianity" as you use to define it and even less on compared religions.
I see. In other words, you are an older gentleman that is the polar opposite of Mr. Howie?
(That is to say, set in your views, and you'll be damned if you consider other views.)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Theology its the interpretation of God's will, not debating the existence of God, witch is what I'm doing.
Firstly you need to provide evidence of YHWH before you can interpret his will.
If you want to debate his existence, please, by all means, show me that your god exists. Give me proof of his existence.
What first proved to you that YHWH existed those 42 long years ago?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
You say that you base yourself on facts.
That's right.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Facts about God?
Facts that I have seen proof of in the "god" department.
That covers many things.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I've read it, being gentleman for not comment it.
Please do comment on it. I'd like to hear it.
God, Guns and Beer, that's the state motto! (another joke
)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Please do comment on it. I'd like to hear it.
Rural world, urban world. Nothing more.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.6. July 2010, 01:01:21 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Facts about God? That's why I've started my post with an hypothesis to answer a question that seems to me to be the only logical one to explain it.
Thats simple. Your god is truthful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnisapient, perfectly just, perfectly loving and cares for all of us, right? If is that so, we can put his words to the test quite easily.
In several places in the bible, it says that prayer will be answered, correct? Well, wrong. There has been several papers on the effect of prayer in healing and the results are disheartening:
1. The effects of prayer were indistinguishable from Placebo (meaning that people who never received any prayer got healed in the same rate)
2. No single cult has better healing rates than others, meaning that God answer all prayers at the same rate, even when offered to Lucifer or the FSM.
3. The piety of the people being prayed did not had an effect on the healing or survival rates.
4. The piety of the people doing the prayer did not had an effect on the results, same with the number of people praying.
5. There is not a single documented case of an impossible miracle, like someone growing back an amputated limb (no, surviving terminal cancer is something that people sometimes do; something with very low probability but not zero).
6. Miraculous healing and resurrection miracles banish suddenly from history roughly at the same time we were equipped to study and properly document them. Same with other miracles. If God is perfectly just, why he gave the chance to previous generations to witness his might and we have to digest an old book full of contradictions instead of seeing evidence?
7. There are plenty of people claiming they can heal with the power of God, the holy spirit or a horseshoe, yet none of them has been able to claim the $1M reward Randi offers to anyone capable of such miracles in a controlled environment.
The results? God does not help people based on religion or character and bestows randomly his grace upon a few at whim, their faith is irrelevant and prayer does not make him change his mind in any meaningful way, ergo, the bible made a false claim, ergo can't be trusted.
I'm not going to bother arguing why God attributes are logically impossible, try looking for the old posts on that topic, Bantay was particularly stubborn on that one and there are plenty of topics covering that.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
This is a never ending circle every time it keeps being brought back here.
And you'd never go around in circles, repeatedly bringing up the same subjects such as the British Empire, American imperialism, Zionism, the basket case continent, Ismlam, etc etc....
Would you?
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Who's a famous Moorish philosopher more from like the 12th or 13th century?
There are hundreds of them.
Some are more famous than others. If you talk about 17th century philosophy I immediately think of Hobbes, Locke, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Galilei, Milton and some others (while in total there are far, far more), but even among a short list of ones that immediately come to mind, Spinoza definitely jumps out for me — as a philosopher, that is.
I should write down the names and authors of the books (in this case translation) I read.
Do note that when I say "awesome" I mean it mostly like "compared to any other philosophy from the 11th/12th/13th century."
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Some are more famous than others.
Averrois could he be?
http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/garland/deweever/A/averrois.htm
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by aziffle:
Please note that God being the creator of all things including time as we think we know it , It would be safe to believe he or it would not consider a day in mans concept of time one in the same . What was written as the creation is taken literally by many and I would presume a God of such magnitude would have likely taken his time and planed the universe much like a painter to a blank canvas .
Here's a serious question for you. Given that you think this is what God would have done, what makes you think this is ever likely to be accurate?
What I mean is, you're thinking that this a logical way to go about things - but you're a human, and can only imagine things that are conceivable to humans. What makes you think that God would go about creating a universe the way a painter goes about creating a painting?
Not only that, but your argument involves pulling a rationalisation out of nowhere, not out of God's teachings. What makes you think you can divine the thoughts and intentions of God?
Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:
What I mean is, you're thinking that this a logical way to go about things - but you're a human, and can only imagine things that are conceivable to humans. What makes you think that God would go about creating a universe the way a painter goes about creating a painting?
Not only that, but your argument involves pulling a rationalisation out of nowhere, not out of God's teachings. What makes you think you can divine the thoughts and intentions of God?
Besides, this god chap is omnipotent apparently. Therefore, if he knows what he's going to do, why plan at all?
Originally posted by Immanis:
He didn't. No sane engineer puts a recreation area in the dump zone of a waste disposal facility.
It's sterile waste, so I'm sure there's worse things speaking from the perspective of designing things (spines meant for walking on four legs, eyes designed backwards, etc.)
Originally posted by Immanis:
Thats simple. Your god is truthful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnisapient, perfectly just, perfectly loving and cares for all of us, right?
Truthful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, yes. And Good (you can say loving, I suppose).
Regarding perfectly just, if by that you mean that he will punish you for something, no he wouldn't. He give us free will. Here, on Earth; regarding paradise it will be another story.
Cares for all of us, well... we have a saying around here: have faith on the Virgin, but start running... But of course it doesn't applies to materialists.
Originally posted by Immanis:
If is that so, we can put his words to the test quite easily.
No, we can't.
Interpreting his will, either based on words (texts as the Bible) or based on examples (the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death and resurrection), it's the role of theology with the starting assumption that theology can't test God nor it pretends to do it. Theology it's not a science.
That's the reason why so many different interpretation arises. Because the human social and cultural diversity component on those interpretations.
It also explains the evolution of theological concepts.
The remaining points of your post seems to me your personal interrogations about things as praying, piety, miracles, etc. Choose the answers that more pleases you.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.7. July 2010, 03:18:43 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Interpreting his will, either based on words (texts as the Bible) or based on examples (the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death and resurrection), it's the role of theology with the starting assumption that theology can't test God nor it pretends to do it. Theology it's not a science.
So they are just guessing... kinda making it up as they go.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Cares for all of us, well... we have a saying around here: have faith on the Virgin, but start running... But of course it doesn't applies to materialists.
explains this.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
That's the reason why so many different interpretation arises. Because the human social and cultural diversity component on those interpretations.
yes, yes... cause there's a bunch of people just making stuff up... been over that.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
It also explains the evolution of theological concepts.
indeed, it does.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
The remaining points of your post seems to me your personal interrogations about things as praying, piety, miracles, etc. Choose the answers that more pleases you.
and you don't wanna defend the weak evidence and apparent randomness of those effects... understandable.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Truthful, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, yes.
The 3 "O's" have already been dealt with. Why you can't be bothered to respond to my total annihilation of your and afizzle's "Three O" attributes is baffling, though not really. (I know... you have no response.
)Originally posted by Belfrager:
And Good (you can say loving, I suppose).
But of course! The following verses just make me feel the love of that malevolent sadist:
(All from the NIV bible)
1. Exodus 31:12-15
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
2. 1 Samuel 6:19-20
19 But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy [a] of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them, 20 and the men of Beth Shemesh asked, "Who can stand in the presence of the LORD, this holy God? To whom will the ark go up from here?"
3. Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants
nor will they look with compassion on children.
4. 2 Kings 2:23-24
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
-------> And before you dismiss this as Old Testament "unenlightened" acts, I might remind you..... :
----> Luke 16:17
17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
(Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. No one other then Jesus said so.)
As for dealing with your rubbish about YHWH and his hippy half, JC, being truthful:
- Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. He even goes so far as to say that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. This is clearly a lie, and can be proven to be a lie by any believer.:
1. John 14:13-14
3And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
------> Has YHWH/JC answered all of your prayers? No? That's what I thought.
2. John 15:7
7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.
3. Luke 11:9-13
9"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[a] a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
------> A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible. They also tend to add things to the actual words to make them say something else. If you honestly and truthfully read these quotes, without adding to them, it is very easy to see that Jesus is not saying that God will think about your prayers. He says God will grant all your prayers. Clearly, God doesn’t grant all prayers and this proves that Jesus was a habitual liar.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
He give us free will.
Nonsense. You lot always say that the grumpy bugger will always know what is going to happen beforehand. That is a clear contradiction to your "free will" assertion. It also takes away one one of your "3 'O' " arguments.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Can omniscient God ,who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change his future mind?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Regarding perfectly just, if by that you mean that he will punish you for something, no he wouldn't. He give us free will. Here, on Earth; regarding paradise it will be another story.
I can understand God barring the gates of paradise against us heathens, but there is a long shot from that to imply that we would walk willingly to hell. He himself or someone else in his name will get us and throw us into the lake of fire for all eternity, so please cut the crap and accept the implications of your faith for good or bad.
You believe that God will doom all of us to an eternity of torment and suffering just for not believing that Jesus is our savior, is as simple as that. If that is your concept of perfect justice, I don't want to imagine what you will call unjust.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Cares for all of us, well... we have a saying around here: have faith on the Virgin, but start running... But of course it doesn't applies to materialists.
Hmm.. thats pretty unusual, you are implying that having faith on him is not enough for him to care for you, so basically you believe on him because he has the power to screw you up and reward you if you behave to his liking more than for any of the real of imaginary attributes he may have. Sorta a better safe than sorry argument.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by immanis:
If is that so, we can put his words to the test quite easily.
No, we can't.
Interpreting his will, either based on words (texts as the Bible) or based on examples (the meaning of Jesus Christ life, death and resurrection), it's the role of theology with the starting assumption that theology can't test God nor it pretends to do it.
I'm not trying to interpret his words, I'm trying to find evidence of his interactions with the world thorough the words attributed to him. Is pretty clear that if he intervenes on any way with our reality, we should be able to detect that interaction, after all is a personal God and not something abstract as a deistic God.
At this point, your options are:
-He interacts with the universe, but we can't detect the interaction in any way
-He interacts with the universe and is possible to detect that interaction
-He cares only for the spiritual realm and does not interact at all with the universe
The first options almost nullify completely the hypothesis of omnipotence, basically he only cares for stuff so irrelevant that is impossible to detect at all. The second option opens the door for the science to find evidence for God, if such evidence exists we eventually will find it and the debate will be over, so if you are a man of faith, contribute to science with all your strength and help to save all of us. The third alternative is deism, and you don't believe that.
The other option is that bible did not accurately represent God's words, but hell will freeze over before you can accept that one.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Did I speak to Matthew , Mark , Luke or John ? Absolutely not but it is safe to say that each of the writers had a better knowledge of Gods intent than say Constantine , The Papacy or Dawgfan simply due to the time , area and the nature of there writing .
Yet the oldest known book of Mark, the first of the gospels, fails to mention the resurrection....
A key event, wouldn't you say? And yet the one closest to the time and area doesn't seem to be aware of its occurrence.
7. July 2010, 05:21:12 (edited)
Originally posted by aziffle:
Dawg , You as a former Christian (?)
Indeed, gave it up quite recently actually.
Originally posted by aziffle:
should understand the difference between what is philosophical and literal in regards to the Bible .
I do, your point?
Originally posted by aziffle:
Did Gods hand write the word ?
Of course not. You should try telling that to some of the locals here in MS though!
(They get quite pissy.)Originally posted by aziffle:
Man wrote those words and they are prone to mans since of imagination and ulterior motives
Quite right. In the bible's case, they ever escaped their imagination and never went back to reality. I wonder if there was biblical LSD? Maybe they were trippin' ?
Originally posted by aziffle:
we get what we have to work with now
Of course you do. What are you suggesting, ignore all of the atrocities in the OT and the glaring contradictions in the NT?
Originally posted by aziffle:
But there is enough of the message left to decipher if one has the ability or desire to seek it .
There are numerous "messages" in the bible. Which one?
I suspect you are suggesting the message that is on par with The Beatles "All you need is love." The problem with that is, your head honcho, JC himself (YHWH's schizophrenic other half that promotes love as opposed to YHWH's destructive self) said that not a bit of the OT should be changed and that the world would end before it could be changed. In that particular message, there is no squirming out of it all. By all means, promote the "good" stuff that all the different denominations preach, but keep in mind that the Christ god-man himself said that the "bad" cannot be removed.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Did I speak to Matthew , Mark , Luke or John ?
I doubt it, though the Buddhists might beg to differ.
Originally posted by aziffle:
but it is safe to say that each of the writers had a better knowledge of Gods intent than say Constantine , The Papacy or Dawgfan simply due to the time , area and the nature of there writing .
Nonsense. Even in the bible it says that "God" will always be an eternal mystery, even to those who follow him. (I think that is in Revelations, though I am not sure.) I don't buy a word of it all, or even YHWH's existence, therefore I never have, never will and cannot claim that I know your god. One cannot know something that does not exist.
However, I can keep tabs on what his followers wrote, true or not. In the situation I am in, it always good to have a better knowledge than your opponent does. In MS, I have bible verses thrown at me constantly, for anything really. (Usually to justify something)
I think it is better to outsmart those who want to assert these nonsensical opinions masquerading as fact, rather than be ignorant of it all and let them ramble on with their nonsense.
Originally posted by aziffle:
If you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains ( FAITH ,
Ok, so since you have faith, move the Appalachians into Iran for me.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Not simply reading a paragraph to destroy what you obviously can't understand )
*chuckles* You use the usual cop-out I am given in real life be "The True Believers". Well, that or the "You are taking it out of context!" cop out.
Alrighty then, since you think I don't understand it, I invite you to explain it to me.
How else am I to take these verses? :
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
(All from the NIV bible)
1. Exodus 31:12-15
12 Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
2. 1 Samuel 6:19-20
19 But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh, putting seventy [a] of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. The people mourned because of the heavy blow the LORD had dealt them, 20 and the men of Beth Shemesh asked, "Who can stand in the presence of the LORD, this holy God? To whom will the ark go up from here?"
3. Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through;
all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.
17 See, I will stir up against them the Medes,
who do not care for silver
and have no delight in gold.
18 Their bows will strike down the young men;
they will have no mercy on infants
nor will they look with compassion on children.
4. 2 Kings 2:23-24
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
-------> And before you dismiss this as Old Testament "unenlightened" acts, I might remind you..... :
----> Luke 16:17
17It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.
(Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. No one other then Jesus said so.)
Originally posted by aziffle:
Not all things are clear to me in my religion but the intent of it's text is clear as a bell , Love , Respect ( For yourself and others ) and just being a decent human being in general .
I'm sure it is. Here is your problem though, you are selectively choosing what is "clear" to you. You are taking that which could be termed as "respectable" or "agreeable" all the while ignoring what a screwed-up deity it is that you worship! I used to do the same thing, I admit it. Then something happened.... I read the bible in it's entirety....twice. That, my friend, was an eye-opener. If you haven't done the same, I encourage you to do so. Since being in college, I have developed critical thinking skills. Try reading that book with an open mind, and think critically about what you are reading.
Originally posted by aziffle:
It's simple but yet so many wish to dismiss the notion and assert complicated formulas to either explain it or debunk it .
Nope, not hardly. At the root of all of my questions and debate and discussion lies a central question that I and others with my same mindset ask. It is a very simple question and request, yet not a single believer has been able to acquiesce to my or anyone else's request. Are you ready? Here it is:
Where is the proof of your god? Please give others and myself irrefutable proof that YHWH exists.
Originally posted by aziffle:
and it never ceases to amaze me that young folks with big thoughts and a college degrees still cant see the forest for the trees .
All that I ask of you is listed above. No doubt you are similar to myself, and were "born into" christianity. (?)
All that I am requesting of you is the following:
1. Read the bible from front to back, keep an open mind while doing so.
2. Think critically about what you read.
If you do so, and still have faith that a god exists, your faith is truly strong.
I see no evidence at all for your god except 3 ancient book of Abrahamic origin that condone slavery, racism, homophobia, genocide, filicide, pestilentialism, malevolence and a central figure who is a mad control-freak.
Perhaps you can prove myself and others wrong?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
. Originally posted by aziffle:
Dawg , Surely you jest at the notion of proving Gods existence . It was no more possible for man back in the days of Noah than it is now , That is asking a bit much of even modern man as seen by the field of science today in all it's bumbling glory . I heard a statement years ago " If men could tap into the minds of women and figure out what makes them tick every males head that received that knowledge would instantaneously explode ." And in turn I think God is beyond our realm of understanding and likely the reason Jesus was born to interact with us.
If he indeed interacts with anything then that interaction can be measured, or at least detected. If it happens in your head only it's indistinguishable from delusion.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
He give us free will. Here, on Earth; regarding paradise it will be another story.
Some paradise that is.
Originally posted by Immanis:
You believe that God will doom all of us to an eternity of torment and suffering just for not believing that Jesus is our savior, is as simple as that. If that is your concept of perfect justice, I don't want to imagine what you will call unjust.
And paradise is an eternity of boredom at best, and apparently it's without free will. Methinks Christianity and Islam are more obsessed with the stick behind the door than with the carrot on a stick.
Admittedly Islamic heaven is more detailed, but that thing's even more ludicrous.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Man wrote those words and they are prone to mans since of imagination and ulterior motives , Diluted by the phone game of time we get what we have to work with now , But there is enough of the message left to decipher if one has the ability or desire to seek it .
I could write something just like it - heck, I could write something quite superior to it - and I'm sure you could always find a message, whether intended or just extracted because you think it needs to have one.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I heard a statement years ago " If men could tap into the minds of women and figure out what makes them tick every males head that received that knowledge would instantaneously explode ." And in turn I think God is beyond our realm of understanding and likely the reason Jesus was born to interact with us .
What a bunch of bologna. Women are almost just like men and most differences are cultural.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Garyedness , I as mentioned earlier had trouble with understanding the chronological aspect of the Bible chapters and why they are seem thrown together initially
I glad you mentioned this, because the oldest text of the new testament is the book of revelations written around 30 years after the death of Jesus and does not contains any reference to Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary but some allegoric references you barely can associate with him (name included). This is important for several reasons, 30 years is a very long span of time and it makes highly unlikely that the gospels where written by the original apostles, and even if that was the case they for some of them, the authors were in a rather advanced age (for the time) and probably senile.
So, the most likely scenario is that the content of the gospels where preserved in oral tradition until written down at a later time. This is a problem for literalists, because in oral traditions the goal never is to keep tell the message to the letter (thats a misconception from the writing tradition), but to convey the message to an audience, sacrificing correctness for clarity.
Add the mix the fact that Jesus used different languages (usually Aramaic or Greek) and sometimes his message only made sense in that language and was poorly translated to the other and in a few years you will get a dozen of conflicting versions of the life and words from Jesus.
And for the grand finale, a group of priests 300 years after Jesus sat together to make sense of all the mess and inspired by the hand of God (translated: don't dare to question them), they picked the versions they liked and those made the cannon of Christianity. For the rest.. well, lets say that some of the text that didn't made it must have contained some dangerous precepts because for a reason or another, they began hunting the texts and destroying them (and converting or destroying the heretics who follow them) with an enthusiasm worthy of better causes. Of course, the idea of being wrong on the selection never clouded their happy minds, and the thought of been the instrument of the destruction of a surviving piece of information about the life of Jesus never bothered them a bit.
One of the things that I find more amusing regarding this is that they all were inspired by God, yet the vote was not unanimous. There were a few of them that opposed the new cannon, dunno what happened to the poor bastards.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Dawg , Surely you jest at the notion of proving Gods existence . It was no more possible for man back in the days of Noah than it is now...
Hold on. Didn't this god make personal appearances back in the day? He could at least attend a movie opening....
Originally posted by Frenzie:
And paradise is an eternity of boredom at best, and apparently it's without free will.
Why boring?
If you minutely unpack a man's life, free will evaporates. Nicht wahr?
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Unless it's all very personalized, but even then I'd like the option of dying at some point. Actually ceasing to exist. No eternity.
No problem. You'll get your option.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
No problem. You'll get your option.
You're a gunslinger in the afterlife?
Originally posted by Immanis:
No offense intended, but
stalkingstaring at you for one year is the very definition of boredom, dunno why someone would want to do that for all eternity.
Interesting observation. It may explain some of my wife's responses to me. I'll ask her.
Eternity! Talk to me about tomorrow.
Originally posted by Immanis:
That's why god created so many of us... at any given second, there are countless people having sex with married men/women, fighting, killing each other, stealing, blowing things up... think about it, we were fashioned in his image, and those things are exactly what we like to watch on T.V. God is the ultimate reality T.V. junkie and has some pretty violent tastes. I don't think god watches anyone in the afterlife as there's probably nothing interesting going on up there. I think he just feels bad for putting us through all of this crap.No offense intended, but
stalkingstaring at you for one year is the very definition of boredom, dunno why someone would want to do that for all eternity.
Originally posted by Immanis:
I'm trying to find evidence of his interactions with the world thorough the words attributed to him.
Maybe starting by any of the physical laws would be easier. They are closest to the source.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Maybe starting by any of the physical laws would be easier. They are closest to the source.
Sure, as soon as someone finds a direct link between the physical laws and the Christian God. Besides, are you sure you want to open that particular can of worms? First of all, if the only evidence for God's interaction with the universe are the physical laws, you are denying the basic tenant that your god is a personal God that cares of you and intervenes in your aid if your faith is strong enough. Basically you are stating that he is not in the mood to make miracles anymore and we are left to fend by ourselves in an universe where only the physical laws matters.
Once more, you are playing in the deistic field, just a hair's width apart from our own position.
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Hey old chap, I've called god petty, tyrant, vengeful, immoral, etc. but in all cases I was referring to the concept of god in general, not to your sacred holiness. I do apologize for any mistake that could have hurt your feelings, so be a good deity and spare me the insult, can you? I will sacrifice aI'm starting to suspect that you're a Jesuit.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Dawg , Surely you jest at the notion of proving Gods existence .
I jest not, good fellow.
Originally posted by aziffle:
It was no more possible for man back in the days of Noah than it is now
Why then do you believe in it all?
Originally posted by aziffle:
That is asking a bit much of even modern man as seen by the field of science today in all it's bumbling glory .
The difference being, science says "We may well be wrong, but with the proof we have, we don't think so."
A good saying to keep in mind is, "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutley faithful."
Originally posted by aziffle:
And in turn I think God is beyond our realm of understanding and likely the reason Jesus was born to interact with us .
There are two things wrong with this statement:
1. You have no other argument to turn to, so you use the infamous cop out of "He's beyond our realm of understanding." I call nonsense. This is still the same deity who is written about wiping entire civilizations out, the same one who turned a woman into a pillar of salt because it suited him to do so, and the same deity who loves the smell of seared flesh in the morning. If he exists as you seem to think he does, he would leave evidence of his existence. I on the other hand, see no evidence of his existence. I simply marvel at how you still think he exists without any proof whatsoever.
Originally posted by aziffle:
It's true that things may have been decreed by God that aren't politically correct but never the less if you made a sandcastle ( Not recommended on gulf coast ) and you saw another person making adjustments you didn't like .
This is about the most ingenious saying I've seen in a while by someone religious. I don't care if the deity is PC or not, I am more concerned as to why 1 billion people + want to believe in a deity that is so awful, so dreadful, and somehow out of all that want to say "He is love."
Originally posted by Macallan:
If it happens in your head only it's indistinguishable from delusion.
A good point here Mac.
Originally posted by Immanis:
One of the things that I find more amusing regarding this is that they all were inspired by God, yet the vote was not unanimous. There were a few of them that opposed the new cannon, dunno what happened to the poor bastards.
I also find that quite amusing. Why was this not included? :
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
Originally posted by parkerjm:
I think he just feels bad for putting us through all of this crap.
Keep in mind that he apparently planned it all.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Immanis:
So, the most likely scenario is that the content of the gospels where preserved in oral tradition until written down at a later time. This is a problem for literalists, because in oral traditions the goal never is to keep tell the message to the letter (thats a misconception from the writing tradition), but to convey the message to an audience, sacrificing correctness for clarity.
And the message the speaker in question wanted to convey wouldn't necessarily be the same message the original author(s) intended - even aziffle admitted there are plenty different interpretation.
Originally posted by Immanis:
Add the mix the fact that Jesus used different languages (usually Aramaic or Greek) and sometimes his message only made sense in that language and was poorly translated to the other and in a few years you will get a dozen of conflicting versions of the life and words from Jesus.
Just read the gospel of thomas for a nice example of this. It's not long, just a list of things jesus supposedly said. Many quotes will sound familiar, some say the exact opposite of what you find in the synoptic gospels.
Originally posted by Immanis:
One of the things that I find more amusing regarding this is that they all were inspired by God, yet the vote was not unanimous. There were a few of them that opposed the new cannon, dunno what happened to the poor bastards.
They were never seen again
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Immanis:
I will sacrifice a
hotdog in your name and all friends as usual, deal?
III - A Discordian is Required during his early Illumination to Go Off Alone & Partake Joyously of a Hot Dog on a Friday; this Devotive Ceremony to Remonstrate against the popular Paganisms of the Day: of Catholic Christendom (no meat on Friday), of Judaism (no meat of Pork), of Hindic Peoples (no meat of Beef), of Buddhists (no meat of animal), and of Discordians (no Hot Dog Buns).
I think Jaybro might also be Eris in drag
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
. I don't dispute that God likely wont show up for a movie opening ( I live near a theater and haven't considered it , Besides to many of you heathens out there ) but yes I believe his fingerprints are everywhere . Just can't find our earthly conditions just anywhere and believe me science has been looking for awhile ( Speaking of Cop outs : " Oh it's out there we just ain't found it yet " .) Evil christian guy ( Me ) says " Gotta go wata my maters and spark up the BBQ for heathen kabobs . Originally posted by aziffle:
Something struck me as I read through the post that lead to my response , The quotes ( Addressing me ) seem to start and stop abruptly without consideration of a prior or latter sentence and it appears likewise with the scripture you quote . Is this a indication of the way you read the Bible , It might explain the reason you can't understand what a " Billion " others get so easily .
How about starting to make some sense for a change
First of all, you could actually read what other people post instead of speculating wildly. Then, to your billion there are at least four billions who believe something completely different - there goes your argument from numbers. A fallacy to begin with but it doesn't even support your claim.
Finally, your posts are a pain in the arse to read. Please consider proper use of punctuation, paragraphs and quotes.
Originally posted by aziffle:
The problem seems to go back to the issue of faith as I see it . As some here I would presume have written papers on material they have read , You must be able to ( Or at least should ) see the writers passion for the love of his work or I would think you would fail the paper miserably .
Rubbish, the writer's passion is utterly irrelevant. You're posting quite passionate nonsense for example, which by the way doesn't get any less nonsensical no matter how passionate you get.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Quite possibly if need be you may have to read something many times to grasp the true essence of what the writer is trying to convey , Picking a excerpt out and casting the book aside often leads to a blank essay . Empty paper empty mind . Perhaps if you keep repeating scriptures from the bible long enough in this thread maybe the concept will sink in
Perhaps, if you would actually read and, most importantly try to comprehend what people post here you wouldn't have to post silly nonsense like this. You wouldn't have to speculate since you'd actually know what you're responding to. Empty mind indeed
Originally posted by aziffle:
I don't dispute that God likely wont show up for a movie opening ( I live near a theater and haven't considered it , Besides to many of you heathens out there ) but yes I believe his fingerprints are everywhere .
Well, if they were actually there we should be able to see them
Originally posted by aziffle:
Just can't find our earthly conditions just anywhere and believe me science has been looking for awhile ( Speaking of Cop outs : " Oh it's out there we just ain't found it yet "
See, that's what quotes are for. If you had quoted what you're trying to respond to everyone would know wether you make sense or not. Since you don't the statement is nonsense.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by aziffle:
omething struck me as I read through the post that lead to my response , The quotes ( Addressing me ) seem to start and stop abruptly without consideration of a prior or latter sentence and it appears likewise with the scripture you quote . Is this a indication of the way you read the Bible
You are aware that it's easier to quote large parts of text rather than just a few sentences? Speaking for myself, I pick out the part that I consider the essence of the particular thing I'm responding to. If I quoted whole paragraphs of text that'd just make my replies longer without adding anything new. And yes, some parts of the Bible are also more relevant than others. Consider how much smaller the Jefferson Bible is.
7. July 2010, 22:37:45 (edited)
Originally posted by aziffle:
The quotes ( Addressing me ) seem to start and stop abruptly without consideration of a prior or latter sentence and it appears likewise with the scripture you quote . Is this a indication of the way you read the Bible , It might explain the reason you can't understand what a " Billion " others get so easily .
A billion others who read only the parts they want so can't agree on the details of what the book says.
A typical christian attribute here... say something right, completely wrong.
Originally posted by aziffle:
As some here I would presume have written papers on material they have read , You must be able to ( Or at least should ) see the writers passion for the love of his work or I would think you would fail the paper miserably . Quite possibly if need be you may have to read something many times to grasp the true essence of what the writer is trying to convey
Again right... yet not. you do have to read some literary works more than once to capture the authors intent. But that's usually because you bring a lot of your own bias to the subject the first time. Christian only read the scriptures to try and find meaning for themselves. blasting everything they read with their own values and preconceptions in an attempt to justify them... This point is why I don't even bother quoting scripture. You can interpret any one section of it a multitude of ways. and when you read it in context as a whole, it isn't anything like what i was taught by all these people who "get it so easily". Maybe they never really gave the effort to examine it, thus it's easy to just follow what everyone says this text means.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Just can't find our earthly conditions just anywhere
how can you just dismiss the possibility? how has science even had the chance to answer this question? all the evidence we have says the probability of other planets that resemble earth is good. We just can't make it out to verify that probability. this isn't to alien from your faith concept... everything points to a big universe with diversity we can't even yet imagine. I'm not willing to sit here with almost no information and make that call.
the real problem you have with science is every time it does make a breakthrough it proves something else you hold dear flat out wrong. so you have to resort to "non-literal" interpretations of out dated logic from superstitious control freaks. what other reason would the church spend so much effort in slandering science for?
7. July 2010, 22:23:30 (edited)
Originally posted by aziffle:
I offer you my explanation of my belief but make no apology for the ill deeds of other men ,
But of course not, nor does YHWH apologize for his malevolence.
Originally posted by aziffle:
What may to your ears sound as a cop out was to me a explanation .
Say rather it is an excuse not to put what you think YHWH gave you to good use. (Your brain)
Originally posted by aziffle:
The quotes ( Addressing me ) seem to start and stop abruptly without consideration of a prior or latter sentence and it appears likewise with the scripture you quote .
Really now, have we already gotten to the old, "You're quoting me out of context." cop out?Ahh me, the end of this will be coming and coming soon, I can tell. To quote the Gloria Patri, "as It Was In The Beginning,is Now And Ever Shall Be;world Without End....". This happens all the time on D&D. Religious folk offer their thoughts on their god and usually answer a question or 10, and then get angry and storm off.
If this is to be the case, as I reckon it will be, good luck to you man. I hope your don't have to wait long for what it is you need.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Evil christian guy ( Me )
No one said that. I said your deity as he is described in the bible is a sick bastard, that's all.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Immanis:
Originally posted by Jaybro:
Hey old chap, I've called god petty, tyrant, vengeful, immoral, etc. but in all cases I was referring to the concept of god in general, not to your sacred holiness. I do apologize for any mistake that could have hurt your feelings, so be a good deity and spare me the insult, can you? I will sacrifice aI'm starting to suspect that you're a Jesuit.
hotdog in your name and all friends as usual, deal?
All is forgiven.
Is that "hot dog" or
?Originally posted by aziffle:
What may to your ears sound as a cop out was to me a explanation
Is thats works for you, fine, we simply have different standards of evidence and thats all. Just don't forget to apply the same logic in everything else in your life because if a logic argument it is good for something, it must be good for anything else or it was a logical fallacy in the first place. Making an exception only for religion is simply not being honest with yourself and every time you use a fallacy someone else will point it to you.
Also remember that faith is believing in something without good evidence, you don't need to justify your beliefs before us or anyone else. Just keep it to yourself and don't try to convert us, because we won't believe in anything without evidence, and from my experience the best you guys have is faith and personal revelation, everything else is speculation and unfounded statements. Just my opinion.
Originally posted by Immanis:
Basically you are stating
Basically I'm showing atheism limitations. If that's clear for you or not, doesn't interest me. I don't answer you but to everyone who has the patience to read us.
Anything else?
Now regarding paradise:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Some paradise that is.
Isn't atheism interesting? after denying God it pretends to define how paradise should be..
Next step will be accusing theists of discrimination? we don't allow atheists entering paradise?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Immanis:
Basically you are stating
Basically I'm showing atheism limitations.
Yup, we're limited to what actually exists instead of following imaginary ghosts.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Now regarding paradise:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Some paradise that is.
Isn't atheism interesting? after denying God it pretends to define how paradise should be..
Next step will be accusing theists of discrimination? we don't allow atheists entering paradise?
The only interesting bit here is how you, in truly christian fashion, take a statement out of context and pretend it means something completely different. Since that's apparently how you're supposed to read the bible I'm sure nobody's surprised.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Macallan:
Since that's apparently how you're supposed to read the bible I'm sure nobody's surprised.
Another interesting characteristic of atheism thats denies God. Being the interpretative authority of Bible and everything else.
Each time better.
Oooops, I was out of context for sure.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Basically I'm showing atheism limitations. If that's clear for you or not, doesn't interest me. I don't answer you but to everyone who has the patience to read us.
I only see theist limitations because so far all your arguments point to deism or atheism. Care to explain why I'm wrong and the reason we should seek God in the laws of universe instead? Extra points on the how to do it while keeping the miracles in the bible compatible with your statements.
And no, you don't answer to me, you answer to yourself and nobody else. See my answer to aziffle in the post before yours.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Basically I'm showing atheism limitations.
Well done!
If it has proof, we will believe it.
Perhaps you should inquire if that qualifies you for sainthood? (
Sorry, couldn't resist)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Immanis:
I only see theist limitations because so far all your arguments point to deism or atheism. Care to explain why I'm wrong and the reason we should seek God in the laws of universe instead? Extra points on the how to do it while keeping the miracles in the bible compatible with your statements.
Three things:
1. You use "deism". Good. That means that you understand "The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.".
Since I'm discussing the philosophical hypothesis of a creating God versus the "atheist" position I have to remain exactly to the deist position. That's what I've been doing. I'm not discussing religion.
What I think about religion, theology and other approaches to God it's not the object of my posts even if you try to criticize them.
2. Bible. I'm a Catholic. If you have anything to say regarding that maybe you should not confuse-me with "christians". Mainly regarding the Bible issue.
3. I don't answer to myself since I don't talk alone. And I don't answer you but, as I've said, to everybody who is reading this thread. That means that I don't give a damn about the dominant illiteracy but I do care about all the persons that have the patience to read me and understands my words. I don't have any need to shine at the visible part of this iceberg called D&D.
Some of them do not agree with me, I know. But others do.
Compreendes Immanis?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.8. July 2010, 00:30:47 (edited)
Originally posted by Belfrager:
In other words, not the Christian God in which you believe, and an otherwise pointless argument. Believing in such a God is identical to not believing in a God at all, the follow up for your argument is live your life and move on. No moral absolutes, no miracles, no revelation, a bible completely devoid of truth, no religion, no judgment, dubious afterlife, etc. For all practical purposes, an atheist, since there is no way to know for certain if a deist God exists."The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation."
And best of all: thats the best you can come up to defend your position. Priceless.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Bible. I'm a Catholic. If you have anything to say regarding that maybe you should not confuse-me with "christians". Mainly regarding the Bible issue.
I don't have a reason to believe that the words of the bible are inspired by God, in the same way you think of a gazillon of holy texts of other religions. If the tenants of your faith were true, you should find other evidence for your arguments outside the bible, and while at that avoid the embarrasement of us atheists quoting the bad bits that you rather ignore.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
That means that I don't give a damn about the dominant illiteracy but I do care about all the persons that have the patience to read me and understands my word
I dare to say: not too many if you don't believe in your own ideas yourself. That was the point of answering to yourself, but you missed it completely.
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I'm a Catholic. If you have anything to say regarding that maybe you should not confuse-me with "christians". Mainly regarding the Bible issue.
Are you talking about that "We are God's one true church." bit? If so, what are your thoughts on Church of God people?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Are you talking about that "We are God's one true church." bit? If so, what are your thoughts on Church of God people?
Don't make me laugh with "theology of liberation". I've been laughing enough.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
I've been laughing enough.
Excellent. I've been provided with a few laughs as well.
Ain't life grand?
Seriously though, the Church of God/Christ people truly believe that bit in the bible where it states "And on this rock I will build my church."
I was most amused by this when I had to fulfill an obligation of attending two very different types of religious services for my survey of the Abrahamic religions course. I chose the local Catholic church one sunday and went to a Church of God service the next. The bit I put in parenthesis is exactly the first thing the CoG pastor told me. It was all I could do to not ask him his thoughts to the Catholic claim of the very same thing.
So, come now please, what are your thoughts on the CoG people?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Ain't life grand?
Yes, for those who knows how to live it
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Seriously though, the Church of God/Christ people truly believe that bit in the bible where it states "And on this rock I will build my church."
Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea of you're talking about. Church of God? as in opposition for what? church of non-god? church of atheists?
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Sorry, I don't have the slightest idea of you're talking about. Church of God? as in opposition for what? church of non-god? church of atheists?
Nah, USA is a vast place and every little town whose population is over 500 souls craves for something to make themselves relevant, so they come with all sort of crazy ideas, like the greatest thread ball in the world, the largest omelet, the world capital of whatever, etc. And since they usually are all good Christians, sometimes they come with some ideas to improve the existing rituals and create their own minuscule denominations. Of course, most are pretty much the same thing, so they simply band together in an larger organization with a fancy name to attract
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Originally posted by Macallan:
Since that's apparently how you're supposed to read the bible I'm sure nobody's surprised.
Another interesting characteristic of atheism thats denies God. Being the interpretative authority of Bible and everything else.
Each time better.
Oooops, I was out of context for sure.
Well, now we know it's intentional, thanks for admitting it - few christians can come up with that kind of honesty.
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
I don't have the slightest idea of you're talking about.
I see. Let me clarify for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God
"Church of God is a name used by numerous, mostly unrelated Christian denominational bodies, most of which descend from either Pentecostal/Holiness or Adventist traditions."
To elaborate, it is the polar opposite from Catholicism. Wheras in Catholicism you have lots of "pagentry" (for lack of a better word) with all of the Saints, the large organs that are used to play hymns on, and the praying to Mary to intervene, in the Cog, they are very simple and unadorned. They do not permit musical instruments, they do not have any "entrance exam" (again, for lack of a better word) like Catholics must go through, they absolutely hate any alcohol of any sort and claim it will damn you to hell if you ever drink any, and they are (seemingly to me, from the one service I attended) fundamentalist to the core. I noticed that several members of the congregation of the CoG church that I attended were missing an eye (I swear I'm not making this shi* up) which led me to believe that they take literally the verse "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out...."
They were very insistent that they were the church that apparently Jesus said he would build his church on.
Anyway, just thought it would be amusing to get a Catholic reaction.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
. Originally posted by aziffle:
Simply don't post another reply and ignore me
I have no intent of ignoring you, I simply am going by past experiences on here with christiandom and it's adherents.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Our even better yet use sarcasm on a non related topic to the discussion ( " Wish me well " ) indeed ( " Hope you get what your looking for " ) should have figured something was up .
Nothing at all is up. Again, I am simply going by what past christians have done. If you hang around, excellent. If not, well, you've seen what I've posted.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Underhanded personal attacks seem to be your game instead of D&D when you feel as if you aren't gaining ground
If this is directed at me, no it isn't. I read your "About me" page and simply wished you luck and hoped you got what it is you need.
I have no reason to "gain ground" as it is.
Originally posted by aziffle:
It was not my intent to win you over to Christianity it was a discussion and I attempted nothing more than to express how this Christian sees his religion .
I know that you weren't intending to do that.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Actually I enjoyed the banter and intend on posting further .
I'm glad to hear it.
In that case, I retract all my well-wishes for you in your departure.
Originally posted by aziffle:
Atheist pose no threat to me
Nor should we. The only intent I have is to try to get you to use your "noggin". I simply don't understand why you cling to something so archaic when there is absolutely no proof whatsoever for it, and a plethora of proof against it.
Originally posted by aziffle:
I do have things as each of you know that are more pressing ( Tomatoes and shooting the neighbors cat ) .
I see. So you are going to do some gardening with some cat shooting on the side eh?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by aziffle:
I post how I choose and my punctuation is certainly no worse than others lack of ability to correctly use quoting tools , You obviously have given up your hunt for Christian blood and decided upon a better use of your time ( Proof reading post ) and a wise choice might I say .
Do you have anything relevant to say? Didn't think so.
Well, I guess you were lying when you made that claim about having a life
Originally posted by aziffle:
Underhanded personal attacks seem to be your game
Says the clown who posts nothing else than underhanded personal attacks - too bad the irony will escape you
Originally posted by aziffle:
Atheist pose no threat to me
Funny how you evidently feel the need to repeat this over and over again. Having trouble to convince yourself, eh?
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Now regarding paradise:
Originally posted by Frenzie:
Some paradise that is.
Isn't atheism interesting? after denying God it pretends to define how paradise should be..
Next step will be accusing theists of discrimination? we don't allow atheists entering paradise?
I was voicing my opinion about something you said. You could argue that my implicit comment was along the lines that both heaven and hell both only seem to have you existing as a shell of your former self at best. As if that weren't bad enough, this state would last forever. And that I'd certainly want no part of it.
Let's also assume that I was saying the most meaningful heaven (i.e. that doesn't reduce you to something inhuman) would be something a lot like our good old earth.
Assuming all that, here's the crux: I don't need to believe in something to comment on it.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
they absolutely hate any alcohol of any sort and claim it will damn you to hell if you ever drink any, and they are (seemingly to me, from the one service I attended) fundamentalist to the core. I noticed that several members of the congregation of the CoG church that I attended were missing an eye (I swear I'm not making this shi* up)
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Anyway, just thought it would be amusing to get a Catholic reaction.
Does Mr Tarantino reads D&D? He should, fine material for his movies.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Belfrager:
Does Mr Tarantino reads D&D?
Can't say for not knowing.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by Belfrager:
Does Mr Tarantino reads D&D?
Can't say for not knowing.
No problem.
At least atheists were already filmed with lots of accuracy. And with an interesting music by Andrew Lloyd Webber.
It goes like this, enjoy thedawgfan. It's culture.
We moved to DnD Sanctuary.Originally posted by Thabotizz:
Atheist v/s Christian views.
What the Christian argument is that Christianity is the only philosophy/religion that obligates it's adherents to be responsible and to selflessly care for others, without any expectation of benefit. The opposite contrast is existentialism where everything is you and you alone. Most other religions/philosophies are situated by degrees between the contrast.
Originally posted by grysmn:
First news, the last time I checked the only requisite to go to heaven is accept Jesus as your saviour and obey the 10 commandments, nothing else. As for responsibility, thats a rather empty claim, Christianity happily endorses irresponsible behaviors, like not using condoms, condemn sexual education in kids, oppose abortions and a huge etc. Selfless? Hardly if your good behavior supposedly scores good points to the afterlife and in any case Christianity does not have the monopoly of good deeds.What the Christian argument is that Christianity is the only philosophy/religion that obligates it's adherents to be responsible and to selflessly care for others, without any expectation of benefit.
Also, that 'selflessly care' was guilty of imposing their faith by blood and fire in the new world and reinstating slavery afterwards, guilty of torturing and burning countless lone old women and their cats thorough most the middle ages, and more often than not used as pretext to start wars. Sorry, but I'm not impressed for the achievements of your religion and I'm really sad you see it as the apex of virtue.
First news, the last time I checked the only requisite to go to heaven is accept Jesus as your saviour and obey the 10 commandments, nothing else. As for responsibility, thats a rather empty claim, Christianity happily endorses irresponsible behaviors, like not using condoms, condemn sexual education in kids, oppose abortions and a huge etc. Selfless? Hardly if your good behavior supposedly scores good points to the afterlife and in any case Christianity does not have the monopoly of good deeds. Also, that 'selflessly care' was guilty of imposing their faith by blood and fire in the new world and reinstating slavery afterwards, guilty of torturing and burning countless lone old women and their cats thorough most the middle ages, and more often than not used as pretext to start wars. Sorry, but I'm not impressed for the achievements of your religion and I'm really sad you see it as the apex of virtue.
The condom thing: Isn't that the catholic church.
Secondly the Church of england (christian) can only be described as a force for good over here. Its a bit more flexible than obeying the 10 commandments and flailing yourself!
Also why are you going on about witch burning? Whats that got to do with an upstanding female priest for example? Are you saying she is a witch burner. C'mon dude.
Originally posted by TroyMclure:
The condom thing: Isn't that the catholic church.
An now all of sudden they are not Christian anymore, right?
Originally posted by TroyMclure:
Also why are you going on about witch burning? Whats that got to do with an upstanding female priest for example? Are you saying she is a witch burner. C'mon dude.
If you think witch hunting is something of the past, think twice. All done in the name of your god, none the less, and probably funded by the same force of good in the west.
My point is that Christianity is not all rosy as grysmn implied and certainly not the most virtuous group by any mean. If you choose to ignore the bad bits in the same way you ignore the evilness of God in the old testament, good for you, but don't try to sell that crap as the non plus ultra of virtue, please.
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Is there another religion you would endorse then?
Cantheism.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Is there another religion you would endorse then?
Religion? No, thanks. Certain cults to the dead like Shintoism are harmless enough, but even so there is potential for problems.
If anything, I would endorse Secular Humanism without too much emphasis in the secular part.
Originally posted by thedawgfan:
Originally posted by grysmn:
What the Christian argument is that Christianity is the only philosophy/religion that obligates it's adherents to be responsible and to selflessly care for others, without any expectation of benefit. The opposite contrast is existentialism where everything is you and you alone. Most other religions/philosophies are situated by degrees between the contrast.
Christianity doesn't obligate it's adherents to such a policy, and does promise them a reward if they follow the rules of the religion. This is about as wrong a statement as you can get.
Originally posted by Immanis:
That was a joke, Immanis.
(Although I do look forward to Mr. Howie's response to a religion which worships the inherent goodness of marijuana.
)http://www.usdebtclock.org/
"Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy." -President John Quincy Adams
Originally posted by Immanis:
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Is there another religion you would endorse then?
Religion? No, thanks. Certain cults to the dead like Shintoism are harmless enough, but even so there is potential for problems.
Indeed
FNORD14. Wipe thine ass with what is written and grin like a ninny at what is Spoken. Take thine refuge with thine wine in the Nothing behind Everything, as you hurry along the Path.
THE PURPLE SAGE, HBT; The Book of Predictions, Chap. 19
Originally posted by rjhowie:
Is there another religion you would endorse then?
Of course there is! Jocko is my King...er, Queen?
Would you believe that he paid to have a covey of these painted? Of course you would.
Originally posted by grysmn:
What the Christian argument is that Christianity is the only philosophy/religion that obligates it's adherents to be responsible and to selflessly care for others, without any expectation of benefit.
What utter nonsense, from the University of Goebells one would assume. For someone who claims to know so much about Islam (I suspect you of secretly being an Islamist by the way....I've taken to using your logic!) you actually know very little. Else you would know full well that Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. Other religions have similar concepts.
Originally posted by garydenness:
And you'd never go around in circles, repeatedly bringing up the same subjects such as the British Empire, American imperialism, Zionism, the basket case continent, Ismlam, etc etc....
Originally posted by garydenness:
What utter nonsense, from the University of Goebells one would assume. For someone who claims to know so much about Islam (I suspect you of secretly being an Islamist by the way....I've taken to using your logic!) you actually know very little. Else you would know full well that Zakat is one of the five pillars of Islam. Other religions have similar concepts.
If you are truly representative of Mexicos teachers, I can see the reason for it's present social and political state.
Originally posted by garydenness:
In your face, loser!
Generally abusive personalities miss use what they believe to be verbal machismo to compensate for their lack of manhood that would not even partially satisfy a flea. Abusive teachers berate their charges in a classroom, and are utter cowards elsewhere.
Showing topic replies 301 - 450 of 585.