Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Why did you vote for Obama?
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362161 is a reply to message #362154] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 07:58   |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Tue, 09 December 2008 15:11 |
I will have to agree with you on this. Religion is man made that's why their are billions of them all thinking they got it right.
|
You are finally right about something. Religion is man-made. As for "all thinking they got it right", again, you said so much more than you realise. Why do you think you know any better than the others?
| Darkknight wrote on Tue, 09 December 2008 15:11 |
All I was trying to say with my post is how funny it is that those who discredit their being a God also in the same breathe wants us to swallow the fact that all this came from nothing and to believe in Evolution which is still just a theory.
|
"All this" didn't come from nothing. See my post above. As for "evolution is just a theory"... uh, lol. Do you know what the word theory means? It doesn't look like it.
A theory is an evolved explanation to fit the known facts. It becomes a successful theory if it survives the introduction of previously unknown facts, and it becomes an accepted theory if it can make predictions about future events.
There is no insult in saying "evolution is only a theory". The word "only" does not belong in that sentence.
By the same definition, creationism isn't EVEN a theory. It fails at every required hurdle. It's a guess, nothing more; a guess made thousands of years ago who didn't know jack shit about the world we live in.
By the way, you have not answered Frontier Psychiatrist's question, which is absolutely valid. If God made everything, who made God? Who designed the designer?
If you say there must be a God because everything around us is so complex (such as we humans, for example) then surely something capable of designing something so complex must be at least as complex itself, probably a great deal more complex. This defeats your entire argument, because something as complex as God would in turn need to be designed, by something even more powerful. This leads us to an infinite regression. Evolution doesn't; it says that things as complex as we humans took millions and millions of years to develop, at a staggering cost (over 99% of all species that have ever existed on this planet are now extinct, and I'm not talking about deforestation or pollution here, I'm talking about unsuccessful creatures dying while successful creatures survive and develop)
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2008 08:13] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362166 is a reply to message #362154] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 09:11 |
 |
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| Darkknight |
you said i never responded so i will. I never said I thought it was absurd I believe in God so don't twist my words around and stick to what was posted.
|
What?! Are you high? When did I ever say or imply that?
| Darkknight |
Excuse me the last 4 pages of this entire thread is you all laughing at Christians for what they believe, but you find it wrong for me to laugh at your wacked ideas that we all came from nothing.
|
When did I say we all came from nothing? When did I ever imply that I was an atheist? Most people that have been paying attention should know by now that I am a THEIST. I believe in Intelligent Design, and I believe it was a god that set everything in motion. However, I don't believe religion to be true, especially since there can't just be "one, true" religion. You cannot honestly tell me that EVERYBODY else besides the Jews and the Christians got it wrong and are suffering eternal damnation.
| Darkknight |
I will have to agree with you on this. Religion is man made that's why their are billions of them all thinking they got it right. Jesus didn't change a persons heart by preaching them to death he first acted on their need then they wanted to know who he was. To many Christians think if you smack someone upside the head enough with the bible they will get it but in fact it only gives them a headache.
All I was trying to say with my post is how funny it is that those who discredit their being a God also in the same breathe wants us to swallow the fact that all this came from nothing and to believe in Evolution which is still just a theory.
|
You do have to realize that scientific "theory" isn't the type of theory you're talking about, right?
Edit: Spoony, there is more than just one type of "theory". Creationism is a theory. It's just not a scientific theory.
whoa.
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2008 09:24] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362177 is a reply to message #362166] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 09:57 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
You sound more like a deist than a theist to me... so what do you think the 'god' actually is? What's his (if it's applicable to call him a he) actual nature, and where did he come from?
I probably don't need to point this out to you (although any Christian reading this could use reminding), although even if it were somehow proven that everything was set in motion by some kind of superbeing, it wouldn't mean it was Yahweh (or vindicate anything the Bible said) any more than it would mean it was the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster or a giant yellow lobster called Jeremy.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2008 10:00] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362184 is a reply to message #362177] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 10:40 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 09 December 2008 11:57 |
You sound more like a deist than a theist to me... so what do you think the 'god' actually is? What's his (if it's applicable to call him a he) actual nature, and where did he come from?
I probably don't need to point this out to you (although any Christian reading this could use reminding), although even if it were somehow proven that everything was set in motion by some kind of superbeing, it wouldn't mean it was Yahweh (or vindicate anything the Bible said) any more than it would mean it was the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster or a giant yellow lobster called Jeremy.
|
I'm not entirely sure what I think it is. At this point, I kind of picture the being as a guy obsessed with toy trains. Sometimes the guy interferes with his creation and at other times just leaves it alone. I have had too many close calls and coincidences for them to just be coincidences.
As for where he came from... I haven't the faintest clue. Maybe the spiritual world can affect the physical world, but the physical world can't affect the spiritual world. Since we can't test the spiritual world, the inner workings is completely unknown to us because we can't tap into their world. I don't know.
Oh, exactly. That's why I'm no longer a Christian and have settled into just basic theism. It's human nature to want to put a face on everything, and this is no different. It just seems absolutely silly to me to say with certainty that this "identity" is the correct one, especially because some book, written over 1500 years ago, says so.
whoa.
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2008 10:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362187 is a reply to message #362184] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 11:14 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
Point needs making to darkknight. I find cheesesoda's view rather silly (although considerably less silly and definitely less morally repugnant than Christianity), although as an atheist I have no problem with him believing it, as long as he doesn't use it to interfere with other people's lives (and it's hard to see how that could happen) or teach it to children as though it were factual with evidence supporting it.
That's the key. Christianity is every bit as unsupported, every bit as guesswork as the above; what is immoral (and hugely dishonest) is when these guesses are taught as though they are anything more than guesswork. In supposedly secular Britain (in a non-faith school at that), they are taught as fact, with the same certainty as what we are taught in maths or science. This is brainwashing, plain and simple. But hey, like you say, "make your own choice when you're 18". As if you can make an informed choice when you've been lied to all your life! If your education had told you that the Nazis were good people, highlighted the positive changes National Socialism had on German society (I expect there are a few, but I don't have the stomach to look for them, frankly), and told them nothing about the final solution or WW2, you could then ask them when they're 18 if they would like to join the Nazi Party. Some of them might say yes.
But that's enough about scientific truth; another point needs making about morality. I put it to everybody here that if there was no religious instruction to children, the world will become a vastly better place in the timeframe of one generation. Look at Islam; every time you read about a suicide bomber, you'll hear the usual whining about Israel and George W. Bush, but nobody wants to pay attention to the revelation (which is always there in any interview) that these murderers were motivated by religion, the promise that they would go straight to paradise for doing what they do. This is not rhetoric, they actually believe what they say they believe, and the reason so many do is because of the stranglehold religion has on education in so much of the world; because ridiculous guesswork is presented as fact.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Tue, 09 December 2008 11:17] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362239 is a reply to message #357836] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 15:16 |
 |
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 11:49 |
As for schooling, if you send your kid to public school, you really don't have any choice as to where the kids can go. If you're within a school district, you are forced to send your kids to the district's schools. Unless, of course, you want to homeschool your kids or send them to private school.
|
Completely false. I spent my last year of middle school and my first two years of high school attending an out-of-district school. There's some paperwork that needs to be filed, but it's very very easy to do. Friends of mine have done something similar, and their out-of-district permit-thing was only revoked after two straight years of failing more than half their classes.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362265 is a reply to message #357510] |
Tue, 09 December 2008 16:16 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Which means that there is no federal law stating anything like "Your kid HAS to go to schools in his district". If there were, it would override anything in California that says "Nuh-uh!". If such a law exists in your state, take it up with your state government, and leave Obama out of it.
Education tends to be a state issue anyway. I don't know how this shit even got brought up.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362385 is a reply to message #362238] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 06:02 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jecht wrote on Tue, 09 December 2008 16:07 |
I'm beginning to remember why I left. I try to stimulate conversation and this is what I get. It's entirely ironic that you've accused me of being closed-minded in the same post you've displayed it.
Complete, and utter hypocrisy.
|
Firstly, I didn't accuse you of being closed-minded, at least not in that statement. You said there are constant challenges to your faith, and the reason you resist them is you have a "strong enough will". It is UNBELIEVABLE arrogance that you think this is the only explanation; your "strong will". There's no possible danger that what you think might just be plain wrong, eh?
If someone is absolutely adamant that 2+2=5 no matter how many people prove to him otherwise, would you assume that the only explanation is that he has a "strong will" as opposed to being arrogant, unwilling to listen to reason, and unable to accept the possibility that he is wrong? Would anyone suggesting either of these alternatives be "closed minded" or would that be better applied to the guy who, presented with a calculator, shuts his eyes and puts his fingers in his ears and screams "LALALALALALALALALALA"?
Not only do you have the nerve (and stupidity) to call ME closed minded, citing a post where I clearly did no such thing, whereas you did. Not only that, but you go on to call ME the hypocrite. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I'm waiting for an answer, by the way, as to how secularism negatively affects you (stripping away some undeserved privileges doesn't count, by the way). So far all you've demonstrated is that you don't know the meaning of the word. You said yourself, let's agree to disagree. I've already said that this is fine with me as long as religion does the same, which it continually proves itself utterly unwilling to do, and you are currently affirming. You would think, given a viewpoint as immoral and non-inclusive as this, that you have a very good case to make against secularism. So let's hear it.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2008 11:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362395 is a reply to message #362388] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 07:35 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 07:24 |
And what if he is plain wrong when he dies he turns to dirt. What if your wrong Spoony? What then?
|
Do you actually read what the people you're arguing with are saying?
You seem extremely reluctant to address the fact that you were absolutely dead wrong about almost every single thing you've said so far, but it'd be nice if you at least made the token effort to read my explanation as to why I'm not a Christian. I have, after all, made it quite plain in several posts.
| Quote: |
Finally, I would repeat something I have said several times already. I am open to the idea that there may be a God. If you prove to me there is a God and that every word of the Bible was true, I would accept it. But I would not worship him and I would not become a Christian. I have already said that the main reason I am not a Christian isn't because I find it all very difficult to believe (although that's part of it). The main reason is that I find many of its moral teachings absolutely despicable. If the Bible was true, God would be the most staggeringly evil entity that ever existed. But then, unlike you I've actually read the Bible.
|
| Quote: |
It's an absolutely disgusting moral concept. Whether he was a man or a God or the son of God makes no difference. The idea that I can be forgiven thanks to the torture and execution of someone else is DESPICABLE. Get that word, DESPICABLE. Assuming the whole crucifixion business happened at all (a generous assumption), I would rather be unforgiven than gain redemption through the punishment of somebody else.
|
| Quote: |
See, I believe sins or crimes or whatever you want to call them can be forgiven, but only if you freely accept your error and you, you yourself, are willing to make amends. I can barely express my revulsion at the doctrine of Christ dying for our sins; there simply aren't words in the English language capable of expressing it.
|
| Quote: |
Not only that, but if I reject this barbaric drivel on moral grounds (which I do), I'm told that I have an eternity of torture in store for me after I die. And you want to teach this to children and call it morality. I'll take my chances, though... like I said, if the price of my redemption is the torture and execution of somebody else, I'd rather be unforgiven. So who's the better man, you or I?
|
| Quote: |
Actually, maybe the 'fact' Christ was God (whatever sense that makes) does make a difference. A quick read of the Old Testament (again, assuming it's true) shows God to be the most evil entity that ever existed. Maybe the crucifixion was punishment for everything God did, albeit a relatively lenient one.
|
| Quote: |
What kind of moral teaching has it that you can be punished for a sin committed by someone else? Again, assuming the Adam business happened (STAGGERINGLY unlikely), how moral is it to hold a remote descendant responsible for his crime (a relatively minor one at that) Like I said, the point is made again and again in the Bible.
|
| Quote: |
My objection to Christianity is not just that I find it very difficult to believe (even as a child, and like I said it was "taught" to me with the same certainty as what was being taught in, say, physics), it's that it contains moral teachings that I find absolutely appalling. See: vicarious redemption, inheritance of punishment, the ghastly idea that one can be punished for an eternity after death, etc.
|
There you have it. It's not just about the fantastical improbability of Christianity and the absolute lack of evidence for it; it's also that I find many of its central teachings to be absolutely appalling.
Christ died for my sins. Sounds great, but if you stop and think about it for a moment, it's horrific. If I commit a crime I'll make amends for it myself, thank you. If the price of forgiveness is the torture and execution of somebody else (be he a man or god or son of god), I don't want forgiveness.
It gets better; the concept that you can be punished for a crime committed by someone else. This point is made again and again in the Bible. For example, in the Old Testament God rants again and again that punishment for sins will also be visited on successive generations, such as those breaking the Commandments; he also proclaims that some people can be disqualified from "the congregation of the Lord" based on the sins of their parents, such as if a child was born out of wedlock, for which the child itself can hardly be blamed. Another example: original sin, the idea that we inherit the sin of Adam (a relatively minor sin at that). Need more examples? The collective guilt imposed upon "the Jews" for deicide. Not just the Jews who were there at the time of the Crucifixion; Christianity has for the last two thousand years held all Jews responsible, without which doctrine there very probably would not have been a Holocaust. Islam does the same thing to Jews, but for a different reason (encountering Mohammed and deciding he was not the true prophet). Again, this is morally despicable and I want no part of it.
Like I've said, I am well aware of the teaching that if I reject this barbarism on moral grounds (and I do), then I'm going to hell when I die. So here are my choices.
A. I can stick by my moral ideas, and risk ending up in hell for it, as unlikely as the existence of hell seems.
B. I can abandon my moral ideas (and all reason), and subscribe to an ideology which morally disgusts me, out of self-interested fear.
I'll take A, thank you.
By the way, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone else thought along the same lines - i.e. don't hold people responsible for crimes they didn't commit, make amends for your own 'sins' yourself - although unlike Christianity I don't plan on bribing people into my way of thinking by making promises of heaven I can't keep, or bullying them into my way of thinking by promises of horrific, everlasting torture.
That's the long answer. If you want the quick answer (given your tendency not to read what the person you're arguing with is saying), then:
Darkknight: "And what if he is plain wrong when he dies he turns to dirt. What if your wrong Spoony? What then?"
Spoony: "The same thing that happens to you and Jecht if you're wrong about Islam."
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2008 11:11] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362437 is a reply to message #362385] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 12:20 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 07:02 |
Firstly, I didn't accuse you of being closed-minded, at least not in that statement. You said there are constant challenges to your faith, and the reason you resist them is you have a "strong enough will". It is UNBELIEVABLE arrogance that you think this is the only explanation; your "strong will". There's no possible danger that what you think might just be plain wrong, eh?
If someone is absolutely adamant that 2+2=5 no matter how many people prove to him otherwise, would you assume that the only explanation is that he has a "strong will" as opposed to being arrogant, unwilling to listen to reason, and unable to accept the possibility that he is wrong? Would anyone suggesting either of these alternatives be "closed minded" or would that be better applied to the guy who, presented with a calculator, shuts his eyes and puts his fingers in his ears and screams "LALALALALALALALALALA"?
Not only do you have the nerve (and stupidity) to call ME closed minded, citing a post where I clearly did no such thing, whereas you did. Not only that, but you go on to call ME the hypocrite. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I'm waiting for an answer, by the way, as to how secularism negatively affects you (stripping away some undeserved privileges doesn't count, by the way). So far all you've demonstrated is that you don't know the meaning of the word. You said yourself, let's agree to disagree. I've already said that this is fine with me as long as religion does the same, which it continually proves itself utterly unwilling to do, and you are currently affirming. You would think, given a viewpoint as immoral and non-inclusive as this, that you have a very good case to make against secularism. So let's hear it.
|
You said that my view of a strong will is probably nothing more than crackpot skepticism, or closed-mindedness, as displayed by your defensive word choice. That seemed hypocritical. Since you said that you didn't mean it that way, I'll drop the issue.
I say "willpower" because from my viewpoint, resisting the urge to look at another woman lustfully (even if in an advertisement in say, Victoria's Secret while walking in the mall) takes willpower, discipline, self control, or whatever you'd like to call it. A small sacrifice in order to make my future wife happier, and an active demonstration in following the words of Christ. I don't claim to be perfect; I'm very far from perfect, but I do try my best.
To answer your previous question, yes I did know what secularism meant, even if the use of the word was highly semantical and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. A simple dictionary.com search affirms it:
To follow up my post, I fully understand that you could be right about the afterlife, religion, and so on, but I don't believe so. I'll let death show me, but I'm not impatient to know. What I do know is that I have had help in my life, and the odds were too far stacked against me for it to have been luck. That's a story for a different time though.
If you'd like to listen, and I mean really listen, I can address some of those points you made above against Christianity. The ones I don't know would have to be fielded by someone more learned in biblical teachings like a pastor.
[Updated on: Wed, 10 December 2008 12:29] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362443 is a reply to message #362437] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 13:11 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 20:20 |
I say "willpower" because from my viewpoint, resisting the urge to look at another woman lustfully (even if in an advertisement in say, Victoria's Secret while walking in the mall) takes willpower, discipline, self control, or whatever you'd like to call it. A small sacrifice in order to make my future wife happier, and an active demonstration in following the words of Christ. I don't claim to be perfect; I'm very far from perfect, but I do try my best.
|
Ah, the good old statement that a man who looks at a woman the wrong way has already committed adultery. While I will admit that some of Jesus' reported teachings were valid, some even being quite ahead of their time, some others - including this one - are just plain nonsense. As if there is no moral difference between thinking about doing something and actually doing it!
The Ten Commandments contains the same moral bewilderment.
Still, your "argument" against secularism (I'm stretching the term "argument", but you stretched the term "secularism" even further so let's not dwell on that) seems to mean that everyone has to follow your rules just so your faith doesn't find itself tested and your "willpower" faces no challenges. I can't help but be reminded of the Islamic demagogues who impose those oppressive veils on women; in countries like Saudi Arabia, men are so sexually repressed by their religion that a woman walking around wearing typical Western clothing is almost certainly going to be raped.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 20:20 |
To answer your previous question, yes I did know what secularism meant, even if the use of the word was highly semantical and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. A simple dictionary.com search affirms it:
|
If it was irrelevant to the point you were trying to make, it can only be because you were not answering my question; meaning what is wrong with you believing what you want to believe, me believing what I want to believe, and the town being big enough for the both of us? 'Cos according to you, it isn't.
You said: let's agree to disagree. That's what secularism IS - it means your religious beliefs are your own business, nobody else's and are not cause to interfere with other peoples' lives. It means you are free to believe what you want, and I am free to live my life without the poisoning effect of religious attempting to impose its own rules on every single aspect of society.
If only.
| Jecht wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 20:20 |
If you'd like to listen, and I mean really listen, I can address some of those points you made above against Christianity. The ones I don't know would have to be fielded by someone more learned in biblical teachings like a pastor.
|
If I didn't like to listen, and I mean really listen, I would not have bothered engaging in this debate in the first place. As for more learned than you, this is religion we're talking about, not science. Religion is the one subject where the teacher knows no more than the student. If this pastor of yours can make guesses based on unsupported ramblings, so can you. Your pastor is no more qualified to answer those questions than you are, or I am for that matter.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362521 is a reply to message #362516] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 18:41 |
|
Dover
Messages: 2547
Registered: March 2006
Location: Monterey, California
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 17:21 |
No its a simple question. Doesn't need a full book of explanation. What will you do if your wrong and their is a God?
Very simple question. Just like what will I do if their isn't one? turn to dirt.
So I'm asking what will you do if their is one?
|
I can't answer for Spoony, but it seems like he and I are in the same boat. If there is a god and he's anything like your bible describes him, than we won't be cast into a flaming pit because we didn't take the short road on the quest for truth.
As for what we're going to do, the answer is nothing. Who can accurately plan for something they don't know is going to happen? If we happen to continue after death, then whatever happens, happens.
| DarkDemin wrote on Thu, 03 August 2006 19:19 |
Remember kids the internet is serious business.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362522 is a reply to message #357510] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 18:43 |
 |
u6795
Messages: 1261
Registered: March 2006
Location: Maryland
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Old quote I love to reference for matters like this.
"I'd rather die standing than live life on my knees."
If there is an afterlife, I'm thoroughly fucked. However, I intend to make the most of this life, seeing as how I'll only get one shot.
yeah
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362524 is a reply to message #362395] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 18:59 |
 |
DarkKnight
Messages: 754
Registered: May 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 08:35 |
| Darkknight wrote on Wed, 10 December 2008 07:24 |
And what if he is plain wrong when he dies he turns to dirt. What if your wrong Spoony? What then?
|
Do you actually read what the people you're arguing with are saying?
You seem extremely reluctant to address the fact that you were absolutely dead wrong about almost every single thing you've said so far, but it'd be nice if you at least made the token effort to read my explanation as to why I'm not a Christian. I have, after all, made it quite plain in several posts.
| Quote: |
Finally, I would repeat something I have said several times already. I am open to the idea that there may be a God. If you prove to me there is a God and that every word of the Bible was true, I would accept it. But I would not worship him and I would not become a Christian. I have already said that the main reason I am not a Christian isn't because I find it all very difficult to believe (although that's part of it). The main reason is that I find many of its moral teachings absolutely despicable. If the Bible was true, God would be the most staggeringly evil entity that ever existed. But then, unlike you I've actually read the Bible.
|
| Quote: |
It's an absolutely disgusting moral concept. Whether he was a man or a God or the son of God makes no difference. The idea that I can be forgiven thanks to the torture and execution of someone else is DESPICABLE. Get that word, DESPICABLE. Assuming the whole crucifixion business happened at all (a generous assumption), I would rather be unforgiven than gain redemption through the punishment of somebody else.
|
| Quote: |
See, I believe sins or crimes or whatever you want to call them can be forgiven, but only if you freely accept your error and you, you yourself, are willing to make amends. I can barely express my revulsion at the doctrine of Christ dying for our sins; there simply aren't words in the English language capable of expressing it.
|
| Quote: |
Not only that, but if I reject this barbaric drivel on moral grounds (which I do), I'm told that I have an eternity of torture in store for me after I die. And you want to teach this to children and call it morality. I'll take my chances, though... like I said, if the price of my redemption is the torture and execution of somebody else, I'd rather be unforgiven. So who's the better man, you or I?
|
| Quote: |
Actually, maybe the 'fact' Christ was God (whatever sense that makes) does make a difference. A quick read of the Old Testament (again, assuming it's true) shows God to be the most evil entity that ever existed. Maybe the crucifixion was punishment for everything God did, albeit a relatively lenient one.
|
| Quote: |
What kind of moral teaching has it that you can be punished for a sin committed by someone else? Again, assuming the Adam business happened (STAGGERINGLY unlikely), how moral is it to hold a remote descendant responsible for his crime (a relatively minor one at that) Like I said, the point is made again and again in the Bible.
|
| Quote: |
My objection to Christianity is not just that I find it very difficult to believe (even as a child, and like I said it was "taught" to me with the same certainty as what was being taught in, say, physics), it's that it contains moral teachings that I find absolutely appalling. See: vicarious redemption, inheritance of punishment, the ghastly idea that one can be punished for an eternity after death, etc.
|
There you have it. It's not just about the fantastical improbability of Christianity and the absolute lack of evidence for it; it's also that I find many of its central teachings to be absolutely appalling.
Christ died for my sins. Sounds great, but if you stop and think about it for a moment, it's horrific. If I commit a crime I'll make amends for it myself, thank you. If the price of forgiveness is the torture and execution of somebody else (be he a man or god or son of god), I don't want forgiveness.
It gets better; the concept that you can be punished for a crime committed by someone else. This point is made again and again in the Bible. For example, in the Old Testament God rants again and again that punishment for sins will also be visited on successive generations, such as those breaking the Commandments; he also proclaims that some people can be disqualified from "the congregation of the Lord" based on the sins of their parents, such as if a child was born out of wedlock, for which the child itself can hardly be blamed. Another example: original sin, the idea that we inherit the sin of Adam (a relatively minor sin at that). Need more examples? The collective guilt imposed upon "the Jews" for deicide. Not just the Jews who were there at the time of the Crucifixion; Christianity has for the last two thousand years held all Jews responsible, without which doctrine there very probably would not have been a Holocaust. Islam does the same thing to Jews, but for a different reason (encountering Mohammed and deciding he was not the true prophet). Again, this is morally despicable and I want no part of it.
Like I've said, I am well aware of the teaching that if I reject this barbarism on moral grounds (and I do), then I'm going to hell when I die. So here are my choices.
A. I can stick by my moral ideas, and risk ending up in hell for it, as unlikely as the existence of hell seems.
B. I can abandon my moral ideas (and all reason), and subscribe to an ideology which morally disgusts me, out of self-interested fear.
I'll take A, thank you.
By the way, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone else thought along the same lines - i.e. don't hold people responsible for crimes they didn't commit, make amends for your own 'sins' yourself - although unlike Christianity I don't plan on bribing people into my way of thinking by making promises of heaven I can't keep, or bullying them into my way of thinking by promises of horrific, everlasting torture.
That's the long answer. If you want the quick answer (given your tendency not to read what the person you're arguing with is saying), then:
Darkknight: "And what if he is plain wrong when he dies he turns to dirt. What if your wrong Spoony? What then?"
Spoony: "The same thing that happens to you and Jecht if you're wrong about Islam."
|
See that's where your wrong. I've read everything you've wrote.
I find it very amusing. It would be like an infant telling Neil Armstrong what he did wrong in regards to walking on the moon without having a clue what the moon is or even knowing how to walk.
IT'S ALL YOU'RE OPINION. Please share with us the facts. You keep saying there is no proof of God and therefore you won't believe one even exists. You have not shown me one thing to make me see otherwise.
And if you're going to just post more dribble about your opinion you can save it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362543 is a reply to message #362443] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 20:36 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
Spoony, It's not on other people to ensure that I don't look at other women lustfully, it's completely on me. I don't expect others to change for my beliefs. It's my personal responsibility. Jesus(and it was new testament, not old by the way) was simply making the point that a person should not covet another person's wife. A straying eye is painful to your wife, the other man, and most likely to the other woman. This is obviously a useful sermon, and I'm sure even you believe that looking at other women can hurt your significant other. He's not expecting you to put out an eye, lest you'd be confusing Christ before death with Christ after death. Recall that I believe he died for my sins.
On to the secular debate, the wording was irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. As you recall I was the first person to say secular. If you don't agree with this terminology then simply plug in a word of your choice to fit. Arguing semantics is too nit-picky for me to take seriously.
Pastors are more learned than I am, or you are on this subject. They spend their lives researching the bible and corresponding texts to explain the basis behind God's teachings, Revelations, and interpretations of God's word. While I may even disagree with some theories and even make up my own, they still know the content much better than I. In fact, I've only read through the text approximately one and a half times. Pastors read through it hundreds of times. It's a Pastor's job to show support for these "ramblings" as you deemed them.
To sum up. I don't wish to impose my beliefs on anyone. I do however, want to make sure people don't get the wrong idea about my religion. My church is filled with kind, loving, accepting people. While they may not agree with certain lifestyles (such as homosexuality), they would NEVER turn those people away from the congregation, charity, or prayer. The church does many charitable programs such as premarital counseling, addiction counseling, helping those in need, and sending prayer to terminal patients of other local churches. Surely these things are not immoral and deplorable.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Why did you vote for Obama? [message #362545 is a reply to message #357510] |
Wed, 10 December 2008 20:48 |
|
cheesesoda
Messages: 6507
Registered: March 2003
Location: Jackson, Michigan
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars) |
|
|
Wait, so he's supposed to have PROOF that God DOESN'T exist because he says there's no proof that he DOES?
As it stands, whether God does or does not exist is merely speculation on the part of everybody. The only thing you have on your side is a book written by man that knew little to nothing about the actual state of our physical world besides the primitive observations made.
Here's the fun thing about science versus religion. When either side cannot answer a question, they both start to speculate. With science, however, they don't just leave it at speculation. Instead, they start to test their speculation to prove or disprove their speculation (also called a "hypothesis"). With religion, a speculation remains a speculation. They can't prove it or disprove it. It's nothing more than an educated guess, and I would still even debate it being "educated".
Now, that's not to say that religion and science can't cooperate. In fact, a lot of things said in the Bible could very well be true stories, but since they were unexplained or boring (after all, these are STORIES), the authors had to take some creative license. Science/history has been able to verify these stories. Either way, none of this can prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural being, since we can only test the physiscal world.
whoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Nov 07 23:02:17 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01668 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
