Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427184 is a reply to message #422616] |
Thu, 29 April 2010 22:26   |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
You started off by saying that the heaven/hell concept was better because otherwise, if there's no afterlife, you can indulge your own selfish desires, do whatever you like because it won't matter once you're dead. Selfishness, lack of care for others, that must be the problem.
Well, a couple of quick questions later and it turns out that your number one reason for preferring the Christian concept is selfishness. You act the way you do in life because you think there's something in it for you later on. That was the point.
|
So when you obey the laws of your country, you do it because you're selfish?
|
No, and that doesn't follow.
|
Why? You said I only obey because I want the future reward, because I'm selfish. (Not true, but why go there)
I highly doubt that you obey the laws of your country because you believe that they are right and just in every way.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
Pages and pages ago, I asked: what's the evidence supporting the biblical account reported in Genesis? I've asked this question again and again and again, and you still haven't supplied anything tangible. What little you did provide, not that any of it even answered the question, was very very easy to debunk.
|
Mmmkay. The Genesis accout deals with the origin of the universe, and so far, I'm the only one who provided a possible explanation of where it came from.
|
No, you didn't. I asked you again and again and again: where is the evidence that proves that the account given in Genesis is correct? YOU-HAVE-NOT-GIVEN-ANY.
|
And you haven't given a single piece of evidence of any other possibility, either.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
I'll ask the question again, the one I asked several pages ago. What is the evidence that proves the version of events described in Genesis is correct?
|
See, there's the problem again: you're asking for PROOF.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?
|
This can only get you as far as deism. It's an absolutely enormous jump to get from that position to theism, i.e. that you know the details of what created the universe. Furthermore, it obviously raises the much bigger question of where the deity came from, and I've never heard a religious person give anything but the most feeble guesswork answer to that.
|
Assuming you think it's feeble that a diety could have always existed.
Still, it's a step towards deism and away from atheism.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
i also can't help but laugh at this
| Quote: |
1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.
|
matter can't be eternal, and therefore we must be dealing with an eternal mind... lol.
|
Go ahead and laugh... I'll just sit back and wait for a rebuttal.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
I wish I understood why you're so extraordinarily evasive on this point.
It's a simple question. What was the purpose the author had of writing this book? You say it was obvious. So what was it?
|
I'm not being evasive. I'm trying to avoid being redundant.
But fine.
He wrote the article on Evidence of the Existence of God because he wants to convey evidence of the existence of God to those who want to know why he believes in a God.
|
...well done.
the problem is, the post right before that, you said "that's the problem, it can't be proven. if it could, everyone would be christians"
|
How's that a problem? His motivation, as I just stated, is to share evidence. That's not the same as proof.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
(i guess you still haven't figured out that a lot of people have moral objections to your religion)
|
With you around, it's hard not to be constantly reminded.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58 |
| Quote: |
Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)
Do you agree with this statement?
|
I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.
|
Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.
|
Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.
|
Now who's being evasive?
|
I don't accept that this is a yes-no question.
|
Logically, it is... so I don't see why you''re evading it, unless you just aren't sure.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17 |
It is by belief that a huge majority of christians blame earthquakes on human actions and a fatal car accident on your god's wrath. It ain't a choice. It's very real and biblical.
|
How is it Biblical to believe that God is involved in current affairs?
|
I'm still waiting to hear your justification for your belief that he isn't.
|
It's hard for me to look at all of the evil occuring in today's world and know that some believe God's active...
The Bible has enough evidence to support that, if God were active today, he would certainly be doing so.
Which he was, in the Old Testament.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
2) your entire motivation to do so is based on a feeble faith-based belief system cooked up by a certain eastern-mediterranean sea people who's ancient ancestor is a mesopotamian man by the name of abraham.
|
And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity.
|
no, it's not.
|
Which do you deny?
That the universe was created by an unknown force?
Or that there wasn't an intelligent mind behind it?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
Yes, he did control many aspects of the events in the Old Testament. He isn't doing that now, though - not since Jesus' ascension.
|
Hmmm...what about his angels then? Are they still around? It does seem he overworked his angels in the NewT. Everything from sending messages to helping peter(?) escape from prison and many instances more.
Or is this part of the tale rejected nowadays as well?
|
Yes, angels did those things in the NewT... they don't today, though.
Basically, they were helping establish the new church that Jesus had just put into place.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43 |
I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?
|
Of course... as I stated above. I'm "mind-boggled" that people still believe this.
|
What does your version of christianity say regarding where non-christians and casual christians will "go to" after death? What about satan?
|
What does this have to do with God's modern activities?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
There's definitely plenty of evidence, that is undeniable. As for proof, that's obvious. There'd be a lot more Christians in there were proof.
|
Trust me...I have looked at all this. They all amount to nothing but the same old clever but dishonest exploitation of gaps. If there was "undeniable evidence" and "obvious proof" I would have already beaten you to defending christianity in this thread (and in real life too).
|
But the thing is, I don't understand how anyone can think arguments for atheism are any more credible.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) it does not make any sense to use the word "belief" to anything atheist.
|
Why not? Atheism isn't the absence of belief. It's a belief that no deity exists.
Only time I've ever seen the "atheism is not a belief" argument is when an atheist wanted to get out of giving any sort of evidence for their side of the coin. Why should I take anti-Christian bashings seriously when the atheists supposedly don't have their own belief to go to? That's like complaining that the boat you're on in the middle of the ocean is weak and crumbling, and won't last long, when there's no other floatation device available.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
2) you ignored my original statement that goes to the root start of christianity.
|
Yeah, because it didn't make sense. More like sarcasm.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
3) you don't know what atheism really is.
|
Define atheism, then?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
What is far-fetched and not flimsy? Remember we are talking hell, heaven, eternal life and eternal torment, angels, weird angelic creatures like cerubims, bright light...all packed in a faith-based belief system that uses intellectual dishonesty, brainwashing of little children to gain future followers, and the extensive use of fear-based blackmail.
|
And look at all the far-fetched things we see in our world today - underwater life, solar flares, thousands upon thousands of different flora and fauna, planets and stars, and all the little details - atoms, cells, and organs.
The only difference between those and what you mentioned is that they're here today and are able to be examined and studied.
I doubt you'd have much success trying to convince older civilizations about the existence of atoms, cells, and such like...
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
I said that in all seriousness. I am not here to "get you." I feel like I am talking to the christian starbuzz from three years ago and am genuinely liking this convo.
|
I am, too. It's great to see both sides of the story and compare.
What's irritating are the atheists who imply that Christians are moronic simply because of their faith, and that their ideas are superior. It's quite pathetic. (And I'm not pointing this finger at anyone in particular, especially you.)
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) to gauge if the religion I abandoned has any "new juice" left
2) to not prove you wrong but to see if my own rational conclusions are tenable still.
|
1) Why should it have any "new juice"? apart from your saying that religions change.
2) I don't understand.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
I believe in the biblical account... science's version of older events is no more reliable than any other historical idea, even the Bible's.
|
law of belief, i.e, whatever you believe becomes the truth.
|
Or a law of time, ie the longer ago something occured, the harder it is to prove its validity.
And really, I don't see how science's ideas of what happened so long ago are any more credible.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
answer this honestly in your own words; what made humanity start wearing clothing?
|
This is another belief thing, you know...
It occured when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and realized that they were naked. Apparently they thought this was a problem.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
Strange thing is I keep noticing this trend all the time with christians during debates against atheists. I am referring to christians going from being christian to suddenly talking like a deist. Then leaping forward to christianity to provide an explanation!
|
You're reading too far into it. It's simply a step to indicate that there is a diety! Why is that so ridiculous?
I mean, to say there's a God cannot be logical unless you also imply there's a diety. Which is why I make that point. If I could unchallengingly fill the gap and prove my specific God exists, I would certainly have done so. But it's difficult when I only exist physically, whereas God is spiritual.
It's just a logical view that shows the idea of a diety is very real, very possible, and very likely.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
So we all would be better off if we studied the deep ancient religions, tried to gather more evidence and learn more about them, and then tried to work backward still to uncover whatever "force" was behind it all in the beginning. Right? That would be the sane thing to do. Why then does Altzan grab a recent religion and try to apply it to everything that came before it? I know; its the childhood religious indoctrination kicking in. I can vouch for this.
|
Not really. It's looking at the facts. Such as that it isn't recent.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
Anyway, I wonder what those early humans will say or do if you go upto them and ask them where they got their ideas from. I would be more worried to go near them savages anyway! I wouldn't want to be dragged off to the top of a pyramid and have my heart cut out or just eaten. So much for "basic human attribute" and "superior force."
Very laughable, indeed.
|
Lol, even if all the early humans were like that, it stills vindicates the point of "basic human attribute" and "superior force".
Now THAT's laughable.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427198 is a reply to message #427184] |
Fri, 30 April 2010 04:29 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Why? You said I only obey because I want the future reward, because I'm selfish. (Not true, but why go there)
I highly doubt that you obey the laws of your country because you believe that they are right and just in every way.
|
you forget how we got onto the topic.
you originally said it that if there's no afterlife, people can behave however they like because there won't be any consequences (a really odd thing to say... there are consequences for actions in this life too), and you implied that it's a selfish concept. well, what if there was an afterlife? you said this would mean that what you did in this life would have the purpose of getting you a good deal in the afterlife.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
No, you didn't. I asked you again and again and again: where is the evidence that proves that the account given in Genesis is correct? YOU-HAVE-NOT-GIVEN-ANY.
|
And you haven't given a single piece of evidence of any other possibility, either.
|
What am I asking you to believe, and what am I threatening you with the most horrific punishment imaginable if you don't believe?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?
|
This can only get you as far as deism. It's an absolutely enormous jump to get from that position to theism, i.e. that you know the details of what created the universe. Furthermore, it obviously raises the much bigger question of where the deity came from, and I've never heard a religious person give anything but the most feeble guesswork answer to that.
|
Assuming you think it's feeble that a diety could have always existed.
Still, it's a step towards deism and away from atheism.
|
you'll notice that there is a "t" and a "h" but not a "d" in atheism.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
i also can't help but laugh at this
| Quote: |
1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.
|
matter can't be eternal, and therefore we must be dealing with an eternal mind... lol.
|
Go ahead and laugh... I'll just sit back and wait for a rebuttal.
|
for starters, nobody's ever demonstrated that a mind exists or has ever existed without matter to back it up.
secondly, you say that not only could a mind be eternal, but that THIS MUST BE the case if what we're talking about is not matter. it's not X so therefore it's Y... it's a terrible way to reach a conclusion.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58 |
| Quote: |
Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)
Do you agree with this statement?
|
I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.
|
Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.
|
Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.
|
Now who's being evasive?
|
I don't accept that this is a yes-no question.
|
Logically, it is... so I don't see why you''re evading it, unless you just aren't sure.
|
I did not evade it.
| Quote: |
It's hard for me to look at all of the evil occuring in today's world and know that some believe God's active...
|
well, religion is the cause of so much of it in the first place.
furthermore, given the cruel and merciless depiction of god in the bible, why would the amount of evil in the world suggest that he ISN'T still around? i've never understood people who say: there can't be a god because of how fucked up the world is. they must be reading a different bible to the one i read.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
2) your entire motivation to do so is based on a feeble faith-based belief system cooked up by a certain eastern-mediterranean sea people who's ancient ancestor is a mesopotamian man by the name of abraham.
|
And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity.
|
no, it's not.
|
Which do you deny?
That the universe was created by an unknown force?
Or that there wasn't an intelligent mind behind it?
|
neither. i deny your definition of the belief of an atheist.
"And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity."
an atheist need not claim that.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43 |
I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?
|
Of course... as I stated above. I'm "mind-boggled" that people still believe this.
|
What does your version of christianity say regarding where non-christians and casual christians will "go to" after death? What about satan?
|
What does this have to do with God's modern activities?
|
quite a lot. you say god isn't intervening in the modern world? i would think that subjecting humans to the worst punishment imaginable if they don't believe in him or disagree with his religion counts as intervening.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) it does not make any sense to use the word "belief" to anything atheist.
|
Why not? Atheism isn't the absence of belief. It's a belief that no deity exists.
|
not necessarily.
| Quote: |
Only time I've ever seen the "atheism is not a belief" argument is when an atheist wanted to get out of giving any sort of evidence for their side of the coin. Why should I take anti-Christian bashings seriously when the atheists supposedly don't have their own belief to go to? That's like complaining that the boat you're on in the middle of the ocean is weak and crumbling, and won't last long, when there's no other floatation device available.
|
Our side of the coin?
You say there are unicorns who created the world, and they wrote this book with rules for us to follow, and if we don't believe it or don't like it, we'll be tortured in the dungeon forever. I say I don't find that very convincing, and the rules are pretty crappy.
I do not have the same burden of proof as you. I'm not claiming to know how the world was created - simply saying that your explanation looks nothing more than fiction. More importantly, I'm not telling you that my boss will punish you for ever if you don't believe in him or don't like him. The sides of the coin are by no means equal.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427218 is a reply to message #422616] |
Fri, 30 April 2010 12:29 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Why is it that every theist who debates the creation of the universe always assumes that whomever they're arguing with doesn't believe that anything existed before the universe? We don't know definitively what that something was because it cannot be observed; all of our observations of the universe and its history are presently based on electromagnetic radiation of one variety or another. However, the most fundamental laws of science state that something cannot come from nothing, and it has long been theorized that the universe we know came to exist only after the destruction of what came before it.
Matter and energy did not simply "snap" into existence... that would be closer to the Judeo-Christian position, actually. In the beginning, there was nothing- sound familiar? The entire creation story in genesis opens with God pulling himself out of non-existence. God then proceeds to pull everything else in the universe out of non-existence. And yet somehow a Christian has difficulty accepting "something from nothing with no external influence." Where, exactly, was the external influence that allowed the creation of God? He gets a free pass, though, because he's omnipotent. Apparently that means that his omnipotence allowed him to create himself before he existed to do the creating. Circular logic- Q: How did God create himself? A: He is omnipotent. Q: How did God become omnipotent? A: By creating himself.
It is also interesting that, although the Judeo-Christian afterlife mythology allows for eternity in the future (eternal reward in Heaven, or eternal punishment in Hell), there can be no accepting an eternal past. Here's some food for thought: Humans don't like the idea of dying, so we have little trouble believing in an eternal afterlife... however, we cannot deny that we were not alive before birth, so we also have little trouble accepting that all of existence also has a firm, definite beginning. Do we echo the nature of existence, or does our perception of existence echo us?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Fri, 30 April 2010 12:31] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427302 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sat, 01 May 2010 11:41 |
appshot
Messages: 83
Registered: August 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
nobody knows how the universe started. People believe a supernatural or "godly" being made the universe, but then the underlying question is that how was that supernatural being created, and the chain would go on and on. Whilst, on the more scientific side, the same question can be applied endlessly, because something can't just come from nothing. The universe has to have been created by something, or someone. for example, Who/what created the universe? Who/what created the who/what that made the universe? and so on. So, currently nobody knows. Its funny, how atheists and theists both bullshit about this.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427304 is a reply to message #427302] |
Sat, 01 May 2010 12:01 |
 |
HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
The universe has been here for as long as time has...which is forever. It's the things inside the universe that suddenly "appear" that are the real question. Sure there's all the scientific theory's out there on how a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc, etc. are formed, but there's also the religious part of it....Which for many is MUCH less complicated, and therefore many wish to choose to take the religious side of it. No one person or living creature suddenly started all of this obviously, as that would make NO sense. It can be a bit confusing, as the time line for time and the universe itself are infinitely extended, and therefore it's really hard to tell when exactly the first star, universe, or galaxy were created. In my opinion, we will never know, and neither will any living creature in the universe. It's a mystery that is basically impossible to get evidence to prove...so it cannot ever be solved.
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427313 is a reply to message #427304] |
Sat, 01 May 2010 18:58 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
you originally said it that if there's no afterlife, people can behave however they like because there won't be any consequences (a really odd thing to say... there are consequences for actions in this life too), and you implied that it's a selfish concept. well, what if there was an afterlife? you said this would mean that what you did in this life would have the purpose of getting you a good deal in the afterlife.
|
I didn't say that my motivation was "a good deal in the afterlife". I said that the cause of my actions will bring about that effect. Not my motivation.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
What am I asking you to believe, and what am I threatening you with the most horrific punishment imaginable if you don't believe?
|
You're asking me to believe that there is no God (or my God, at least). Also, that Christianity is both false and evil.
On the list of requirements of what's needed to equal a belief, horrific punishment is not one of them.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?
|
This can only get you as far as deism. It's an absolutely enormous jump to get from that position to theism, i.e. that you know the details of what created the universe. Furthermore, it obviously raises the much bigger question of where the deity came from, and I've never heard a religious person give anything but the most feeble guesswork answer to that.
|
Assuming you think it's feeble that a diety could have always existed.
Still, it's a step towards deism and away from atheism.
|
you'll notice that there is a "t" and a "h" but not a "d" in atheism.
|
I noticed. There's also an "a" which represents "anti".
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
i also can't help but laugh at this
| Quote: |
1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.
|
matter can't be eternal, and therefore we must be dealing with an eternal mind... lol.
|
Go ahead and laugh... I'll just sit back and wait for a rebuttal.
|
for starters, nobody's ever demonstrated that a mind exists or has ever existed without matter to back it up.
secondly, you say that not only could a mind be eternal, but that THIS MUST BE the case if what we're talking about is not matter. it's not X so therefore it's Y... it's a terrible way to reach a conclusion.
|
1) Nobody's ever demonstrated modern-day miracles or other Old Testament events either. Absence of evidence on that part isn't evidence of absence.
2) Normally, I'd agree on that algebraic view... but not until you can explain how there can be something that isn't X or Y... mind or matter.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58 |
| Quote: |
Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)
Do you agree with this statement?
|
I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.
|
Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.
|
Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.
|
Now who's being evasive?
|
I don't accept that this is a yes-no question.
|
Logically, it is... so I don't see why you''re evading it, unless you just aren't sure.
|
I did not evade it.
|
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
given the cruel and merciless depiction of god in the bible, why would the amount of evil in the world suggest that he ISN'T still around? i've never understood people who say: there can't be a god because of how fucked up the world is. they must be reading a different bible to the one i read.
|
Given how many Biblical quotes you've provided, you should have a pretty decent idea of what "sets God off", so to speak... and you've seen examples of what he does in response, in the OT... so, why isn't he responding much the same today?
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43 |
I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?
|
Of course... as I stated above. I'm "mind-boggled" that people still believe this.
|
What does your version of christianity say regarding where non-christians and casual christians will "go to" after death? What about satan?
|
What does this have to do with God's modern activities?
|
quite a lot. you say god isn't intervening in the modern world? i would think that subjecting humans to the worst punishment imaginable if they don't believe in him or disagree with his religion counts as intervening.
|
I don't see how an act of the afterlife counts as "modern-time".
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) it does not make any sense to use the word "belief" to anything atheist.
|
Why not? Atheism isn't the absence of belief. It's a belief that no deity exists.
|
not necessarily.
|
Go on.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
You say there are unicorns who created the world, and they wrote this book with rules for us to follow, and if we don't believe it or don't like it, we'll be tortured in the dungeon forever. I say I don't find that very convincing, and the rules are pretty crappy.
I do not have the same burden of proof as you. I'm not claiming to know how the world was created - simply saying that your explanation looks nothing more than fiction. More importantly, I'm not telling you that my boss will punish you for ever if you don't believe in him or don't like him. The sides of the coin are by no means equal.
|
That's exactly my point.
No matter how much you disprove Christianity (or try to), it won't make a difference if you don't have an alternative that you believe in.
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 14:29 |
Matter and energy did not simply "snap" into existence... that would be closer to the Judeo-Christian position, actually. In the beginning, there was nothing- sound familiar? The entire creation story in genesis opens with God pulling himself out of non-existence. God then proceeds to pull everything else in the universe out of non-existence. And yet somehow a Christian has difficulty accepting "something from nothing with no external influence." Where, exactly, was the external influence that allowed the creation of God? He gets a free pass, though, because he's omnipotent. Apparently that means that his omnipotence allowed him to create himself before he existed to do the creating. Circular logic- Q: How did God create himself? A: He is omnipotent. Q: How did God become omnipotent? A: By creating himself.
|
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal, while the universe is not.
Genesis doesn't open with God "creating himself", it opens with him creating Earth.
| HaTe wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 14:01 |
The universe has been here for as long as time has...which is forever. It's the things inside the universe that suddenly "appear" that are the real question. Sure there's all the scientific theory's out there on how a planet, a star, a galaxy, etc, etc. are formed, but there's also the religious part of it....Which for many is MUCH less complicated, and therefore many wish to choose to take the religious side of it. No one person or living creature suddenly started all of this obviously, as that would make NO sense. It can be a bit confusing, as the time line for time and the universe itself are infinitely extended, and therefore it's really hard to tell when exactly the first star, universe, or galaxy were created. In my opinion, we will never know, and neither will any living creature in the universe. It's a mystery that is basically impossible to get evidence to prove...so it cannot ever be solved.
|
Really? Most of the scientific community has accepted that the universe is not eternal.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427341 is a reply to message #427313] |
Sun, 02 May 2010 06:00 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 11:58 |
I didn't say that my motivation was "a good deal in the afterlife". I said that the cause of my actions will bring about that effect. Not my motivation.
|
Altzan: People will forget you, your actions will have been for nothing.
Spoony: You don't think anything in your life is worthwhile?
Altzan: Of course I do. What I do in life determines where I go in death.
this implies that the only way an action could be worthwhile is if there is an afterlife, and the only concept of 'worthwhile' is to your own benefit.
question. let's say there isn't an afterlife. if someone found a cure for cancer, would that be worthwhile? would this person's action have been for nothing?
another question. let's say there is an afterlife, and that the christian guess at it is correct. and let's say the scientist was not a christian. do you think he's still going to hell?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
What am I asking you to believe, and what am I threatening you with the most horrific punishment imaginable if you don't believe?
|
You're asking me to believe that there is no God (or my God, at least). Also, that Christianity is both false and evil.
|
i don't give a shit whether you believe it. i thought i had made that clear. the only reason i am criticising religion is because it's trying to take over the world.
on the day religions do not have the unbelievable amount of undemocratic power they have over humanity, i will probably not think it worthwhile to criticise it.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
you'll notice that there is a "t" and a "h" but not a "d" in atheism.
|
I noticed. There's also an "a" which represents "anti".
|
or "non", but that's not the point. it's theism that is being rejected, not deism.
almost no atheists say that they know there isn't a god. they generally say nobody's come up with any decent evidence, or even a convincing line of argument, that there is one. but that's not even the point. this isn't the "opposite" position to what the religious say. religious people don't just say "i think there probably is a god" - they go much further than that. they say they know which one, they know what he approves and disapproves of in us, they know he watches everything we do, hears our prayers and may act on them, and will judge us once we die.
quite a lot more is being claimed here than "i don't find this book of yours very convincing, sorry"
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
for starters, nobody's ever demonstrated that a mind exists or has ever existed without matter to back it up.
secondly, you say that not only could a mind be eternal, but that THIS MUST BE the case if what we're talking about is not matter. it's not X so therefore it's Y... it's a terrible way to reach a conclusion.
|
1) Nobody's ever demonstrated modern-day miracles or other Old Testament events either.
|
You said a mouthful!
| Quote: |
Absence of evidence on that part isn't evidence of absence.
|
Indeed it isn't, but evidence of absence is not necessary to reject a claim. Absence of evidence is quite often enough.
| Quote: |
2) Normally, I'd agree on that algebraic view... but not until you can explain how there can be something that isn't X or Y... mind or matter.
|
i've got a better idea, how about you prove to me that there has ever been a mind that did not have matter to it?
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
given the cruel and merciless depiction of god in the bible, why would the amount of evil in the world suggest that he ISN'T still around? i've never understood people who say: there can't be a god because of how fucked up the world is. they must be reading a different bible to the one i read.
|
Given how many Biblical quotes you've provided, you should have a pretty decent idea of what "sets God off", so to speak... and you've seen examples of what he does in response, in the OT... so, why isn't he responding much the same today?
|
because it's fiction 
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
quite a lot. you say god isn't intervening in the modern world? i would think that subjecting humans to the worst punishment imaginable if they don't believe in him or disagree with his religion counts as intervening.
|
I don't see how an act of the afterlife counts as "modern-time".
|
Oh, really?
So God is doing absolutely nothing about the murderers etc in the world, then?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) it does not make any sense to use the word "belief" to anything atheist.
|
Why not? Atheism isn't the absence of belief. It's a belief that no deity exists.
|
not necessarily.
|
Go on.
|
see above.
an atheist does not need to say "there's no god", and very few atheists do (unless they want to save time).
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
You say there are unicorns who created the world, and they wrote this book with rules for us to follow, and if we don't believe it or don't like it, we'll be tortured in the dungeon forever. I say I don't find that very convincing, and the rules are pretty crappy.
I do not have the same burden of proof as you. I'm not claiming to know how the world was created - simply saying that your explanation looks nothing more than fiction. More importantly, I'm not telling you that my boss will punish you for ever if you don't believe in him or don't like him. The sides of the coin are by no means equal.
|
That's exactly my point.
No matter how much you disprove Christianity (or try to), it won't make a difference if you don't have an alternative that you believe in.
|
Alternative to what, exactly?
I can give you better alternatives to most parts of Christianity.
The rape rule, for example. I think a better alternative is to lock the rapist up and offer some kind of counseling to the victim if she needs it. Either way she shouldn't ever have to look at him again.
The doctrine of forgiveness, the idea that your sins can be forgiven if you believe something (seriously, what the fuck? how can something so ridiculous be so widespread?). Better alternative. You do something wrong? Apologise to the people you affected, do what you can to rectify the situation, and resolve to behave better next time.
Any other alternatives you want?
| Quote: |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal
|
How do you know that?
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427347 is a reply to message #427341] |
Sun, 02 May 2010 07:34 |
|
HaTe
Messages: 923
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Altzan |
Really? Most of the scientific community has accepted that the universe is not eternal.
|
| Wikipedia |
The Universe comprises everything perceived to exist physically, the entirety of space and time, and all forms of matter and energy. The term Universe may be used in slightly different contextual senses, denoting such concepts as the cosmos, the world, or Nature.
|
Wikipedia even disagrees, it's the entirety of space and time, not an existence outside of time or space. Sempiternity clearly is, as far as i can see, clearly the more logical theory, over an "eternal universe."
‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ - Edmund Burke
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427451 is a reply to message #427347] |
Mon, 03 May 2010 13:44 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Yes, angels did those things in the NewT... they don't today, though.
Basically, they were helping establish the new church that Jesus had just put into place.
|
I don't want to dwell on this issue but the only reason I brought it up is to show the poorly-made excuses christians bring up all the time to justify why supernatural interference is not occuring anymore.
here's a more plausible answer: the people who wrote these stories are no longer around to write them.
This is actually a huge reason as to why I don't believe. The world seems to be more pessimistic in it's cyclic nature than show any order as suggested by religions. Perhaps we can talk more about this?
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43 |
What does your version of christianity say regarding where non-christians and casual christians will "go to" after death? What about satan?
|
What does this have to do with God's modern activities?
|
I asked out of curiosity. What is your denominations take on it? The entire christian community is awfully divided over these basic questions.
There used to be a time in the western world when satan was the supreme devil who had strings attached to all parts of the body. When you got sexually aroused, it was satan pulling the strings to "make you sin." This is the view among christians in eastern countries.
Any perverse thoughts were because satan was "putting them into you" and it was just 2 months ago that my dad claimed that I became atheist because "satan planted the doubts." What's pathetic is he truly believes it.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
I don't understand how anyone can think arguments for atheism are any more credible because I have been born and brought up in a christian household and can't think things through scientifically in a unbiased way.
|
Fixed. You can't cut through the childhood indoctrination overnight.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
2) you ignored my original statement that goes to the root start of christianity.
|
Yeah, because it didn't make sense. More like sarcasm.
|
wow...so many christians don't know this. All jews, christians, and muslims trace the root of their religions to the Patriach Abraham.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
What is far-fetched and not flimsy? Remember we are talking hell, heaven, eternal life and eternal torment, angels, weird angelic creatures like cerubims, bright light...all packed in a faith-based belief system that uses intellectual dishonesty, brainwashing of little children to gain future followers, and the extensive use of fear-based blackmail.
|
And look at all the far-fetched things we see in our world today - underwater life, solar flares, thousands upon thousands of different flora and fauna, planets and stars, and all the little details - atoms, cells, and organs.
The only difference between those and what you mentioned is that they're here today and are able to be examined and studied.
|
There's a huge difference between human discoveries and the horror fantasies in a religious book. And I have to remind you that the bible is not the only religious book in the world thats considered the "holy scriptures."
Also, let's see all the far-fetched things you reject from other religions? Or do you imply that reincarnation is true but we aren't in a position to have "examined and studied" it?
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
I doubt you'd have much success trying to convince older civilizations about the existence of atoms, cells, and such like...
|
I can also see how difficult it will be for them to believe that airplanes fly because of the manipulation of the laws of physics (aerodynamics). They would be more inclined to believe it flies on magic fairy dust.
So don't you see then how silly it is to rely on any product coming out of older tribes and civilizations? How risky it is to especially rely on on their old books for setting a standard on morality and foundation for social law?
Also didn't the ancients' ignorance of the world around them increased the chances of them making up stuff (they did this too) to explain away the causes?
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
I am, too. It's great to see both sides of the story and compare.
|
good good...cheers 
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
What's irritating are the atheists who imply that Christians are moronic simply because of their faith, and that their ideas are superior. It's quite pathetic.
|
If christians kept their beliefs to themselves and stopped trying to bring their religion into politics to enforce it on the whole nation aiming for a theocracy style government, then they wouldn't have earned such a bad rep from pretty much everybody. They are only hurting themselves. Trust me, they are trying to do this everywhere and not just in America.
jesus instructed you folks to carry his message to the whole world. And he specifically instructed you folks that if his message is rejected by any people, then shake the dust off the feet when you leave them:
| Luke 10:10-12 |
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
|
Simple translation: if anyone rejects my message, show them the finger and go preach elsewhere. I will deal with them later.
So when did his message become, "if a people reject me, go crush them and break their backs, and inflitrate their political processess, make sure they teach about me in school and pray to me in public and establish a christian theocratic state where everyone obeys me and let those who oppose me be systematically oppressed"?
^ There you go...that's the religious movement of America today in a nutshell.
I don't know what is pathetic; atheists wanting fair secular laws for everybody or christians wanting to enforce their outdated tribal laws on everyone else. So what were you saying again?
Note: There are very few christians (both Indians and Americans) I know who are truly christ-like. It's very sad that they are outnumbered 1 to 200.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
And really, I don't see how science's ideas of what happened so long ago are any more credible because I have been born and brought up in a christian household and can't think things through scientifically in a unbiased way.
|
Fixed. I am gonna have to say the same thing again: you can't cut through the childhood indoctrination overnight. It took me three whole years to see through the false worldview I was brought up to see. I remember the times when I would angrily turn off the TV at any Discovery channel documentaries. They make more sense now since the childhood christian indoctrination no longer works on me.
You see where I am going with this? That's what extremely unfair and downright evil about religious doctrination. They grab our mind before we can come to our own conclusion later in life. In other words, you, my friend Altzan, have not thought things through with your own intellectual sovereignty. It was imposed by your parents like it were for me and you are merely repeating what they put into you.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 09:59 |
1) to gauge if the religion I abandoned has any "new juice" left
2) to not prove you wrong but to see if my own rational conclusions are tenable still.
|
1) Why should it have any "new juice"? apart from your saying that religions change.
2) I don't understand.
|
1)Well, I did say how it has revised itself and made itself more modern to sound less ridiculous! I was truly surprised when you said god doesn't interfere anymore.
2) I was looking to see if anyone can present anything convincing that will make me rethink anything. So far here as well irl, nothing convincing is being said to their credit.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
This is another belief thing, you know...
It occured when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and realized that they were naked. Apparently they thought this was a problem.
|
I applaud you for being honest and crediting the "belief thing." I used to believe this too though now eventually, personally, the thought of humans wearing clothing due to environmental conditions and social development in groups made more sense.
There are millions of people in Africa and the the pacific islands who are either semi-nude or nude due to their cultural traditions and hot/humid environmental conditions.
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
You're reading too far into it. It's simply a step to indicate that there is a diety! Why is that so ridiculous?
|
It wouldn't be ridiculous if you left it at that. You also go on to imply that this deity is the judeo-christian god of abraham!
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Not really. It's looking at the facts. Such as that it isn't recent.
|
You can clarify this bit for me; is this the seniority law here?
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Lol, even if all the early humans were like that, it stills vindicates the point of "basic human attribute" and "superior force".
Now THAT's laughable.
|
You lost me...completely. Help me out.
| appshot wrote on Sat, 01 May 2010 13:41 |
nobody knows how the universe started. People believe a supernatural or "godly" being made the universe, but then the underlying question is that how was that supernatural being created, and the chain would go on and on. Whilst, on the more scientific side, the same question can be applied endlessly, because something can't just come from nothing. The universe has to have been created by something, or someone. for example, Who/what created the universe? Who/what created the who/what that made the universe? and so on. So, currently nobody knows. Its funny, how atheists and theists both bullshit about this.
|
Everything you said were reasonable until you added in the last sentence.
The only bunch of people in the entire world that don't accept that "they don't know everything" are the religious group. They know exactly what was before the universe (we heard someone here say "eternal mind" and so sure of it!), they know what god/gods were behind it, they know which set of religious texts are the right one and which of them are wrong (!), and they know the A thru Z of everything.
Tell me honestly if you think atheists fall into this group? Now tell me who is bullshitting?
Nowhere do atheists claim that they know everything. I do know that religious people always falsy accuse science of doing just that.
I mentioned earlier that humans always want quick instant answers and this explains religions' popularity. You get this even with religious scientists. Religion is comforting to many and acts like a stop gap.
It doesn't work that way with science. It moves steadily (despite dubious attempts at sabotage by religions) to uncover more and more about our place in the universe so future generations of humans can continue the work in our path of discovery. Science is not for those who want a quick answer. An open unbiased unstained outlook is needed;
For example, challenge a scientist and he will say, "let me research it and get back to you." The funny thing is how the religious crowd react to it gleefully; they jump and point, "aha he doesn't know - praise the lord!" like as if they know! At least with the scientist you know he will get back to you with something that doesn't sound downright ridiculous.
Richard Dawkins said something a long time ago that pretty much sums up your average atheist:
| Quote: |
My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up...If there is a god, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
|
The inquiry about our existence is like a massive but strange multiple choice question. We have a ton of choices we have dealt with already. Some we have crossed out already as being invalid and downright wrong (like religions). And there's a ton of choices hidden from us which we have made it our quest (through science) to find. It will be very laughable indeed if someone claims that in the future, when we do uncover those hidden choices, one of them is going to be, "Yahweh" or for that matter, "Marduk" or "Osiris" or "Annunaki" because these are, no matter how hard you look at it, come down to being products of specific cultural groups!
-------
Anyway, I was away for the last couple days because I was invited to a wedding. It was for one of my hindu friends and I had a really fun time at her wedding. I got to see for the first time the various hindu ceremonial marriage rituals in a very nice natural open setting. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to appreciate the lifestlyes and beliefs of people from a very different religion.
Now logging back into renforums and reading these christian arguments makes me feel like I am in some twilight zone away from reality lol.
edit: added orangey stuff.
[Updated on: Tue, 04 May 2010 02:02] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427546 is a reply to message #427451] |
Tue, 04 May 2010 20:26 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 00:19 |
| Altzan |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal, while the universe is not.
Genesis doesn't open with God "creating himself", it opens with him creating Earth.
|
That really depends on the translation; I know that some of them begin with God's self-creation... however, I'm not going to push this one any further. The only copy of the Bible I've got on hand shares your version of the text, so I find myself without a reference to back up my words with. I seem to have suffered an acute case of "failed to find evidence before opening big mouth." My apologies. 
|
Yeah, there are a lot of translations... I'd like to think that King James Version is the one most true to the original translation.
No need to apologize, by the way. 
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
this implies that the only way an action could be worthwhile is if there is an afterlife, and the only concept of 'worthwhile' is to your own benefit.
|
The bold is where you lost me on that one.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
question. let's say there isn't an afterlife. if someone found a cure for cancer, would that be worthwhile? would this person's action have been for nothing?
|
Timeframe is the key. For the time following his discovery, it would be worthwhile. It would ease suffering and death for many people.
Zoom ahead to when Earth and its inhabitants no longer exist... doesn't seem so worthwhile now.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
another question. let's say there is an afterlife, and that the christian guess at it is correct. and let's say the scientist was not a christian. do you think he's still going to hell?
|
Not enough detail to answer that, all you've said is one thing he/she did.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
i don't give a shit whether you believe it. i thought i had made that clear. the only reason i am criticising religion is because it's trying to take over the world.
|
That's interesting, seeing as how I'm not a part of that movement in any regard...
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
almost no atheists say that they know there isn't a god. they generally say nobody's come up with any decent evidence, or even a convincing line of argument, that there is one.
|
That's not atheism, that's skepticism.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
2) Normally, I'd agree on that algebraic view... but not until you can explain how there can be something that isn't X or Y... mind or matter.
|
i've got a better idea, how about you prove to me that there has ever been a mind that did not have matter to it?
|
That's only a better idea because now I'm the one answering and not you, eh?
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
given the cruel and merciless depiction of god in the bible, why would the amount of evil in the world suggest that he ISN'T still around? i've never understood people who say: there can't be a god because of how fucked up the world is. they must be reading a different bible to the one i read.
|
Given how many Biblical quotes you've provided, you should have a pretty decent idea of what "sets God off", so to speak... and you've seen examples of what he does in response, in the OT... so, why isn't he responding much the same today?
|
because it's fiction
|
Congrats on your excellent dodge attempt.
If you think it's fiction, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Only when it's convenient for you, I see...
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
quite a lot. you say god isn't intervening in the modern world? i would think that subjecting humans to the worst punishment imaginable if they don't believe in him or disagree with his religion counts as intervening.
|
I don't see how an act of the afterlife counts as "modern-time".
|
Oh, really?
So God is doing absolutely nothing about the murderers etc in the world, then?
|
Elaborate on that, please. I don't quite understand what you're asking.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
I can give you better alternatives to most parts of Christianity.
The rape rule, for example. I think a better alternative is to lock the rapist up and offer some kind of counseling to the victim if she needs it. Either way she shouldn't ever have to look at him again.
The doctrine of forgiveness, the idea that your sins can be forgiven if you believe something (seriously, what the fuck? how can something so ridiculous be so widespread?). Better alternative. You do something wrong? Apologise to the people you affected, do what you can to rectify the situation, and resolve to behave better next time.
Any other alternatives you want?
|
This is still tearing at my boat, so to speak... as if you were giving your opinion on how you would have built it.
Doesn't help much.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal
|
How do you know that?
|
I never said I 'knew' it. Belief, remember?
I believe the Bible, and the Bible says God was already there 'in the Beginnning'.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Yes, angels did those things in the NewT... they don't today, though.
Basically, they were helping establish the new church that Jesus had just put into place.
|
I don't want to dwell on this issue but the only reason I brought it up is to show the poorly-made excuses christians bring up all the time to justify why supernatural interference is not occuring anymore.
here's a more plausible answer: the people who wrote these stories are no longer around to write them.
This is actually a huge reason as to why I don't believe. The world seems to be more pessimistic in it's cyclic nature than show any order as suggested by religions. Perhaps we can talk more about this?
|
I'm sorry, I cannot understand anything you're saying here.
I'm willing to talk about it, I guess.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
I asked out of curiosity. What is your denominations take on it? The entire christian community is awfully divided over these basic questions.
|
Well, we believe that there is a hell, and that non-christians and suchlike will dwell there. And what about Satan, now?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
There used to be a time in the western world when satan was the supreme devil who had strings attached to all parts of the body. When you got sexually aroused, it was satan pulling the strings to "make you sin." This is the view among christians in eastern countries.
Any perverse thoughts were because satan was "putting them into you" and it was just 2 months ago that my dad claimed that I became atheist because "satan planted the doubts." What's pathetic is he truly believes it.
|
That's a view I haven't heard in awhile. I certainly don't agree with it.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
I don't understand how anyone can think arguments for atheism are any more credible because I have been born and brought up in a christian household and can't think things through scientifically in a unbiased way.
|
Fixed. You can't cut through the childhood indoctrination overnight.
|
That's irrelevant, you know. You can't just blame their argument's lack of support on an indoctrination you know little about.
I was brought under a different church than you, and you have certainly surprised me with some of the things you say your church tried to teach you.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
wow...so many christians don't know this. All jews, christians, and muslims trace the root of their religions to the Patriach Abraham.
|
I'd trace it to Adam and Eve, and their creator, myself.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
There's a huge difference between human discoveries and the horror fantasies in a religious book.
|
How? Take both and show them to a people who are ignorant to both's origins, and they'll very likely think both are just as implausible.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
do you imply that reincarnation is true but we aren't in a position to have "examined and studied" it?
|
I imply that, while I don't believe in it, I don't have concrete proof that it is false.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
I can also see how difficult it will be for them to believe that airplanes fly because of the manipulation of the laws of physics (aerodynamics). They would be more inclined to believe it flies on magic fairy dust.
|
There you go.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
So don't you see then how silly it is to rely on any product coming out of older tribes and civilizations? How risky it is to especially rely on on their old books for setting a standard on morality and foundation for social law?
|
No, not especially. They've lived with the signs and the events for a long time, and their judgement can't just be hastily applied to a made-up belief.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
If christians kept their beliefs to themselves and stopped trying to bring their religion into politics to enforce it on the whole nation aiming for a theocracy style government, then they wouldn't have earned such a bad rep from pretty much everybody. They are only hurting themselves. Trust me, they are trying to do this everywhere and not just in America.
|
I wasn't aware Americans were trying, all I see is atheists trying to remove anything religious from American culture.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
jesus instructed you folks to carry his message to the whole world. And he specifically instructed you folks that if his message is rejected by any people, then shake the dust off the feet when you leave them:
| Luke 10:10-12 |
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
|
Simple translation: if anyone rejects my message, show them the finger and go preach elsewhere. I will deal with them later.
So when did his message become, "if a people reject me, go crush them and break their backs, and inflitrate their political processess, make sure they teach about me in school and pray to me in public and establish a christian theocratic state where everyone obeys me and let those who oppose me be systematically oppressed"?
|
I am with you on this one, believe me. Forcing a viewpoint on someone is wrong, any viewpoint.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
I don't know what is pathetic; atheists wanting fair secular laws for everybody or christians wanting to enforce their outdated tribal laws on everyone else. So what were you saying again?
|
Hey, this is hardly my original statement. I said atheists who automatically look down on relgious people for that reason alone are pathetic. NOT those who want laws or whatnot.
And I already stated my opinion on those 'enforcing Christians'.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
You see where I am going with this? That's what extremely unfair and downright evil about religious doctrination. They grab our mind before we can come to our own conclusion later in life. In other words, you, my friend Altzan, have not thought things through with your own intellectual sovereignty. It was imposed by your parents like it were for me and you are merely repeating what they put into you.
|
You're assuming this, actually. You don't know for a fact what I've learned from my parents and what I learned for myself. And I'd appreciate you not implying I learned everything religious from my parents alone.
I'm not denying they've influenced my viewpoint. It's the degree you imply that irks me.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
You're reading too far into it. It's simply a step to indicate that there is a diety! Why is that so ridiculous?
|
It wouldn't be ridiculous if you left it at that. You also go on to imply that this deity is the judeo-christian god of abraham!
|
I said that's what I believe, based on it. That doesn't undo my statements about a diety, just because I have my belief on who it is.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 00:26 |
Lol, even if all the early humans were like that, it stills vindicates the point of "basic human attribute" and "superior force".
Now THAT's laughable.
|
You lost me...completely. Help me out.
|
You think sacrifice and such based on religion is laughable; I merely pointed out that it still plays on the aspect of man's inherently religious nature.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
Anyway, I was away for the last couple days because I was invited to a wedding. It was for one of my hindu friends and I had a really fun time at her wedding. I got to see for the first time the various hindu ceremonial marriage rituals in a very nice natural open setting. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to appreciate the lifestlyes and beliefs of people from a very different religion.
|
That's pretty cool, hope you had fun.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
Now logging back into renforums and reading these christian arguments makes me feel like I am in some twilight zone away from reality lol.
|
I know how you feel
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427569 is a reply to message #427546] |
Wed, 05 May 2010 06:16 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 04:26 |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
this implies that the only way an action could be worthwhile is if there is an afterlife, and the only concept of 'worthwhile' is to your own benefit.
|
The bold is where you lost me on that one.
|
i can't imagine why.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
question. let's say there isn't an afterlife. if someone found a cure for cancer, would that be worthwhile? would this person's action have been for nothing?
|
Timeframe is the key. For the time following his discovery, it would be worthwhile. It would ease suffering and death for many people.
Zoom ahead to when Earth and its inhabitants no longer exist... doesn't seem so worthwhile now.
|
then here's another critique of the religion that's been inflicted on you... it's made you not appreciate and value everything that's actually real.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
another question. let's say there is an afterlife, and that the christian guess at it is correct. and let's say the scientist was not a christian. do you think he's still going to hell?
|
Not enough detail to answer that, all you've said is one thing he/she did.
|
the general question is pretty straightforward. if someone is not a christian, just can't bring themselves to believe any of this crap, is there any good work that could be done that could get them out of hell? cure all disease, end world hunger, that sort of thing?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
i don't give a shit whether you believe it. i thought i had made that clear. the only reason i am criticising religion is because it's trying to take over the world.
|
That's interesting, seeing as how I'm not a part of that movement in any regard...
|
k. so if i proposed that all the undeserved, undemocratic privileges currently enjoyed by religion are removed, you'd be on my side?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
almost no atheists say that they know there isn't a god. they generally say nobody's come up with any decent evidence, or even a convincing line of argument, that there is one.
|
That's not atheism, that's skepticism.
|
how can you say a rejection of theism based on its extreme improbability and lack of any evidence (not to mention moral objections) is "not atheism"?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
2) Normally, I'd agree on that algebraic view... but not until you can explain how there can be something that isn't X or Y... mind or matter.
|
i've got a better idea, how about you prove to me that there has ever been a mind that did not have matter to it?
|
That's only a better idea because now I'm the one answering and not you, eh?
|
nice dodge. you started off on a bullshit assumption, i.e. that everything is mind or matter. show me that there is, or has ever been, a mind that is not also based on matter, otherwise your entire line of reasoning falls apart.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
|
moving the goalposts again.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
given the cruel and merciless depiction of god in the bible, why would the amount of evil in the world suggest that he ISN'T still around? i've never understood people who say: there can't be a god because of how fucked up the world is. they must be reading a different bible to the one i read.
|
Given how many Biblical quotes you've provided, you should have a pretty decent idea of what "sets God off", so to speak... and you've seen examples of what he does in response, in the OT... so, why isn't he responding much the same today?
|
because it's fiction
|
Congrats on your excellent dodge attempt.
If you think it's fiction, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
Only when it's convenient for you, I see...
|
you stupid, stupid son of a bitch.
i have always thought, and said, that it is fiction.
you ask why isn't god intervening in the world? DUH, BECAUSE THE STORY IS MADE UP. that's the simple answer to your question. it's a much better answer than "there is a god but since jesus he hasn't been intervening in the world, even though there's nothing in the bible that says he would stop doing that, and even though the STAGGERING majority of christians in the world think the opposite"
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 06:29 |
quite a lot. you say god isn't intervening in the modern world? i would think that subjecting humans to the worst punishment imaginable if they don't believe in him or disagree with his religion counts as intervening.
|
I don't see how an act of the afterlife counts as "modern-time".
|
Oh, really?
So God is doing absolutely nothing about the murderers etc in the world, then?
|
Elaborate on that, please. I don't quite understand what you're asking.
|
simple.
you said god isn't intervening in the modern world. i think taking someone once they're dead, "judging" them (as if his supposed character could have any credibility to do that), and sending them to be tortured for ever counts as intervening.
if that DOESN'T count as intervening, then god is doing nothing about the evil in the world. someone murders your parents? god won't do anything about it.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
I can give you better alternatives to most parts of Christianity.
The rape rule, for example. I think a better alternative is to lock the rapist up and offer some kind of counseling to the victim if she needs it. Either way she shouldn't ever have to look at him again.
The doctrine of forgiveness, the idea that your sins can be forgiven if you believe something (seriously, what the fuck? how can something so ridiculous be so widespread?). Better alternative. You do something wrong? Apologise to the people you affected, do what you can to rectify the situation, and resolve to behave better next time.
Any other alternatives you want?
|
This is still tearing at my boat, so to speak... as if you were giving your opinion on how you would have built it.
Doesn't help much.
|
you said atheists aren't giving you alternatives to christianity. i'm giving you much better alternatives to what your religion says.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal
|
How do you know that?
|
I never said I 'knew' it. Belief, remember?
I believe the Bible, and the Bible says God was already there 'in the Beginnning'.
|
what a cop-out.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427677 is a reply to message #427569] |
Thu, 06 May 2010 21:36 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
then here's another critique of the religion that's been inflicted on you... it's made you not appreciate and value everything that's actually real.
|
If there was an afterlife, and it's composed exactly the way the Bible describes, I'd be puzzled to understand how it ultimately holds less priority than this life.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
the general question is pretty straightforward.
|
Ok, then I'll try to -
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
just can't bring themselves to believe any of this crap
|
Ah. Never mind then.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
k. so if i proposed that all the undeserved, undemocratic privileges currently enjoyed by religion are removed, you'd be on my side?
|
Yes.
As I have stated before, I am AGAINST religion taking such a position of power over people's lives who do not wish to be a part of such.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
how can you say a rejection of theism based on its extreme improbability and lack of any evidence (not to mention moral objections) is "not atheism"?
|
OK, bad wording on my part, since the loose definition of atheism is "denies the existence of (a) god". A skeptic is one who admits there is a possibility, but requires more proof/evidence to make such an assumption.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
nice dodge. you started off on a bullshit assumption, i.e. that everything is mind or matter.
|
Go ahead, explain how it's bullshit...
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
show me that there is, or has ever been, a mind that is not also based on matter, otherwise your entire line of reasoning falls apart.
|
To do that, I'd probably have to point out a mind even slightly capable of performing feats that God has, which in turn would help prove a diety's existence, which in turn would prevent this type of discussion from even happening...
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
|
moving the goalposts again.
|
OK, I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks for showing me an easy way to evade questions, I might give it a go later on.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you stupid, stupid son of a bitch.
|
Thus lowering my respect for your viewpoints down another couple of notches.
AFAIK, the only reason why you'd both insult me and try to reason with me is that you're not actually interested in changing my opinion or educating me - you're just trying to disprove me and increase your reputation among the community. If that's the case, we might as well stop now, because I don't give a damn about that. I'd like to learn about the other viewpoints and arguments in this field/topic.
Starbuzzz seems interested in this as well, which is why I have yet to raise a serious qualm with him directly.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
i have always thought, and said, that it is fiction.
|
I know that. Brain-dead trolls could understand it at this point.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you ask why isn't god intervening in the world? DUH, BECAUSE THE STORY IS MADE UP. that's the simple answer to your question.
|
Uh-huh. As soon as I get a good reason to believe it, I will.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
there is a god, but since jesus, he hasn't been intervening in the world, even though there's nothing in the bible that says he would stop doing that
|
Learn to read?
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
and even though the STAGGERING majority of christians in the world think the opposite"
|
Many also think that faith alone will save you, when there are countless verses that say otherwise.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you said god isn't intervening in the modern world. i think taking someone once they're dead, "judging" them (as if his supposed character could have any credibility to do that), and sending them to be tortured for ever counts as intervening.
if that DOESN'T count as intervening, then god is doing nothing about the evil in the world. someone murders your parents? god won't do anything about it.
|
MODERN WORLD. God isn't judging people right now, he's not judging them while the earth remains. When Judgement comes, said murderers would be in trouble since God will then "intervene".
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
I can give you better alternatives to most parts of Christianity.
The rape rule, for example. I think a better alternative is to lock the rapist up and offer some kind of counseling to the victim if she needs it. Either way she shouldn't ever have to look at him again.
The doctrine of forgiveness, the idea that your sins can be forgiven if you believe something (seriously, what the fuck? how can something so ridiculous be so widespread?). Better alternative. You do something wrong? Apologise to the people you affected, do what you can to rectify the situation, and resolve to behave better next time.
Any other alternatives you want?
|
This is still tearing at my boat, so to speak... as if you were giving your opinion on how you would have built it.
Doesn't help much.
|
you said atheists aren't giving you alternatives to christianity. i'm giving you much better alternatives to what your religion says.
|
Alternatives to some of it, anyway.
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal
|
How do you know that?
|
I never said I 'knew' it. Belief, remember?
I believe the Bible, and the Bible says God was already there 'in the Beginnning'.
|
what a cop-out.
|
Yeah, because stating my opinion is a cop-out, sure.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
[Updated on: Thu, 06 May 2010 21:44] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427705 is a reply to message #427677] |
Fri, 07 May 2010 08:48 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:36 |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
then here's another critique of the religion that's been inflicted on you... it's made you not appreciate and value everything that's actually real.
|
If there was an afterlife, and it's composed exactly the way the Bible describes
|
and there's absolutely no reason to think it is, so that's quite a big "if". part of my comment was attempting to say that religion has simply asserted that it is true and you arrange your thoughts on that basis. it hasn't even attempted to explain how it knows it. (and it's made the worst threats it's possible to make for anybody who doubts it, and it's always saying that believing things for no reason - i.e. faith - is a good thing)
| Quote: |
I'd be puzzled to understand how it ultimately holds less priority than this life.
|
so you sympathise with the suicide murderers of islam, for example? they're told they're going straight to paradise if they kill a few infidels and die in the process.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
k. so if i proposed that all the undeserved, undemocratic privileges currently enjoyed by religion are removed, you'd be on my side?
|
Yes.
As I have stated before, I am AGAINST religion taking such a position of power over people's lives who do not wish to be a part of such.
|
you've spent several pages asking what would be so wrong with a heavenly dictatorship.
swap "religion" in your last sentence for "god" and ask the question again. are you against god having power over a person who does not want any of it?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
how can you say a rejection of theism based on its extreme improbability and lack of any evidence (not to mention moral objections) is "not atheism"?
|
OK, bad wording on my part, since the loose definition of atheism is "denies the existence of (a) god".
|
i'm sure that is how religious people usually like to define atheists.
| Quote: |
A skeptic is one who admits there is a possibility, but requires more proof/evidence to make such an assumption.
|
"more"... lol
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
nice dodge. you started off on a bullshit assumption, i.e. that everything is mind or matter.
|
Go ahead, explain how it's bullshit...
|
...the question i asked and which you couldn't answer. "i.e. show me something that's mind with no basis of matter, please"
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
show me that there is, or has ever been, a mind that is not also based on matter, otherwise your entire line of reasoning falls apart.
|
To do that, I'd probably have to point out a mind even slightly capable of performing feats that God has, which in turn would help prove a diety's existence, which in turn would prevent this type of discussion from even happening...
|
see above re: couldn't answer.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
|
moving the goalposts again.
|
OK, I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks for showing me an easy way to evade questions, I might give it a go later on.
|
quite plainly i did not evade the question at all.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you stupid, stupid son of a bitch.
|
Thus lowering my respect for your viewpoints down another couple of notches. AFAIK, the only reason why you'd both insult me and try to reason with me is that you're not actually interested in changing my opinion or educating me - you're just trying to disprove me and increase your reputation among the community.
|
When somebody says something as astonishingly fatuous as what you just said, the kindest thing you can do is shock them into realising it. If they're offended, tough... it's better than carrying on not knowing what an idiot they just make themselves look like, and probably doing it again later.
And if you think what I said in response is anywhere near as offensive as telling someone they deserve to go to hell for disbelieving or disagreeing with your religion, then I haven't shocked you anywhere near enough yet.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you ask why isn't god intervening in the world? DUH, BECAUSE THE STORY IS MADE UP. that's the simple answer to your question.
|
Uh-huh. As soon as I get a good reason to believe it, I will.
|
you don't seem to need much of a good reason to believe the alternative.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
you said god isn't intervening in the modern world. i think taking someone once they're dead, "judging" them (as if his supposed character could have any credibility to do that), and sending them to be tortured for ever counts as intervening.
if that DOESN'T count as intervening, then god is doing nothing about the evil in the world. someone murders your parents? god won't do anything about it.
|
MODERN WORLD. God isn't judging people right now, he's not judging them while the earth remains. When Judgement comes, said murderers would be in trouble since God will then "intervene".
|
okay... so until then he's quite content to let the world be fucked up beyond recognition (usually by the religious)
y'know, after islam started up, it wasn't long before it conquered half the christian world. all these devout christians slaughtered and subjugated by a false prophet... wouldn't it have been nice to get a little memo saying "this guy mohammed doesn't actually work for me"?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
Alternatives to some of it, anyway.
|
|
including the redemption through jesus bullshit, which is probably the central tenet of christianity. it's certainly the one i hear the most often.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
God didn't create himself, he was never created. He is eternal
|
How do you know that?
|
I never said I 'knew' it. Belief, remember?
I believe the Bible, and the Bible says God was already there 'in the Beginnning'.
|
what a cop-out.
|
Yeah, because stating my opinion is a cop-out, sure.
|
[/quote]
sigh
you start off by this string of pseudo-logic how there must be a god (your god, conveniently) because the universe can't create itself. so people ask the obvious question - how did this god come into existence, then? you say he doesn't have to follow these same rules of common sense. well, how do you know that? "i just believe it"
*facepalm*
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427784 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sat, 08 May 2010 12:36 |
kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Wow 7 pages of what should probably have been in PMs, but I guess that's why it's in heated discussion.
Altzan It's quite simple really. You believe in a higher power. You live your life the way you feel you should. As long as you don't inhibit someone else from doing the same, there's no problem with what religion you believe in.
If other countries let religion have reign on their gov't and they are pissed about it, don't let them lure you into useless debates on the existence of god. Skeptics will find loop holes in anything to have an argument about. They will not accept any form of proof short of having God himself arrive at these peoples house, and explaining his plan to them. As long as you live your life as a law obeying citizen then there's nothing they can say against you personally.
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
It matters not what these people say to you. It's best for you to no waste your time on them. If there is an after life I guarantee I'll be in hell, but I'll go defending to the end your right to believe in what ever man made religion you wish.
[Updated on: Sat, 08 May 2010 12:37] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427785 is a reply to message #427784] |
Sat, 08 May 2010 13:06 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 14:36 |
If other countries let religion have reign on their gov't and they are pissed about it, don't let them lure you into useless debates on the existence of god.
|
Useless?
We're told we're going to suffer the most horrific punishment ever designed for disagreeing with this, the religious claim RIDICULOUS privileges in the here and now, and you say the question of whether a bloody word of it is true is useless?
| Quote: |
Skeptics will find loop holes in anything to have an argument about. They will not accept any form of proof short of having God himself arrive at these peoples house, and explaining his plan to them.
|
actually, if god did do that it wouldn't make me obey him. it would make me feel a lot worse to know he existed at all.
| Quote: |
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
|
is the bible the word of god or isn't it? is god a being of perfect morality or is he not?
| Quote: |
If there is an after life I guarantee I'll be in hell, but I'll go defending to the end your right to believe in what ever man made religion you wish.
|
i'll defend that too. i absolutely believe in the right of freedom of belief and have said so many times.
religion doesn't.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427822 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sat, 08 May 2010 23:10 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
I'd be puzzled to understand how it ultimately holds less priority than this life.
|
so you sympathise with the suicide murderers of islam, for example? they're told they're going straight to paradise if they kill a few infidels and die in the process.
|
No, I'm not a islamic sympathiser. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
you've spent several pages asking what would be so wrong with a heavenly dictatorship.
swap "religion" in your last sentence for "god" and ask the question again. are you against god having power over a person who does not want any of it?
|
No.
If (I put an if there so I won't offend you further) God exists and did create everything, then I don't see why his creation deserves seperation from creator by default.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
how can you say a rejection of theism based on its extreme improbability and lack of any evidence (not to mention moral objections) is "not atheism"?
|
OK, bad wording on my part, since the loose definition of atheism is "denies the existence of (a) god".
|
i'm sure that is how religious people usually like to define atheists.
|
Define atheism, then, in your own words.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
nice dodge. you started off on a bullshit assumption, i.e. that everything is mind or matter.
|
Go ahead, explain how it's bullshit...
|
...the question i asked and which you couldn't answer. "i.e. show me something that's mind with no basis of matter, please"
|
And MY question was to provide an example of something that doesn't fit into "mind" or "matter".
However, if I can't give an example of a mind existing without matter (and I explained why I could not) that in no way disproves the idea.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
|
moving the goalposts again.
|
OK, I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks for showing me an easy way to evade questions, I might give it a go later on.
|
quite plainly i did not evade the question at all.
|
This is just silly.
I provided a quote, asked for your opinion. If you won't give one, then at least give a reason why. Even "I don't want to" will do fine.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
When somebody says something as astonishingly fatuous as what you just said, the kindest thing you can do is shock them into realising it. If they're offended, tough... it's better than carrying on not knowing what an idiot they just make themselves look like, and probably doing it again later.
|
Thing is, my "saying something as astonishingly fatuous" is your own opinion.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
okay... so until then he's quite content to let the world be fucked up beyond recognition
|
It's man's choice, not his.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
(usually by the religious)
|
Yet the worst events I see usually aren't religious by nature, but simply humans infringing on other's rights for selfish and immoral reasons. And the religion I'm a part of wants (and gives) peace and goodwill with their neighbors and fellow humans.
Groan about our spiritual message all you like, you certainly have a right to. But you'd have to be pretty biased to disapprove of our behaviour/ethics involving interaction with our fellow man... we certainly don't think murder/theft/crime/hate/greed is proper. Hopefully you feel the same.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
y'know, after islam started up, it wasn't long before it conquered half the christian world. all these devout christians slaughtered and subjugated by a false prophet... wouldn't it have been nice to get a little memo saying "this guy mohammed doesn't actually work for me"?
|
It would have been, yes. Why?
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
you start off by this string of pseudo-logic how there must be a god (your god, conveniently) because the universe can't create itself. so people ask the obvious question - how did this god come into existence, then? you say he doesn't have to follow these same rules of common sense. well, how do you know that? "i just believe it"
*facepalm*
|
Come on. I said the universe must have been created by a higher power. I stated that I believe it is a diety.
And if that diety wasn't eternal, then something even more powerful must have created him, and then what about THAT one, and...
Doesn't work out.
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
Altzan It's quite simple really. You believe in a higher power. You live your life the way you feel you should. As long as you don't inhibit someone else from doing the same, there's no problem with what religion you believe in.
|
Problem is, Spoony thinks I'm doing more than just that, apparently.
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
If other countries let religion have reign on their gov't and they are pissed about it, don't let them lure you into useless debates on the existence of god. Skeptics will find loop holes in anything to have an argument about. They will not accept any form of proof short of having God himself arrive at these peoples house, and explaining his plan to them. As long as you live your life as a law obeying citizen then there's nothing they can say against you personally.
|
That's actually very well worded. Thank you.
The thread did start with a govt action in the UK, and a protest against religious government authority. And it's getting applied to me purely because they're both carrying the Christian label. And I still don't know why people think that's logical.
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
|
True, it's happened many times in this thread alone.
Sometimes debators (myself included at some points I admit) don't look at an opposing argument with a "let's see what they have to say" attitude, but rather a "let's see the best way to refute or ridicule this" attitude. I wish this never happened, flamewars would be less likely to happen.
But it's the internet, the location of almost pure anonymity, which fuels such behaviour. It's hard to curb.
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
It matters not what these people say to you. It's best for you to no waste your time on them. If there is an after life I guarantee I'll be in hell, but I'll go defending to the end your right to believe in what ever man made religion you wish.
|
"man made religion"? :\
Well, thanks for your post in general. I'm glad to see there's viewers other than just Spoony/Starbuzzz looking at this. I don't think this needs to be PM'd - it should be open to everyone's opinion.
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
Useless?
We're told we're going to suffer the most horrific punishment ever designed for disagreeing with this, the religious claim RIDICULOUS privileges in the here and now, and you say the question of whether a bloody word of it is true is useless?
|
The question isn't useless at all.
These debates are, though.
Do you REALLY expect anyone's opinion to change, on an anonymous-type forum, with the same old arguments on both sides?
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
i'll defend that too. i absolutely believe in the right of freedom of belief and have said so many times.
|
And I appreciate that. However...
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
religion doesn't.
|
Guess what this is?
Generalization.
And guess what generalizations usually are?
WRONG.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427841 is a reply to message #427822] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 05:30 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
I'd be puzzled to understand how it ultimately holds less priority than this life.
|
so you sympathise with the suicide murderers of islam, for example? they're told they're going straight to paradise if they kill a few infidels and die in the process.
|
No, I'm not a islamic sympathiser. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
|
you said what goes on in this world is pretty trivial compared to the afterlife.
whenever you encounter an islamic suicide murderer, you'll see someone who can't wait to get to paradise. they believe in their religion much more than you do. it's why they murder innocent people, dying in the process.
they're throwing away everything - their own lives and others' - because of what they're told about the afterlife. and trust me, they really believe it.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
you've spent several pages asking what would be so wrong with a heavenly dictatorship.
swap "religion" in your last sentence for "god" and ask the question again. are you against god having power over a person who does not want any of it?
|
No.
If (I put an if there so I won't offend you further) God exists and did create everything, then I don't see why his creation deserves seperation from creator by default.
|
well, there you have it. complete, unchallengeable dictatorship. no hope of escape. it amazes me how many people want this to be true.
that's the first problem.
the second problem is that you think it's the root creator who should have ultimate control. you don't think, for example, that your parents should have eternal power over you. it has to keep going back until we reach the entity that started it all off. (did god decide that you should be born?)
well, what are god's origins? who created him?
thirdly, i asked a hypothetical question before - if you found out that you were created in a lab by a mad scientist, a modern-day frankenstein, would you be his serf or would you assert your basic rights and freedoms instead? if we found out that the earth was seeded by an alien race, would we then become their servants?
the fourth problem is more practical. you're taking the position that god should have power over us but religion shouldn't. well, what do we do about god's supposed instructions? a particular commandment, for example. should we put that into the laws of the land and have it enforced by police and courts? or simply let people get away with it and god will punish them later?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
how can you say a rejection of theism based on its extreme improbability and lack of any evidence (not to mention moral objections) is "not atheism"?
|
OK, bad wording on my part, since the loose definition of atheism is "denies the existence of (a) god".
|
i'm sure that is how religious people usually like to define atheists.
|
Define atheism, then, in your own words.
|
simply someone who does not subscribe to theism.
it's like calling someone a non-smoker. it doesn't say anything about them other than that they do not smoke. it doesn't even say why they don't smoke - it could be health concerns, they might not like the taste, they might rather spend the money on something else.... likewise, the word atheism doesn't tell you why a person does not consider themselves followers of a religion. they might not think it is true (but this doesn't mean they think all religion is axiomatically false), it could be a moral objection to the texts, it could be the thought that the texts had been corrupted or hijacked by errant humans, etc etc etc
and the thing being rejected is theism, remember, not deism. so it doesn't necessarily mean that an atheist is convinced there aren't such things as gods. "a-deism" might be a good word for that. it's theism that is being rejected, i.e. the idea that yes there is a god, that this or that book is directly inspired by him, that there are things of which he disapproves, that he watches us and judges us...
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
nice dodge. you started off on a bullshit assumption, i.e. that everything is mind or matter.
|
Go ahead, explain how it's bullshit...
|
...the question i asked and which you couldn't answer. "i.e. show me something that's mind with no basis of matter, please"
|
And MY question was to provide an example of something that doesn't fit into "mind" or "matter".
However, if I can't give an example of a mind existing without matter (and I explained why I could not) that in no way disproves the idea.
|
what it does is undermines the basic assumption at the very start of your "here's why the universe must have been created by a god" thesis.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Wed, 05 May 2010 08:16 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 02 May 2010 09:00 |
| Quote: |
Logically, it is a statement. It is either true or false. I asked you which you think it is. If you refuse to answer and give no reason other than "I don't accept that this is a yes-no question" then you are indeed evading it.
|
When did I refuse to answer? I said I wouldn't have phrased it like that.
|
Well, if you hesitate to throw your opinion to either choice, then rephrase it to how you think it is, don't avoid it altogether.
|
moving the goalposts again.
|
OK, I'll leave it at that, then. Thanks for showing me an easy way to evade questions, I might give it a go later on.
|
quite plainly i did not evade the question at all.
|
This is just silly.
I provided a quote, asked for your opinion. If you won't give one, then at least give a reason why. Even "I don't want to" will do fine.
|
*facepalm* i have no idea why i need to keeping repeating myself
i did answer the question
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
When somebody says something as astonishingly fatuous as what you just said, the kindest thing you can do is shock them into realising it. If they're offended, tough... it's better than carrying on not knowing what an idiot they just make themselves look like, and probably doing it again later.
|
Thing is, my "saying something as astonishingly fatuous" is your own opinion.
|
and it's also my opinion that what you just said right there ^^ is astonishingly fatuous too.
maybe you think i should be posting someone else's opinions? i have no idea why people say things as stupid as this. "THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!" well duhhh, whose else am i gonna express? it's like when you said earlier that all i'm doing is posting my opinion instead of quotes or texts. what a stupid thing to say. i can express my opinion or i can copy-paste someone else's.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
okay... so until then he's quite content to let the world be fucked up beyond recognition
|
It's man's choice, not his.
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
(usually by the religious)
|
Yet the worst events I see usually aren't religious by nature, but simply humans infringing on other's rights for selfish and immoral reasons.
|
...aided by religion more often than not.
| Quote: |
And the religion I'm a part of wants (and gives) peace and goodwill with their neighbors and fellow humans.
|
including the ones god absolutely despises, according to the bible?
| Quote: |
Groan about our spiritual message all you like, you certainly have a right to.
|
i do, do i? won't i be punished?
| Quote: |
But you'd have to be pretty biased to disapprove of our behaviour/ethics involving interaction with our fellow man... we certainly don't think murder/theft/crime/hate/greed is proper. Hopefully you feel the same.
|
you asked me that too. murder and theft, sure. crime is too vague... many things are illegal for which there is no moral justification, and many morally objectionable and damaging things are perfectly legal. hate is rather vague too. greed can have its uses.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Fri, 07 May 2010 10:48 |
y'know, after islam started up, it wasn't long before it conquered half the christian world. all these devout christians slaughtered and subjugated by a false prophet... wouldn't it have been nice to get a little memo saying "this guy mohammed doesn't actually work for me"?
|
It would have been, yes. Why?
|
see above re: god seems quite content to let the world be smashed up. he doesn't even look out for his religion (although, of course, your religion didn't exist until quite recently. for a long time there was just catholicism... it split a few times and they've been kicking the shit out of each other since)
| Quote: |
Come on. I said the universe must have been created by a higher power. I stated that I believe it is a diety.
And if that diety wasn't eternal, then something even more powerful must have created him, and then what about THAT one, and...
Doesn't work out.
|
no, it doesn't!
| Quote: |
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
If other countries let religion have reign on their gov't and they are pissed about it, don't let them lure you into useless debates on the existence of god. Skeptics will find loop holes in anything to have an argument about. They will not accept any form of proof short of having God himself arrive at these peoples house, and explaining his plan to them. As long as you live your life as a law obeying citizen then there's nothing they can say against you personally.
|
That's actually very well worded. Thank you.
The thread did start with a govt action in the UK, and a protest against religious government authority. And it's getting applied to me purely because they're both carrying the Christian label. And I still don't know why people think that's logical.
|
and i don't know who you're talking about. who linked you to the catholic church's systematic raping of children and protection of the offenders?
it just happens to be in the same thread.
| Quote: |
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 21:36 |
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
|
True, it's happened many times in this thread alone.
|
answer the question i asked kadoosh.
is god perfect or not perfect? is the bible a perfect depiction of his views or not?
| Quote: |
Sometimes debators (myself included at some points I admit) don't look at an opposing argument with a "let's see what they have to say" attitude, but rather a "let's see the best way to refute or ridicule this" attitude. I wish this never happened, flamewars would be less likely to happen.
But it's the internet, the location of almost pure anonymity, which fuels such behaviour. It's hard to curb.
|
would you curb it if you could? don't we have enough blasphemy laws already?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
Useless?
We're told we're going to suffer the most horrific punishment ever designed for disagreeing with this, the religious claim RIDICULOUS privileges in the here and now, and you say the question of whether a bloody word of it is true is useless?
|
The question isn't useless at all.
These debates are, though.
Do you REALLY expect anyone's opinion to change, on an anonymous-type forum, with the same old arguments on both sides?
|
i'm reluctant to answer this question, but i suppose i should.
i've had many religious debates. most of them might have been called useless by kadoosh. one of them helped lead the christian on the other side of it to intellectual freedom, which he never had before - neither his parents nor his local religious folks wanted him to have it and they still don't want him to. and yet what did i actually do? ripped on his religious ideas. many people would've called it rude, and i'm sure i offended him (to begin with) more than i've offended you. and yet look at the results. it genuinely was a question of basic human rights. (like i said, i was reluctant to answer the question, firstly because i don't want to presume too much about what's going on in his life, secondly because i personally think that when he expressed his gratitude to me, he was probably giving me more credit than i deserved)
to answer your question, no, i didn't expect it would happen.
but if i could swap all the time i've put into doing stuff for renegade - running the clanwars league etc - in exchange for being able to say that this had happened for two people instead of one, it would be a worthy trade.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
i'll defend that too. i absolutely believe in the right of freedom of belief and have said so many times.
|
And I appreciate that. However...
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 15:06 |
religion doesn't.
|
Guess what this is?
Generalization.
And guess what generalizations usually are?
WRONG.
|
sure it's a generalisation, just to save time. there might be religions out there who do believe in freedom of belief, but the ones with all the power now don't seem to. does yours? see my earlier question. do i really have the right to criticise and reject your religion? if i'm gonna be punished for it, then no i don't.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Sun, 09 May 2010 05:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427852 is a reply to message #427785] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 07:29 |
kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 16:06 |
| kadoosh wrote on Sat, 08 May 2010 14:36 |
If other countries let religion have reign on their gov't and they are pissed about it, don't let them lure you into useless debates on the existence of god.
|
Useless?
We're told we're going to suffer the most horrific punishment ever designed for disagreeing with this, the religious claim RIDICULOUS privileges in the here and now, and you say the question of whether a bloody word of it is true is useless?
|
Yes I think it's useless.
This debate and any other debate on the subject is useless. I know I used that word again and you'll have some problem with it. This argument between believers and skeptics rages on and both sides might as well be talking to walls. Neither side is going to budge.
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
Skeptics will find loop holes in anything to have an argument about. They will not accept any form of proof short of having God himself arrive at these peoples house, and explaining his plan to them.
|
actually, if god did do that it wouldn't make me obey him. it would make me feel a lot worse to know he existed at all.
|
not worth commenting on. As personally I don't care about your beliefs. You are entitled to them, and more power to you.
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
|
is the bible the word of god or isn't it? is god a being of perfect morality or is he not?
|
Are you asking for my personal opinion, or do you want to speak to a theology major?
My opinion = I don't care. I believe it's fiction. I only have a problem with any of it when I see someone trying to force their beliefs on someone else. The day I get a horde of bible thumper type people standing a my front door screaming, "You're Going To Hell!!!" Is the day I see them as forcing it on me. As that hasn't happened I have no problem with Christians, Catholics, Jews, Jehovah's witnesses, Hindus, Muslims (not the extremists blowing shit up).
Theology Major = Isn't that like getting a degree in gameboy? Seriously you get a degree on fictional history.
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
If there is an after life I guarantee I'll be in hell, but I'll go defending to the end your right to believe in what ever man made religion you wish.
|
i'll defend that too. i absolutely believe in the right of freedom of belief and have said so many times.
religion doesn't.
|
As someone who doesn't believe in the same things they do, I'll say this:
I PERSONALLY DON'T GIVE 2 SHITS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT ME OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME IN ANY FORM OF AN AFTERLIFE.
[Updated on: Sun, 09 May 2010 07:32] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427858 is a reply to message #427852] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 09:16 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 09:29 |
Yes I think it's useless.
This debate and any other debate on the subject is useless. I know I used that word again and you'll have some problem with it. This argument between believers and skeptics rages on and both sides might as well be talking to walls. Neither side is going to budge.
|
firstly, there's an absolutely huge difference in the reasons why neither side budges.
secondly, read my last reply to altzan.
| Quote: |
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
The proof of people looking for evidence and believing only certain parts of that information can be proven by looking at anything political. Different people look at things and interpret them differently. Then you get ridiculous arguments where people point to 1 page of a 4000 page report and say this flaw proves you are wrong.
|
is the bible the word of god or isn't it? is god a being of perfect morality or is he not?
|
Are you asking for my personal opinion, or do you want to speak to a theology major?
|
neither. the question was a rebuttal to your last comment.
if the bible is perfect, and so many christians say it is, then pointing out a factual error, an internal contradiction or a shockingly evil moral teaching - even just one in a 4000 page book - is pretty damaging, is it not?
| Quote: |
My opinion = I don't care. I believe it's fiction. I only have a problem with any of it when I see someone trying to force their beliefs on someone else. The day I get a horde of bible thumper type people standing a my front door screaming, "You're Going To Hell!!!" Is the day I see them as forcing it on me. As that hasn't happened
|
where do you live?
here, christianity gets automatic seats in parliament. the head of the church is also the head of state. its legacy means our system is barely a democracy at all (look how well that just worked out for us). there are laws saying we can't criticise religion. it gets enormous amounts of public money and it gets tax breaks. worst of all, it has control over education.
| Quote: |
Theology Major = Isn't that like getting a degree in gameboy? Seriously you get a degree on fictional history.
|
indeed, theology is basically a word to make stupidity and unsupported guesswork sound like a science.
| Quote: |
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
If there is an after life I guarantee I'll be in hell, but I'll go defending to the end your right to believe in what ever man made religion you wish.
|
i'll defend that too. i absolutely believe in the right of freedom of belief and have said so many times.
religion doesn't.
|
As someone who doesn't believe in the same things they do, I'll say this:
I PERSONALLY DON'T GIVE 2 SHITS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT ME OR WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ME IN ANY FORM OF AN AFTERLIFE.
|
i don't care what they think about me either. however, threatening someone with horrific punishments for not agreeing with you - especially a child - is sick and it ought to stop.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427866 is a reply to message #427858] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 11:05 |
kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:16 |
firstly, there's an absolutely huge difference in the reasons why neither side budges.
secondly, read my last reply to altzan.
|
It still doesn't change the fact that NOBODY WILL BUDGE. reasons aside, no matter how bizarre they may be, neither one of you will budge. Thus making it pointless.
| Spoony |
if the bible is perfect, and so many christians say it is, then pointing out a factual error, an internal contradiction or a shockingly evil moral teaching - even just one in a 4000 page book - is pretty damaging, is it not?
|
You are asking me a question that I can't answer. I THINK THE WHOLE DAMN BOOK IS FICTION. I think god is fiction, and you are proving my point that you will go So far out of your way, even though I know you don't think it's to far, to find something to argue about to someone who does believe. Please keep it up. It's entertaining.
| Spoony |
where do you live?
|
I live in the US where there is a line between Religion and Gov't. As thin as it may be there's a line. We have had the 10 commandments pulled from courthouses. If people here have a problem with something we take it upon ourselves to get it changed.
| Spoony |
here, christianity gets automatic seats in parliament. the head of the church is also the head of state. its legacy means our system is barely a democracy at all (look how well that just worked out for us). there are laws saying we can't criticise religion. it gets enormous amounts of public money and it gets tax breaks. worst of all, it has control over education.
|
Sounds like a problem. As I firmly believe when churches get above the law there's a problem. The whole being able to confess to a murder to a priest, but the priest doesn't have to tell the police thing pisses me off. Not to mention the molestation.
| Spoony |
i don't care what they think about me either. however, threatening someone with horrific punishments for not agreeing with you - especially a child - is sick and it ought to stop.
|
It's this statement that leads me to believe English religion and US religion are far different. I've been to church with my sister and her children(cause my niece asked me to go). I really don't believe they only focused on the "nice" things because I was there. The never once talked about Hell.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427872 is a reply to message #427866] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 11:41 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 13:05 |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 12:16 |
firstly, there's an absolutely huge difference in the reasons why neither side budges.
secondly, read my last reply to altzan.
|
It still doesn't change the fact that NOBODY WILL BUDGE. reasons aside, no matter how bizarre they may be, neither one of you will budge. Thus making it pointless.
|
you clearly didn't read what i was hoping you would read, i.e. the case where one person budged a great deal as a result of these debates, resulting in him achieving a basic human right that was being denied him before. how comfortable a life you must lead to think these things are pointless.
| Quote: |
| Spoony |
if the bible is perfect, and so many christians say it is, then pointing out a factual error, an internal contradiction or a shockingly evil moral teaching - even just one in a 4000 page book - is pretty damaging, is it not?
|
You are asking me a question that I can't answer. I THINK THE WHOLE DAMN BOOK IS FICTION.
|
i wasn't asking you, if it wasn't obvious. i was pointing out why your earlier criticism of "omg they think finding one thing wrong in a 4000 page book means the whole thing's bullshit". well, one error or evil teaching in the bible would undermine what quite a lot of christians do say about it.
| Quote: |
I think god is fiction, and you are proving my point that you will go So far out of your way, even though I know you don't think it's to far, to find something to argue about to someone who does believe.
|
i really don't think civilised criticism is "going too far" in response to an ideology that's trying to take over the world.
| Quote: |
| Spoony |
where do you live?
|
I live in the US where there is a line between Religion and Gov't. As thin as it may be there's a line. We have had the 10 commandments pulled from courthouses. If people here have a problem with something we take it upon ourselves to get it changed.
|
the line certainly is thin and it's being tested all the time, isn't it?
| Quote: |
| Spoony |
i don't care what they think about me either. however, threatening someone with horrific punishments for not agreeing with you - especially a child - is sick and it ought to stop.
|
It's this statement that leads me to believe English religion and US religion are far different. I've been to church with my sister and her children(cause my niece asked me to go). I really don't believe they only focused on the "nice" things because I was there. The never once talked about Hell.
|
i wasn't specifically talking about english religion when i mentioned hell... christianities (i've never heard anyone use the plural before, so maybe there's a first) do it all over the world. maybe your particular church doesn't believe in hell, or maybe it thinks it's a good idea to deceive the congregation (a deception within a deception, if you can get your head round that)
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427875 is a reply to message #427872] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 12:26 |
kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| Spoony |
you clearly didn't read what i was hoping you would read, i.e. the case where one person budged a great deal as a result of these debates, resulting in him achieving a basic human right that was being denied him before. how comfortable a life you must lead to think these things are pointless.
|
quite comfortable
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
I think god is fiction, and you are proving my point that you will go So far out of your way, even though I know you don't think it's to far, to find something to argue about to someone who does believe.
|
i really don't think civilised criticism is "going too far" in response to an ideology that's trying to take over the world.
|
I guess it's ok as long as you see it as civilized.
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
I live in the US where there is a line between Religion and Gov't. As thin as it may be there's a line. We have had the 10 commandments pulled from courthouses. If people here have a problem with something we take it upon ourselves to get it changed.
|
the line certainly is thin and it's being tested all the time, isn't it?
|
Not as thin as you would like to believe it is. 1 person bitches about it here and it gets changed. I'd say every year it gets thicker.
| Spoony |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
i don't care what they think about me either. however, threatening someone with horrific punishments for not agreeing with you - especially a child - is sick and it ought to stop.
|
It's this statement that leads me to believe English religion and US religion are far different. I've been to church with my sister and her children(cause my niece asked me to go). I really don't believe they only focused on the "nice" things because I was there. The never once talked about Hell.
|
i wasn't specifically talking about english religion when i mentioned hell... christianities (i've never heard anyone use the plural before, so maybe there's a first) do it all over the world. maybe your particular church doesn't believe in hell, or maybe it thinks it's a good idea to deceive the congregation (a deception within a deception, if you can get your head round that)
|
clearly you believe i'm to ignorant to think of leaving something out so people don't expect it. So i'll go ahead and leave you to Christian bashing. Have fun but remember you are also attempting to FORCE someone to believe their religion is wrong. Witch i going against your previous statement of people believing what they want to.
Declare this a "Victory' if you wish, as I will not be responding in here again.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427880 is a reply to message #427875] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 14:10 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| kadoosh wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 14:26 |
| Quote: |
i really don't think civilised criticism is "going too far" in response to an ideology that's trying to take over the world.
|
I guess it's ok as long as you see it as civilized.
|
why would it not be ok? is it not civilised?
| Quote: |
clearly you believe i'm to ignorant to think of leaving something out so people don't expect it.
|
sorry, you've lost me.
| Quote: |
So i'll go ahead and leave you to Christian bashing.
|
christianity bashing, if you don't mind.
| Quote: |
Have fun but remember you are also attempting to FORCE someone to believe their religion is wrong.
|
What an AMAZINGLY stupid accusation.
| Quote: |
Declare this a "Victory' if you wish, as I will not be responding in here again.
|
bye
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Nov 02 20:59:45 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02297 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
