Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427899 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 09 May 2010 21:13   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Or to write the law to allow one religion exemptions, protections, and elevated status not guaranteed to any other...
"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.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427971 is a reply to message #422616] |
Mon, 10 May 2010 21:47 |
 |
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
Dictatorship can work just fine with the right leader. It's very similar to a monarchy, a very old and widely used system.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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?)
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?
|
On the surface, those scenarios seem similar, but they just don't compare.
The parents didn't create the baby, they used an already established means of reproduction to form the child. The form of reproduction being designed by the actual creator.
The mad scientist, if he did create something, used materials around him, in his universe. The universe he lives in would also subject itself to the creation.
Aliens wouldn't seed a planet with nothingness - they'd have to have formed the seeds somehow, with other materials.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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?
|
The latter. Right now, we're given a choice, we decide whether or not to follow his word. Consequeces for those decisions come later.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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.
|
How? It doesn't disprove the "matter or mind" idea.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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
|
So "it's not a yes or no question" is your answer?
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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.
|
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Yes.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
murder and theft, sure.
|
Good.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
True. It's too vague to say "crime" in general.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
hate is rather vague too.
|
Well, I don't see very many reasons to truly hate somebody, for example. There are some acts that would invoke such a reaction, just not many in my eyes.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
greed can have its uses.
|
How so? If you don't mind describing.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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)
|
I'm sure you prefer this system than having God actively smash up any rebellers, no? You like your "basic human freedom of thought and expression".
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| Quote: |
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.
|
Yes, I saw it.
My point here was that you've mentioned Christianity in goverment as an argument against me, in this thread earlier. I don't know why that's logical, since I disagree with it as well. Basically what kadoosh said.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Perfect - it's not a universal definition. I personally see him has perfect - Jesus especially... although I'm sure you dsagree.
I see no reason why the Bible would inaccurately depict his views, apart from transcription error.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Blasphemy laws hardly apply. It's about the recipient's attidude to the incoming argument or point.
A biased view can lead to missing the idea or ignoring a point, thus screwing up the debate process.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
I was sad to hear Starbuzzz convert - although I won't host a pity party mentioning how he was misled to believe lies and blah blah - it's rude and biased.
Actually, I was glad to hear he was leaving the Catholic side anyhow. From the experiences he described, they don't sound pleasant.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
I prefer to talk in terms of this physical existence's terms of rights. Yes, you have the right to criticize my religion now. The only reason you would is if you don't believe in it, and if that's the case, why worry about what our afterlife beliefs are?
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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 have been meaning to ask you to justify this. It seems like a pretty large hyperbole to me.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Yep, and usually by the atheists. Almost every time we hear of a bill in petition, it's about some atheist group wanting so-and-so removed.
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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.
|
You're probably making it more complex than needed. Rewritten:
"You must think I'm ignorant, since you believe I don't understand the principle of deception/foreshadowing."
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| Quote: |
Have fun but remember you are also attempting to FORCE someone to believe their religion is wrong.
|
What an AMAZINGLY stupid accusation.
|
Maybe not "AMAZINGLY stupid" per se, but I do agree it's false. You're no more forcing me than I am forcing you.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427996 is a reply to message #427971] |
Tue, 11 May 2010 06:32 |
 |
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 May 2010 23:47 |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
Dictatorship can work just fine with the right leader. It's very similar to a monarchy, a very old and widely used system.
|
firstly, the idea that it would be fine with the right leader is a fallacy, cos the whole point of dictatorship is that if you don't have the right leader, there's nothing you can do about it.
secondly, if the bible was accurate then god is not the right leader. he's the most vicious, merciless and unjust character ever created.
thirdly, you think monarchies are a good thing? they're what you get before you get democracies, and they were the second biggest obstacle to human rights throughout the centuries (the biggest being, of course, religion)
| Quote: |
On the surface, those scenarios seem similar, but they just don't compare.
The parents didn't create the baby, they used an already established means of reproduction to form the child. The form of reproduction being designed by the actual creator.
The mad scientist, if he did create something, used materials around him, in his universe. The universe he lives in would also subject itself to the creation.
Aliens wouldn't seed a planet with nothingness - they'd have to have formed the seeds somehow, with other materials.
|
you already said this and i already rebuked it.
firstly, not only have you not established that this god of yours is real at all, you also haven't established that he was at the top of the creation chain.
secondly, i really don't see a moral difference anyway. in each case, the 'creator' is using the tools and sciences available to them.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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?
|
The latter. Right now, we're given a choice, we decide whether or not to follow his word. Consequeces for those decisions come later.
|
just want to make sure i heard you right. the worst crimes according to the bible (which tend not to be the worst crimes accordig to modern society)... you think we should just let people get away with them?
secondly, how do you know god does not want you to set his commandments as the laws of the land?
thirdly, isn't god a bit of a prick for making his revelation so unclear?
even though the majority of humanity think "faith" is a good thing (our greatest weakness, in my view, but i'm hopeful that we can overcome it), the vast majority of people do not think your bible is true. (muslims may think it's true but not the prevailing law)
of this minority of "christians", you've said yourself that the majority of these people are not really christians. your church, the real christians, are a tiny minority of what is already a minority of "supposed" christians.
let's assume your guys are the ones who have it right. couldn't god have done a little bit better than that?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
How? It doesn't disprove the "matter or mind" idea.
|
your entire line of reasoning was based on taking "everything is either mind or matter" as a known fact, which it plainly isn't.
| Quote: |
So "it's not a yes or no question" is your answer?
|
no, "i can see why you're asking" and more importantly "i wouldn't have phrased it like that" was the answer.
| Quote: |
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
|
don't think i did. i think a bigger problem would be talking about religions as if they're facts.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
including the ones god absolutely despises, according to the bible?
|
Yes.
|
How do you know god wants you to do that?
according to the bible there are people who infuriate god no end. people who worship other gods, homosexuals, etc. his rage towards these guys is apparently much greater than his annoyance at, say, the devil. how do you know god wants you to be nice to these appalling sinners? don't you think god might ask you "i spent half the old testament trying to make it clear to you what absolute scum these people are, now i see you're having tea with them?"
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
greed can have its uses.
|
How so? If you don't mind describing.
|
compare it to "take no thought for the morrow".
greed is usually undesirable, but would you rather have parents who want well-paid jobs or would you rather have parents who follow jesus's instruction to think nothing of the future and just follow him? (i.e. no investment, no looking after your family, etc etc etc)
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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)
|
I'm sure you prefer this system than having God actively smash up any rebellers, no?
|
actually, no i don't.
if god was kicking ass here and now and making examples of the murderers and rapists of the world (well, i say rapists, but god doesn't seem to mind that too much, so let's just stick with murderers) then at least people would figure out that these punishments are going to happen.
with the current "system" (if "system" is a good word to describe the fact that your god is nowhere to be seen... seems to me there's a better explanation for that), remember that the people who really follow god's rules are a very small minority. the vast majority don't see a reason to think that the bible must be followed. and yet they'll suffer the most horrific punishments regardless.
don't get me wrong, both scenarios are horrific, but if god was laying the smackdown in the here and now then at least more people would know about it instead of the tiny minority who do, according to you.
| Quote: |
You like your "basic human freedom of thought and expression".
|
i also like to have just laws, so that's another thing which sets me at odds with your god.
| Quote: |
Yes, I saw it.
My point here was that you've mentioned Christianity in goverment as an argument against me, in this thread earlier. I don't know why that's logical, since I disagree with it as well. Basically what kadoosh said.
|
you really don't disagree with it. it's basically come down to a distinction between god and the followers of god. you don't think the followers of god should be in undemocratic control, but you'd quite like it if god was in undemocratic control.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
is god perfect or not perfect? is the bible a perfect depiction of his views or not?
|
Perfect - it's not a universal definition. I personally see him has perfect - Jesus especially... although I'm sure you dsagree.
|
I sure do. How do you explain something as morally shit as the rape law, for example? How about those passages I brought up earlier, where god is very enthusiastic about slaughtering innocent bystanders, including children, for the supposed crimes of others?
Seriously, if we needed to make a list of laws with which to form a basis of morality, the average child could have done better than your god.
| Quote: |
I see no reason why the Bible would inaccurately depict his views, apart from transcription error.
|
why would the bible not be an accurate depiction of the views of a god?
off the top of my head....
1. the people writing the books were lying
2. the people writing the books were crazy
3. the people writing the books were plain wrong (for example, thought they knew something they weren't sure of)
ask two simple questions about the bible. 1: who wrote them? (don't just give a name, try to find out who these people were) and 2: how did they know what to write?
and isn't it quite a big deal that there might be "transcription errors"?
| Quote: |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
don't act as if the two things are the same.
intellectual freedom is a basic human right (though most religions don't want to admit it). it was being denied him for one reason: religion.
| Quote: |
I was sad to hear Starbuzzz convert - although I won't host a pity party mentioning how he was misled to believe lies and blah blah - it's rude and biased.
|
I really don't think "convert" is the right word. He wasn't welcomed into a friendly crowd of fellow unbelievers, he wasn't told he'd be more safe or he'd get lovely rewards if he became an atheist. And from what I understand he still has a tough time keeping his views hidden from his uber-religious parents and the local religious groups. In Starbuzz you have a genuine story of the damage religion can do to a person and to a family.
| Quote: |
Actually, I was glad to hear he was leaving the Catholic side anyhow. From the experiences he described, they don't sound pleasant.
|
i haven't heard exactly what denomination he was subjected to, but i don't think it was catholic.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
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.
|
I prefer to talk in terms of this physical existence's terms of rights. Yes, you have the right to criticize my religion now. The only reason you would is if you don't believe in it, and if that's the case, why worry about what our afterlife beliefs are?
|
Firstly, this does not answer the question.
Secondly, the second sentence really is odd. "If you don't think there's a hell, why object to us telling everyone that they must do what we say because otherwise they'll go there?" If someone tries to mug a person with a gun, it doesn't make them innocent if it turns out the gun was unloaded, even if the mugger was absolutely convinced it was loaded.
| Quote: |
I have been meaning to ask you to justify this. It seems like a pretty large hyperbole to me.
|
i thought i'd explained it enough times already, frankly
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Yep, and usually by the atheists. Almost every time we hear of a bill in petition, it's about some atheist group wanting so-and-so removed.
|
Such as?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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.
|
You're probably making it more complex than needed. Rewritten:
"You must think I'm ignorant, since you believe I don't understand the principle of deception/foreshadowing."
|
could still use some clarification, i'm afraid.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| Quote: |
Have fun but remember you are also attempting to FORCE someone to believe their religion is wrong.
|
What an AMAZINGLY stupid accusation.
|
Maybe not "AMAZINGLY stupid" per se, but I do agree it's false. You're no more forcing me than I am forcing you.
|
"no more" is only grammatically correct, i'm afraid, since "less" is not "more".
you're not personally forcing religion onto me, but you approve of your boss doing it. well, that's not much of a distinction.
Unleash the Renerageâ„¢
Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful
[Updated on: Tue, 11 May 2010 06:36] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428032 is a reply to message #427996] |
Tue, 11 May 2010 13:44 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 03 May 2010 15:44 |
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.
|
I'm sorry, I cannot understand anything you're saying here.
I'm willing to talk about it, I guess.
|
So far you have said that god is not interefering in the world; stepping on a cornerstone dogma for billions of christians around the world. Your claims equal that of saying the majority of christians around the world are wrong about pretty much everything.
And satan? The idea of satan is so absurd in America that most christians here are afraid and downright embarrased to talk about him while the same christians elsewhere, treat him with so much respect and give him so much credit. The world "devil" is ignored here and conveniently so.
So it is under this context that saying jesus negating god's need for supernatural acts and angels helping establish the church (I heard this first time btw) really amount to nothing but excuses of a religion that has trouble answering the basic question. This has been formulated by theologians in seminaries as a way to explain it away and is not biblical at all. It's the same with the "christianity is not a religion but a relationship" marketing gimmick made up by your theologians.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
That's irrelevant, you know. You can't just blame their argument's lack of support on an indoctrination you know little about.
|
Not really. Your indoctrination is a condensed cleaned up version of christianity that seems to fit the progressed civilized nature of western society.
As far as the atheist argument today, I think it is convincing enough to turn a christian into an atheist. I think it's unfair for anyone (let alone someone who is himself indoctrinated) to say that it suffers from any "lack of support." If this is what you were getting at.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
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.
|
This isn't a church vs church battle. It's christianity's core dogma vs revised modernised dogma. There's a huge difference.
If jesus were here, he wouldn't want to be associated with most christians except, say the Amish.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
It doesn't matter who you feel like tracing it to.
The 3 major religions today tracing their history back to Abraham is pretty much accepted among them. I have seen it written in top christian magazines as well.
No matter how hard christians try, it's impossible for you go further back into the past and try to apply the religious texts of a Mediterraean sea people to a time they didn't even exist! That's so absurd.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
So according to you, we should put "underwater life, solar flares, flora and fauna, planets and stars, and atoms, cells, and organs" in the same category as "hell, heaven, eternal life and eternal torment, angels, weird angelic creatures like cerubims, bright light, thor, vishnu, reincarnation, poseidon, athena, hercules, zeus, Minotaur..."
And we should show both to ignoramuses and ask for their opinion as well? Thankfully we live in a time when people have a basic sense of history [and understand how so many varied belief systems formed, developed, and evolved by so many different groups of people]...oh wait, they don't.
The only reason you think they fall in the same category is because you were childhood indoctrinated to believe that some of these myths are actually real. If your parents told you that the Minotaur was real when you were a kid, you will be defending it's existence now.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
Why the need for formalities and political correctness? It would be much easier if you just said it's man-made falsehood.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
Tell me, are you willing to apply this same logic for the other religions of the ancient world? To every religion past and present? Of course you won't!
You don't understand how religions are formed. Nor do you, as I mentioned above, understand how so many varied belief systems formed, developed, and evolved by so many different groups of people. Jeez, you would learn more about this simple truth about our past (that has been denied to you) playing the original Age of Empires.
Mormonism, for example. A bogus story based on a false rewriting of 19th century American history. It's now its own religion with a global charity/missions arm. I guess they have lived with the signs and events for a long time too, right? And that's one of the most recent examples. You can apply this to any religion.
This is why I dislike religion. It gives you a dangerous sense of exclusiveness and superiority.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
I wasn't aware Americans were trying, all I see is atheists trying to remove anything religious from American culture.
|
Who's rights do you think matter more? Sadly, most religious people can't even bring themselves to say "everyone." As long as they get the bigger cut of the meat...
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
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.
|
I kinda expected you to say something along these lines. I must admit that I find this statement hard to believe.
As someone who myself was brought up within christian indoctrination, I can attest to this. Though I will be willing to hear your side. There's no assumptions here since I was in the same boat. Perhaps you can read my first ever post in this thread and then try to describe the way you were also indoctrinated.
Tell me what are some things you learned alone on your own? From what you have posted, you have said everything a freshly indoctrinated christian would say.
If you go back and re-read the stuff you posted in this thread and all the threads from last year, I mean, is this what a person who went out on his own would say? Every statement you said here is based on the religious influence by your parents, church, and bible.
Infact you have been so morally corrupted that you justify the murders of the children commited by the exodus gang and then so shockingly excuse that by saying "BUT THEY ARE IN HEAVEN." I guess them losing their lives in gruesome murders and the terrible agony and grief of their parents before the slaughter doesn't matter to you.
What else have you learned? You justify dictatorships over and over again. I guess dictatorships are ok with you if the dictator shares your same view. How unfair for the others! You don't realize this simple concept of equality. Is this what someone who hasn't been seriously stained with religion will say?
And that's pretty much is the big picture of who you are...atleast from my view. I would say a degree of influence close to 100%.
See, I don't mind you "believing" all this, but it is highly contrary to your original claim that you "learned" something on your own. There's a huge difference between believing and learning. And learning imo starts with asking questions, raising doubts, and demanding clarification. And if a shady answer is given to you over and over and you are also told to shut up, then the alarms should go off in your head and you think there is something wrong and seek the answer yourself.
So when asking questions and doubting itself is forbidden in christianity, it's even harder to do.
I took a huge risk/gamble (with threat of hellfire) for even thinking freely (which seems to be a huge crime somehow  ). And it really tears up my eye as I think about the times when I had so many questions about this hideous religion I had the bad fortune of being born into and could not even ask them because of terrible fear...both of the fanatics around me and the imaginary dictator above. I felt abused when I was forced and screamed at to just shut up and believe. So it's good to see that your religion didn't even exist at one point in recorded history.
With the indoctrination system that I described, it's easy to see why there's no shortage of religious folks defending what they were brought up to believe to be true.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
Since your "statements about a diety" itself is an unfounded belief, it loses all credibility especially when you go on to say it's "yahweh"...who btw is a relatively newcomer to human religions.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
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.
|
No one is going to be convinced if you just assert this over and over while outright ignoring the basic evolutionary history and social processes of early human movements that eventually forms deeper concepts such as unity, tribal idnetity, religions etc etc. And you have already plentifully demonstrated that you know little about other diverse cultures and societies both past and present (other than believing they are all going to hell).
You did deny something so basic by simply asserting this:
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:41 |
Man didn't initially worship nature, they did worship those "same supernatural beings".
|
This statement is nonsensical; it's akin to saying the 747 jumbo jet came first before the Wright brothers tiny wooden airplane. The question is simple: why would man even worship nature first if your favorite diety made everything and gave instructions? Our early evolutionary history perfectly answers this.
And do you have anything to say about the vastly growing and expanding population of non-religious people in the world today? Seems superstition is not so "inherent" after all and we are getting over religion finally just as the present day religions replaced the older religions they dethroned.
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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 
|
It was a lot of fun yes. Thanks.  It was a break from sunday church too lol! And I appreciated her for inviting me in. Ever since I became atheist, I was more and more interested in the cultures and traditions and religions of others. And this was an awesome opportunity to do just that.
For example, as a kid living in a christian Indian home, the lie that hindus are the lowest scum of the earth ever has been impressed upon me. Seems they ain't all as bad as they were pumped up to be. I guess atheism has made me more tolerant towards others.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 06 May 2010 23:36 |
| 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.
|
There you go, everyone!
We must just simply close our eyes and say "I believe this to be true..." in the face of incredible contrary reason.
We just have to believe this...just like that. I can see why your religion needs the all important childhood indoctrination; without which it would disappear!
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
The question isn't useless at all.
These debates are, though.
|
** The question isn't useless but debating the answer is **
???
And so why spend so much time here then?
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
Do you REALLY expect anyone's opinion to change, on an anonymous-type forum, with the same old arguments on both sides?
|
yes.
The only side with the "same old arguments" is the religious side who have been repeating this for 2000 years.
If you are not the one asking the questions and seeking the answers, you won't be seeing anything new.
You have been put into the position you are in now. Once you realize this terrible truth, then that will be the day the sparks will fly. I don't see anyone demanding you to abandon your position and I certainly am not asking you too. I don't understand how you expect people to not say anything in response to anything they disagree with? It's pretty obvious why this debate even took place; your decision on homosexuality is influenced not by yourself but by your religion. And when you have the power to influence laws, a clash with your religious background is inevitable.
As for me, I can only be happy for myself. I owe so much to Spoony; I am so much indebted to him and can never repay him ever for what he has done. I could never have torn away the tight blindfolds that my parents and church put around my eyes (when I was a helpless little child) all by myself though I did try.
I see my own 10 year old brother in this. Already brainwashed in an American sunday school to believe that in heaven the jewish god "sits with a feather pen and big book in a judge's chair." Who is going to remove his blindfolds? You tell me if this is right or wrong to do to children?
Day-before-yesterday in church (this was a smaller baptist church), they brought all the sunday school kids to the front and announced that the children learned the story of "Abraham's obedience"...the story of the little boy Issac about to be offered as a live sacrifice. I sincerely felt so heartbroken for those kids and felt like walking out because I couldn't bear to watch their young minds lied to like that. That's a lot of future Altzans and old Starbuzzes right there!
So if it weren't for debates like this, I would still be in my miserable state of mind.
And there's no need to bash the "lol internet" when it's convenient to you. I see 3 people who have done so in this thread. I bet nobody bashes convenience of email over written mailed letters, no?
You see the oppressed free-thinking people in Iran and China using the internet as a loophole to connect and share their precious thoughts. why? Cuz they will get arrested by their regimes if they do it in real life. It's the same case for me. It just confirms my view that most people don't really know what freedom really is. It's more deeper than just due process, free speech, and right to own firearms. Those are important yes, but freedom doesn't stop here.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
| 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"? :\
|
Why is it so surprising? You do think every religion other than you own is man-made.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
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.
|
I already said my reasons for debating you. Not to prove you wrong but trying to see if you have anything new. It's hard for me to look at what you are saying with a "let's see what they have to say" attitude because I was once in your position and can never be in your posititon again unless I "believe" and have "faith." I just can't "believe" just like that eventhough you keep demanding I do just that.
The childhood brainwashing is gone you see...the same stuff that they shoot into the fresh innocent mind of a young child (like las sunday) is not going to work on a educated, well-informed young adult. You can fool a ignorant customer into buying a bogus swiss watch but can't do the same with a prudent person. And you can never resell your bogus product to a customer who once used it, found out about it, and threw it away 5 ways to a dustbin...unless you can come up with something original and convincing. "Just believe this watch is real!" doesn't cut it either and you have already tried that.
Anyway, you yourself don't know where you will be in the future. That's why I said I was debating you to see if you can shed any "new juice" to make me rethink some of my values. You haven't done so. I am not surprised because ever since I declared my atheism to me parents last year (my big mistake), the tyrants brought in so many theologians and evangelists to "resave my soul." I heard the A-Z of the christian religion from them. In the end, they did a damn good job showing me how feeble, heartless, and unbelievable christianity really is and ended up making me stronger.
Bascially, if I (or any atheist) wanted to be a christian this is what they got to do:
1) force my brain to forget all about the ancient tribes/religions/cultures (and think they are all in hell because they were all false religions)
2) dismiss the idea of dinosaurs and continental drift
3) somehow "re-believe" in the genesis story and young earth (first woman came from a man's ribs etc etc)
4) Start "believing" in abraham's god and how he was so loving (dismiss the genocides they never tell you about conveniently)
5) believe that I have sinned (original sin tripe)
6) accept jesus as personal savior which then forgives the sin! (Problem-Reaction-Solution scheme right here)
7) plung myself inside biblical delusion and live a christian life "prayerfully," take a stand on non-issues like homosexuality blah blah...
Impossible.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
But it's the internet, the location of almost pure anonymity, which fuels such behaviour. It's hard to curb.
|
I don't think Spoony or me hide behind internet anonymity. You can see the true information in our profiles and you can see who we are in the picture thread. Harldy the people that seem to hide in "pure" anonymity and act as such.
I had it so bad when mrpirate, Sniper_De7, and cheesesoda were here. mrpirate would even PM in-game and call me a "you must be that whack christian nutjob from renforums" totally making me feel so bad in the middle of the game.
Spoony was the most lenient of them all. Why? Even though he offended me a lot and I hated him for it, I kept debating with him because I he never insulted me and or uselessly retorted to name-calling like the others. He stuck to his points.
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 May 2010 23:47 |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
When someone becomes christian, it's another person jumping on an idealogy they don't know anything about or how it came into widespread use over two thosand years; a religion and a way of life that once didn't even exist. A few extra dollars for the offering plate. Another person who has allowed themselves to be deluded though you will claim different. Your side increased by 1. And they are going to heaven (!) and accept a man who has been dead for over 2000 years as their personal saviour for forgivng a sin they didn't even commit. They are no longer "lost" and "part of the oh so evil evil world!" and are now "saved!" yeah, I know this "elation" feeling.
When someone abandons their childhood religious indoctrination, that's a person who is able to think fairly, with reason, with true sovereignty. Even if they went to another religion, it would be ok because it was under their own power.
There's a huge difference between how anyone would feel about the two considering how high and seperate the stakes are.
It's amazing to see some of the hideous tactics churches in america (and elsewhere in the world) use to get people to come forward and accept christ. I have seen this in certain baptist and some calvary chapels too. At the end of the services, you have the calling where you are asked to "come forward in the presence of all men" and then very often you hear "so you know where you will be if you were to die on your way home."
Amazing how in a congregation of 5000 zombies, I am the only monster that can see this fear-based hell threat used to hasten people to make a decision.
*whistles*....
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 May 2010 23:47 |
I was sad to hear Starbuzzz convert
|
There's a huge difference between conversion (simply believing something so unfounded is true based on emotional/social pressures) and conceding a position that you have been brought up to believe is true after examining evidence that was kept hidden from you.
Most of the reasons why people convert have no grounding in fact at all and their reasons to do so is emotional in nature and is based on real problems people have in their daily lives.
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 May 2010 23:47 |
- although I won't host a pity party mentioning how he was misled to believe lies and blah blah - it's rude and biased.
|
"misled to believe lies" - this is more applicable to the religious...except they get you when you were little like those helpless kids at church two days ago.
I took what made sense and had the decency to admit that my childhood indoctrinated position was wrong. And took me three years of my own accord.
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 May 2010 23:47 |
Actually, I was glad to hear he was leaving the Catholic side anyhow. From the experiences he described, they don't sound pleasant.
|
Anyone else see damage limitation here!? Trying to escape from accountability again, eh?
How dishonest of you! I lost track of how many times in this thread you have pulled the "my denomination, my church, and my version of christianity [that I was brought up in] is the real correct version over all others across the world so anyone crying about being being mistreated by any other version of christianity is moot!"
I wasn't catholic (sorry to disappoint). I was in your side except your country is way more advanced than mine in every level...though I am glad now that there is still a Pat Robertson around to remind you of how far christianity has collectively "progressed" and "revised" itself in your country over and over.
[Updated on: Tue, 11 May 2010 15:07] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428151 is a reply to message #428032] |
Wed, 12 May 2010 22:58 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
firstly, the idea that it would be fine with the right leader is a fallacy, cos the whole point of dictatorship is that if you don't have the right leader, there's nothing you can do about it.
|
*shrug*
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
secondly, if the bible was accurate then god is not the right leader. he's the most vicious, merciless and unjust character ever created.
|
Hey, look. Another hyperbole.
It's easy to make such a claim when you only look at the negative sides.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
thirdly, you think monarchies are a good thing? they're what you get before you get democracies, and they were the second biggest obstacle to human rights throughout the centuries (the biggest being, of course, religion)
|
I never said they were good. My point was about how widely used it was.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
just want to make sure i heard you right. the worst crimes according to the bible (which tend not to be the worst crimes accordig to modern society)... you think we should just let people get away with them?
|
Obviously you didn't hear me right.
God's not going to fry them with a lightning bolt today for those crimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't punish them wuth the laws of our land.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
secondly, how do you know god does not want you to set his commandments as the laws of the land?
|
Because he state in the NT that we should obey the laws of our land, provided they were just.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
thirdly, isn't god a bit of a prick for making his revelation so unclear?
even though the majority of humanity think "faith" is a good thing (our greatest weakness, in my view, but i'm hopeful that we can overcome it), the vast majority of people do not think your bible is true. (muslims may think it's true but not the prevailing law)
|
Heck, people were disbelieving in him and rallying against him even when he was active and leading.
That's man's fault if they don't want to believe what's happening in front of their own eyes.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
your entire line of reasoning was based on taking "everything is either mind or matter" as a known fact, which it plainly isn't.
|
I still have yet to hear why. What can only be categorized in a third?
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
So "it's not a yes or no question" is your answer?
|
no, "i can see why you're asking" and more importantly "i wouldn't have phrased it like that" was the answer.
|
"i wouldn't have phrased it like that" implies you have a different opinion. One yet unshared.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
|
don't think i did. i think a bigger problem would be talking about religions as if they're facts.
|
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
So that kind of talk is only bad when theists use it?
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
including the ones god absolutely despises, according to the bible?
|
Yes.
|
How do you know god wants you to do that?
according to the bible there are people who infuriate god no end. people who worship other gods, homosexuals, etc. his rage towards these guys is apparently much greater than his annoyance at, say, the devil. how do you know god wants you to be nice to these appalling sinners? don't you think god might ask you "i spent half the old testament trying to make it clear to you what absolute scum these people are, now i see you're having tea with them?"
|
NT explicitly states that we should be friendly with everyone, NOT make enemies with them.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
greed is usually undesirable, but would you rather have parents who want well-paid jobs or would you rather have parents who follow jesus's instruction to think nothing of the future and just follow him? (i.e. no investment, no looking after your family, etc etc etc)
|
If you think Christians do things like that in the name of faith, you are badly misinformed.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
if god was kicking ass here and now and making examples of the murderers and rapists of the world (well, i say rapists, but god doesn't seem to mind that too much, so let's just stick with murderers) then at least people would figure out that these punishments are going to happen.
|
If you look at the OT, there were still plenty of people who didn't. A smaller percentage, maybe, but it's with a system you've rejected thus far.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
you really don't disagree with it. it's basically come down to a distinction between god and the followers of god. you don't think the followers of god should be in undemocratic control, but you'd quite like it if god was in undemocratic control.
|
Pretty much.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I see no reason why the Bible would inaccurately depict his views, apart from transcription error.
|
why would the bible not be an accurate depiction of the views of a god?
off the top of my head....
1. the people writing the books were lying
2. the people writing the books were crazy
3. the people writing the books were plain wrong (for example, thought they knew something they weren't sure of)
ask two simple questions about the bible. 1: who wrote them? (don't just give a name, try to find out who these people were) and 2: how did they know what to write?
and isn't it quite a big deal that there might be "transcription errors"?
|
Not surprising that all of these deal with human error.
If the Bible is really God's word, he would have made sure it did not get screwed over by human error. It's either true or false, just as it is.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
don't act as if the two things are the same.
|
Excuse me? The basis IS the same: an individual changing what he believes.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
intellectual freedom is a basic human right (though most religions don't want to admit it). it was being denied him for one reason: religion.
|
Religion doesn't block "intellectual freedom" as much as you claim it does.
It doesn't demand that we stop all scientific progress and stick with the stone age.
At least, not most of them.
| Spoony said: |
i haven't heard exactly what denomination he was subjected to, but i don't think it was catholic.
|
| Starbuzzz said: |
I wasn't catholic (sorry to disappoint).
|
Sorry. I thought I'd seen that in his posts, although it was a while back and I should have checked.
What did they call themselves, then?
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
the second sentence really is odd. "If you don't think there's a hell, why object to us telling everyone that they must do what we say because otherwise they'll go there?" If someone tries to mug a person with a gun, it doesn't make them innocent if it turns out the gun was unloaded, even if the mugger was absolutely convinced it was loaded.
|
No. If that was the case, the mugger would be saying he had a gun, but showing no indication of it, not even a bulge in his pocket.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I have been meaning to ask you to justify this. It seems like a pretty large hyperbole to me.
|
i thought i'd explained it enough times already, frankly
|
Not in terms of such a drastic claim, no.
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Yep, and usually by the atheists. Almost every time we hear of a bill in petition, it's about some atheist group wanting so-and-so removed.
|
Such as?
|
Pretty much everything that refers to God.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
So far you have said that god is not interefering in the world; stepping on a cornerstone dogma for billions of christians around the world. Your claims equal that of saying the majority of christians around the world are wrong about pretty much everything.
|
...No, they don't. They have a lot of it right, but what isn't is what can break them.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
And satan? The idea of satan is so absurd in America that most christians here are afraid and downright embarrased to talk about him while the same christians elsewhere, treat him with so much respect and give him so much credit. The world "devil" is ignored here and conveniently so.
|
We don't ingore him. He's a frequent topic.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
So it is under this context that saying jesus negating god's need for supernatural acts and angels helping establish the church (I heard this first time btw) really amount to nothing but excuses of a religion that has trouble answering the basic question. This has been formulated by theologians in seminaries as a way to explain it away and is not biblical at all. It's the same with the "christianity is not a religion but a relationship" marketing gimmick made up by your theologians.
|
Wow, this started to make sense until halfway through. I can't understand a shady reference to theological seminars about an idea you supposedly heard first from me.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
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.
|
This isn't a church vs church battle. It's christianity's core dogma vs revised modernised dogma. There's a huge difference.
If jesus were here, he wouldn't want to be associated with most christians except, say the Amish.
|
I never said it was. I'm pointing out that I'm not the only one bringing a point or two that is totally new to the other side.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
It doesn't matter who you feel like tracing it to.
The 3 major religions today tracing their history back to Abraham is pretty much accepted among them. I have seen it written in top christian magazines as well.
|
If it doesn't matter what I trace it to, it doesn't matter where those mag guys trace it. I don't have to shove myself into a majority.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
So according to you, we should put "underwater life, solar flares, flora and fauna, planets and stars, and atoms, cells, and organs" in the same category as "hell, heaven, eternal life and eternal torment, angels, weird angelic creatures like cerubims, bright light, thor, vishnu, reincarnation, poseidon, athena, hercules, zeus, Minotaur..."
And we should show both to ignoramuses and ask for their opinion as well?
|
Specifically, people who know little or nothing of both sets. Then they both seem just as mystic.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
Why the need for formalities and political correctness? It would be much easier if you just said it's man-made falsehood.
|
Easier if I lied, then? No.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Who's rights do you think matter more? Sadly, most religious people can't even bring themselves to say "everyone." As long as they get the bigger cut of the meat...
|
Seriously? The religious around here care more about rights than the local atheists.
They especially don't care about these 'cuts of meat' you mention.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Tell me what are some things you learned alone on your own? From what you have posted, you have said everything a freshly indoctrinated christian would say.
|
Yeah, it's pretty funny how I seem to say the common and accepted beliefs of a Christian...
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Infact you have been so morally corrupted that you justify the murders of the children commited by the exodus gang and then so shockingly excuse that by saying "BUT THEY ARE IN HEAVEN." I guess them losing their lives in gruesome murders and the terrible agony and grief of their parents before the slaughter doesn't matter to you.
|
Bad guess. But going against the method or reason won't bring them back.
And, as I said, I'm not sure keeping them alive would be any less scarring, not that it justifies the act.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
What else have you learned? You justify dictatorships over and over again. I guess dictatorships are ok with you if the dictator shares your same view. How unfair for the others! You don't realize this simple concept of equality. Is this what someone who hasn't been seriously stained with religion will say?
|
Is it a simple assumption, then, that no matter how well a system is designed, there will be people who want no part of it, and deserve rights?
And if the Biblical system is so bad, why are all the examples I've seen so far been OT based?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
See, I don't mind you "believing" all this, but it is highly contrary to your original claim that you "learned" something on your own. There's a huge difference between believing and learning. And learning imo starts with asking questions, raising doubts, and demanding clarification. And if a shady answer is given to you over and over and you are also told to shut up, then the alarms should go off in your head and you think there is something wrong and seek the answer yourself.
|
I know the difference. And I know that I wasn't given 'shady information'. A lot of it has evidence to back it up and simple makes sense. Despite the fact that all of the ones I mentioned so far have been ridiculed (but not always retorted to).
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
No one is going to be convinced if you just assert this over and over while outright ignoring the basic evolutionary history and social processes of early human movements that eventually forms deeper concepts such as unity, tribal idnetity, religions etc etc. And you have already plentifully demonstrated that you know little about other diverse cultures and societies both past and present (other than believing they are all going to hell).
|
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up (not by anyone in partuclar - apparently I need to emphasize this).
Sound familiar?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
You did deny something so basic by simply asserting this:
| Altzan wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:41 |
Man didn't initially worship nature, they did worship those "same supernatural beings".
|
This statement is nonsensical; it's akin to saying the 747 jumbo jet came first before the Wright brothers tiny wooden airplane. The question is simple: why would man even worship nature first if your favorite diety made everything and gave instructions? Our early evolutionary history perfectly answers this.
|
My question was, what makes you so positive that they worshipped nature first?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
And do you have anything to say about the vastly growing and expanding population of non-religious people in the world today? Seems superstition is not so "inherent" after all and we are getting over religion finally just as the present day religions replaced the older religions they dethroned.
|
With the expansion of technology and science, it's not that surprising, is it?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
For example, as a kid living in a christian Indian home, the lie that hindus are the lowest scum of the earth ever has been impressed upon me. Seems they ain't all as bad as they were pumped up to be. I guess atheism has made me more tolerant towards others.
|
And you expect me to believe all Christians are the same. Bull.
We don't discriminate like that!
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
There you go, everyone!
We must just simply close our eyes and say "I believe this to be true..." in the face of incredible contrary reason.
We just have to believe this...just like that. I can see why your religion needs the all important childhood indoctrination; without which it would disappear!
|
Riiiight. Because when I refuse to bang my head on the already established "I cannot possibly believe this" brick wall, it's me just refusing to look at the facts.
Get over it and move along, please. No implied truth here.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
** The question isn't useless but this particular debate is **
???
And so why spend so much time here then?
|
Fixed.
And I spend time here because it's interesting and relevant.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
As for me, I can only be happy for myself. I owe so much to Spoony; I am so much indebted to him and can never repay him ever for what he has done. I could never have torn away the tight blindfolds that my parents and church put around my eyes (when I was a helpless little child) all by myself though I did try.
I see my own 10 year old brother in this. Already brainwashed in an American sunday school to believe that in heaven the jewish god "sits with a feather pen and big book in a judge's chair." Who is going to remove his blindfolds? You tell me if this is right or wrong to do to children?
Day-before-yesterday in church (this was a smaller baptist church), they brought all the sunday school kids to the front and announced that the children learned the story of "Abraham's obedience"...the story of the little boy Issac about to be offered as a live sacrifice. I sincerely felt so heartbroken for those kids and felt like walking out because I couldn't bear to watch their young minds lied to like that. That's a lot of future Altzans and old Starbuzzes right there!
So if it weren't for debates like this, I would still be in my miserable state of mind.
And there's no need to bash the "lol internet" when it's convenient to you. I see 3 people who have done so in this thread. I bet nobody bashes convenience of email over written mailed letters, no?
You see the oppressed free-thinking people in Iran and China using the internet as a loophole to connect and share their precious thoughts. why? Cuz they will get arrested by their regimes if they do it in real life. It's the same case for me. It just confirms my view that most people don't really know what freedom really is. It's more deeper than just due process, free speech, and right to own firearms. Those are important yes, but freedom doesn't stop here.
|
If your big thing here is simply brainwashing... do you mostly ridicule Christianity because that's the subject you purged yourself from?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
I already said my reasons for debating you. Not to prove you wrong but trying to see if you have anything new. It's hard for me to look at what you are saying with a "let's see what they have to say" attitude because I was once in your position and can never be in your posititon again unless I "believe" and have "faith."
|
I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular. Why do I have to express that?
I even mentioned earlier the reasons why you're debating here, incase you missed it.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 01:10 |
But it's the internet, the location of almost pure anonymity, which fuels such behaviour. It's hard to curb.
|
I don't think Spoony or me hide behind internet anonymity. You can see the true information in our profiles and you can see who we are in the picture thread. Harldy the people that seem to hide in "pure" anonymity and act as such.
|
Again, why are you tunneling my general statements onto yourselves?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
I just can't "believe" just like that eventhough you keep demanding I do just that.
|
No, I don't, actually.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Spoony was the most lenient of them all. Why? Even though he offended me a lot and I hated him for it, I kept debating with him because I he never insulted me and or uselessly retorted to name-calling like the others.
|
I wonder why he does it now, then?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Anyone else see damage limitation here!? Trying to escape from accountability again, eh?
How dishonest of you! I lost track of how many times in this thread you have pulled the "my denomination, my church, and my version of christianity [that I was brought up in] is the real correct version over all others across the world so anyone crying about being being mistreated by any other version of christianity is moot!"
|
*facepalm*
Fine. I'll go on a mudering spree and kill everyone even remotely religious, saying that they're poisioning our civilization and ruining our gene pool, and that I'm purifying the human race.
Oh, and I'll mention how I'm an atheist.
And you can't say that he's not a true atheist to cover yourselves, because that's just "pulling a fast one".
Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
Your Hindu friend, for example. If there happened to be a faction who have the core beliefs of Hindu's, but also believed that violence is both permitted and required for spreading the religion, you're basically saying that your Hindu friend cannot claim she isn't a part of it in some way.
Ludicrous.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428157 is a reply to message #428151] |
Thu, 13 May 2010 02:02 |
nopol10
Messages: 1043
Registered: February 2005
Location: Singapore
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I can see sometime in the distant future a religion with Altzan and Starbuzz as names of deities. Better start keeping a record of this debate in order to safeguard the sanity of future generations.
nopol10=Nopol=nopol(GSA)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428168 is a reply to message #428157] |
Thu, 13 May 2010 04:39 |
Sean
Messages: 822
Registered: February 2009
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| nopol10 wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 04:02 |
I can see sometime in the distant future a religion with Altzan and Starbuzz as names of deities. Better start keeping a record of this debate in order to safeguard the sanity of future generations.
|
It's like having 3 spoony's in 1 thread lol id never be able to read through all this :/
Head admin at TmX (The Matrix Sniper server)
irc.thematrixserver.com
The Matrix Sniper: 188.138.84.134:4576
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428186 is a reply to message #428151] |
Thu, 13 May 2010 06:01 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
secondly, if the bible was accurate then god is not the right leader. he's the most vicious, merciless and unjust character ever created.
|
Hey, look. Another hyperbole.
It's easy to make such a claim when you only look at the negative sides.
|
the negative sides of the biblical god are very negative indeed.
and it's not hyperbole. i'm not aware of a character, fictional or historical, more evil than the god of the bible.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
just want to make sure i heard you right. the worst crimes according to the bible (which tend not to be the worst crimes accordig to modern society)... you think we should just let people get away with them?
|
Obviously you didn't hear me right.
God's not going to fry them with a lightning bolt today for those crimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't punish them wuth the laws of our land.
|
so who's really sorting the world out?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
secondly, how do you know god does not want you to set his commandments as the laws of the land?
|
Because he state in the NT that we should obey the laws of our land, provided they were just.
|
Oh, really? Your god says it's ok to opt-out of a legal system if it's morally shit?
Excellent.
I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with this.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
thirdly, isn't god a bit of a prick for making his revelation so unclear?
even though the majority of humanity think "faith" is a good thing (our greatest weakness, in my view, but i'm hopeful that we can overcome it), the vast majority of people do not think your bible is true. (muslims may think it's true but not the prevailing law)
|
Heck, people were disbelieving in him and rallying against him even when he was active and leading.
That's man's fault if they don't want to believe what's happening in front of their own eyes.
|
...if these people were alive and saw what god was doing, i expect they'd have even more contempt for him than i do for the fictional account of him.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
your entire line of reasoning was based on taking "everything is either mind or matter" as a known fact, which it plainly isn't.
|
I still have yet to hear why. What can only be categorized in a third?
|
sigh... i didn't say there was a third option, i said it's bullshit to say these are the only two options.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
|
don't think i did. i think a bigger problem would be talking about religions as if they're facts.
|
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
So that kind of talk is only bad when theists use it?
|
you can talk that way if you like.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
including the ones god absolutely despises, according to the bible?
|
Yes.
|
How do you know god wants you to do that?
according to the bible there are people who infuriate god no end. people who worship other gods, homosexuals, etc. his rage towards these guys is apparently much greater than his annoyance at, say, the devil. how do you know god wants you to be nice to these appalling sinners? don't you think god might ask you "i spent half the old testament trying to make it clear to you what absolute scum these people are, now i see you're having tea with them?"
|
NT explicitly states that we should be friendly with everyone, NOT make enemies with them.
|
ah, yes. it also says you should love and forgive your enemies, and turn the other cheek.
what a ridiculous teaching.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
greed is usually undesirable, but would you rather have parents who want well-paid jobs or would you rather have parents who follow jesus's instruction to think nothing of the future and just follow him? (i.e. no investment, no looking after your family, etc etc etc)
|
If you think Christians do things like that in the name of faith, you are badly misinformed.
|
why don't they? it's what jesus supposedly said...
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
you really don't disagree with it. it's basically come down to a distinction between god and the followers of god. you don't think the followers of god should be in undemocratic control, but you'd quite like it if god was in undemocratic control.
|
Pretty much.
|
cool, glad we established that.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I see no reason why the Bible would inaccurately depict his views, apart from transcription error.
|
why would the bible not be an accurate depiction of the views of a god?
off the top of my head....
1. the people writing the books were lying
2. the people writing the books were crazy
3. the people writing the books were plain wrong (for example, thought they knew something they weren't sure of)
ask two simple questions about the bible. 1: who wrote them? (don't just give a name, try to find out who these people were) and 2: how did they know what to write?
and isn't it quite a big deal that there might be "transcription errors"?
|
Not surprising that all of these deal with human error.
|
well, if there's no god (or if there might be a god but there's no reason to suppose it's anything at all like the depiction in the bible) then this would be a human error in saying otherwise, wouldn't it?
| Quote: |
If the Bible is really God's word, he would have made sure it did not get screwed over by human error.
|
i think a rebuttal is superfluous
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
don't act as if the two things are the same.
|
Excuse me? The basis IS the same: an individual changing what he believes.
|
there's a world of difference.
nobody told starbuzzz what he must believe. what he believes is not a result of swallowing dogma. secondly, i would never dream of saying he has to agree with me and he'll be punished if he doesn't - i'd be ashamed of myself if i said something so sick. thirdly, it'd be all fine with me if, after breaking free of christianity, he made the free informed choice to follow a different religion. i must admit i think he's better off as an atheist but if he's got the intellectual freedom that was always being denied him by his christian parents, local religious orders and education, then that's the thing to smile about.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
intellectual freedom is a basic human right (though most religions don't want to admit it). it was being denied him for one reason: religion.
|
Religion doesn't block "intellectual freedom" as much as you claim it does.
|
as long as hell is spoken of, yes it does. it would be even worse if it actually existed.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Sun, 09 May 2010 07:30 |
| 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?
|
Yep, and usually by the atheists. Almost every time we hear of a bill in petition, it's about some atheist group wanting so-and-so removed.
|
Such as?
|
Pretty much everything that refers to God.
|
Give a specific example? (or several if you like)
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
And satan? The idea of satan is so absurd in America that most christians here are afraid and downright embarrased to talk about him while the same christians elsewhere, treat him with so much respect and give him so much credit. The world "devil" is ignored here and conveniently so.
|
We don't ingore him. He's a frequent topic.
|
i don't know how you could spend that much time talking about satan, unless you're making up a lot of the material yourself.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
What else have you learned? You justify dictatorships over and over again. I guess dictatorships are ok with you if the dictator shares your same view. How unfair for the others! You don't realize this simple concept of equality. Is this what someone who hasn't been seriously stained with religion will say?
|
Is it a simple assumption, then, that no matter how well a system is designed, there will be people who want no part of it, and deserve rights?
|
this isn't much of a rebuttal, since we don't accept that this system is well-designed at all.
as to the second part of the question - will there always be people who want to assert their basic human rights? i certainly hope so.
| Quote: |
And if the Biblical system is so bad, why are all the examples I've seen so far been OT based?
|
*cough* hell *cough*
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
No one is going to be convinced if you just assert this over and over while outright ignoring the basic evolutionary history and social processes of early human movements that eventually forms deeper concepts such as unity, tribal idnetity, religions etc etc. And you have already plentifully demonstrated that you know little about other diverse cultures and societies both past and present (other than believing they are all going to hell).
|
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up (not by anyone in partuclar - apparently I need to emphasize this).
|
by who, then?
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
For example, as a kid living in a christian Indian home, the lie that hindus are the lowest scum of the earth ever has been impressed upon me. Seems they ain't all as bad as they were pumped up to be. I guess atheism has made me more tolerant towards others.
|
|
if i can interject - it's not that well known in the west that bin laden seems to hate hindus even more than he hates christians and jews.
not really relevant to anything being said here, just a point which could probably be more well known than it is
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
I already said my reasons for debating you. Not to prove you wrong but trying to see if you have anything new. It's hard for me to look at what you are saying with a "let's see what they have to say" attitude because I was once in your position and can never be in your posititon again unless I "believe" and have "faith."
|
I wasn't speaking about anyone in particular. Why do I have to express that?
I even mentioned earlier the reasons why you're debating here, incase you missed it.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Spoony was the most lenient of them all. Why? Even though he offended me a lot and I hated him for it, I kept debating with him because I he never insulted me and or uselessly retorted to name-calling like the others.
|
I wonder why he does it now, then?
|
I wouldn't say I "uselessly resorted to namecalling".
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 #428220 is a reply to message #428186] |
Thu, 13 May 2010 12:57 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
It's easy to make such a claim when you only look at the negative sides.
|
Which is why the "negative sides" are never told to you and we have to find it for ourselves when we are old enough to think for ourselves. Sad truth about indoctrination.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
|
oh wow. Way to misunderstand. I honestly described how I was going to debate you:
1) you say something first
2) I will state why exactly I don't share that same view
3) you provide clarification further
Here's an example; I asked you where humans learned how to wear clothes. You said it's a "belief thing" and said your god clothed them with animal skins before kicking their butt out of the garden. I then followed it up with why I wasn't sold on that and said something that made sense and also gave examples of people who still don't give much priority to clothing in this world. You didn't follow up to that and I didn't push.
So how dishonest of you to come back and post later I am "full of crap like this" and "atheists are right" view.
I abandoned the theistic position almost a year ago because it was so flawed and untenable This is where the difference between indoctrinated theistic dogma vs thinking for yourself comes in. If you want your religion to be accepted as fact, then asserting, and implying and simply asking to believe is not going to help.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Excuse me? The basis IS the same: an individual changing what he believes.
|
I didn't "believe" whatever like a new religious convert would do. I found it acceptable because it makes complete sense; a sense that the religious argument still couldn't overcome. You are one who "believes" and has asked us to do so over and over, and when we wanted elementary proof to justify such belief, you called us a "hopeless case" a year ago.
Christianity is big on the "belief without evidence." Then again, all religions are.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Religion doesn't block "intellectual freedom" as much as you claim it does.
|
Say you have kids and you raised them christian and one of them becomes atheist after seeing through it when he is like 23. Are you going to let him go [to hell] just like that? What are all the options you think you will have to get him back?
You already mentioned earlier that not doing anything when government sets fair laws for homosexuals equals you being accomplices in sin!
Or would you value your child's decision to think freely?
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Sorry. I thought I'd seen that in his posts, although it was a while back and I should have checked.
What did they call themselves, then?
|
They called themselves christians (not joking). Denominational divides are not stressed at all in India as they are in America due to there being only 2 denominations.
Anyway if you are curious;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_South_India
In India, there are christians, hindus, and catholics and they are known/referred to as such.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
NT explicitly states that we should be friendly with everyone, NOT make enemies with them.
|
And why? god is jesus and jesus is god (the eternal Word)...holy trinity for all the sense that makes.
For someone who directed merciless military campaigns and oversaw systemic genocides, why this change of rule? Why didn't he say this at the start?
The "turn your other cheek rule" seriously undermines a human being's right to self-defense, tbh.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
So far you have said that god is not interefering in the world; stepping on a cornerstone dogma for billions of christians around the world. Your claims equal that of saying the majority of christians around the world are wrong about pretty much everything.
|
...No, they don't. They have a lot of it right, but what isn't is what can break them.
|
The world and christianity doesn't revolve around a modernized, cleaned up revision of christianity being practiced in a small denomination in Tennessee.
"what isn't is what can break them" lol
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
We don't ingore him. He's a frequent topic.
|
"We" meaning your church? Anyway, is this a church of christ? May I please ask?
Anyway, this is my 10th year in America and I have gone to a couple hundred different churches across many denominations (thanks to having religious zealots as parents). I also lived 3 months in Nashville, Tennesse 9 years ago and went to church there.
I have yet to go to an American church where the sermon even mentioned anything about the devil and his horrible mischief to trick us all.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
[I can't understand a shady reference to theological seminars about an idea you supposedly heard first from me.
|
I heard the angels stuff from you. Everything else is not at all biblical. These theistic theological theorists come up with a lot of stuff to answer away their questions.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
This isn't a church vs church battle. It's christianity's core dogma vs revised modernised dogma. There's a huge difference.
If jesus were here, he wouldn't want to be associated with most christians except, say the Amish.
|
[I'm pointing out that I'm not the only one bringing a point or two that is totally new to the other side.
|
I didn't learn anything new from you, tbh. I did hear how your culturally advanced denomination rejects the basic idea of god interefering with humanity. And I can see it for what it was; religious revision.
And in the same vein, you didn't learn anything new from me. Atleast not something they should have told you about anyway.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
If it doesn't matter what I trace it to, it doesn't matter where those mag guys trace it. I don't have to shove myself into a majority.
|
So surprised to hear you reject a basic, supposed, historic fact about your religion.
anyway, mate...you can trace it to adam just as I can [if I feel mischiveous] trace it to the annunaki from planet nibiru. It's your belief.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
The religious around here care more about rights than the local atheists.
|
"around here" , "local"
I understand you are not talking about the whole nation.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 04 May 2010 22:26 |
| 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.
|
Why the need for formalities and political correctness? It would be much easier if you just said it's man-made falsehood.
|
Easier if I lied, then? No.
|
I didn't believe you because when I read what you said, it seemed to greatly contradict with what you said on page 3:
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 22:43 |
And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did.
|
When you refer to the faithful confident worshippers of another religion with a biblical and offensive smear word such as "idolators," I kinda thought how likely was it for you to be open to the concept of [reincarnation] that is believed by the world's sole remaining "idol-worshipping" religion.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Yeah, it's pretty funny how I seem to say the common and accepted beliefs of a Christian...
|
You will learn what they tell you; I only pointed this out.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
quote title=Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44]Infact you have been so morally corrupted that you justify the murders of the children commited by the exodus gang and then so shockingly excuse that by saying "BUT THEY ARE IN HEAVEN." I guess them losing their lives in gruesome murders and the terrible agony and grief of their parents before the slaughter doesn't matter to you.
|
Bad guess. But going against the method or reason won't bring them back.
And, as I said, I'm not sure keeping them alive would be any less scarring, not that it justifies the act.
|
It's scary how you are adamant and endorse the "reason" to kill them and say whining about it is not going to "bring them back!"
Do you even have a heart? It's amazing how corrupted you have been turned into without an ounce of mercy.
"I'm not sure keeping them alive would be any less scarring"
seriously, what the f***?
Why should they kill the children? They were babies/toddlers. They could have been adopted and raised in the israeli camp, no? Did that ever strike your mind? So why didn't your loving god do just that? I guess they were gentiles and not the chosen people and hence an abomination? Or I guess, like you already stated in the first few pages of this thread, you god is the dictator and we should never question him no matter what he does.
This is so pathetic. When I was told the truth of these genocides, I had enough moral juice left to condemn them...not defend them.
btw, 2 or 3 tribes they encountered did this pracice. 90% of the other tribes destroyed were just unique people worshipping their own religion and minding their own damn business before the butchers showed up. And such massacres didn't just stop with the exodus land grab. It also happened much later after the early israelis establish themselves.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Is it a simple assumption, then, that no matter how well a system is designed, there will be people who want no part of it, and deserve rights?
|
Firstly, the idea of this "system" ever existing is formulated and conditioned by childhood brainwashing.
Secondly, there is no evidence of this system existing with your god at the top, the people on the bottom praying their hearts out while in reality, life remains the same, the sick die, the young die, conquerors and cowards come and go, nations rise and fall, and everyone gets what they worked for in life or being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time, with death, disease, and disasters randomly striking anyone at anytime.
All signs of a pessismistic world that goes on and on in a cycle till resources are depleted. Hence my orangey text in a previous post.
As far as your question, if you system was fair to all, nobody would complain. It isn't.
For example, a Muslim baby will go to hell after it's all grown up because it had the "bad fortune" of being born into a Muslim family who would then go on to give "information" that will determine the child's belief system. What a dumb unfair system!
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I know the difference. And I know that I wasn't given 'shady information'. A lot of it has evidence to back it up and simple makes sense.
|
How can you just assume that you got the right "information" or you were shown the entire information? You got a selective information just enough to make you believe in christianity. Some get information that is enough to make them believe in hinduism. Some get information that makes them muslim. All claim that it makes sense.
And what about when the information you were given didn't exist? What information was the child Alexander [the great] given? You see how "information" keeps changing over generations? That's the steady evolution of religion as new ideas are brought out.
When you realize the bigger picture is when you try to seek out the other information by yourself. Anyway, I will stop there as that's seems to be top-end of belief systems.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up
|
I fail to see in this thread where you asked and someone actually said that.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
My question was, what makes you so positive that they worshipped nature first?
|
recorded history? Animism seems to have been rampant among the early humans and still is in many relgiions. And I see it as making sense with the development and evolution of religions over our social history.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
With the expansion of technology and science, it's not that surprising, is it?
|
Partly true, there's no "if" about the general ignorance of early human tribals. It wasn't after the migrations stopped and the great civilizations rose up in the fertile river zones (in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Indus) that our quest to discover ourselves seems to have earnestly began.
We seem be in an age where reason is finally, despite organized religions' effort to crush it, making a strong comeback to stay. This debate should have happened almost 500 years ago but your religion was too powerful then and instead was ordering around poor Galileo to recant his heliocentric view.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And you expect me to believe all Christians are the same. Bull.
We don't discriminate like that!
|
"sinners"
"the evil world"
"ways of the world"
"lost world"
The recent example is homosexuals and atheists. The discrimation is there.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Because when I refuse to bang my head on the already established "I cannot possibly believe this because it doesn't tie up with basic history, contradictory, immoral, with zero evidence to back it up and requiring "faith" and "belief" to convince ourself under threat of hell" brick wall, it's me just refusing to look at the facts.
|
Fixed. I am trying to get this thru to you.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And I spend time here because it's interesting and relevant.
|
jeez, "interesting" and "relevant" is not something I would associate with "useless." Anyway...I guess we all like this debate!
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
If your big thing here is simply brainwashing... do you mostly ridicule Christianity because that's the subject you purged yourself from?
|
I spent time reasoning with you as to why I don't believe. The "big thing" here is if your beliefs are true or not, and how they are true, how they take precendence over other religions and, if the potential they have to influence ones' life is justified or not. We are past the point of just following and are asking "is there any substance to this?" when there are billions of people who would unfairly go to hell just for being born in the wrong country/religion/family.
And like it or not, it's brainwashing by a whole lot. No matter how hard you try to, the solid irrefutable fact remains that you are christian because you were born in America with its majority christian population into a christian family and it would have been different if say you were born in Iran. Oh the audacity of you to turn a blind eye to a billion variables that decided who you were going to be before you were even born and then claim your religion is the right one?! Oh my!
Same for me, I was born into a christian family in India because, ready for this? Without christian European missionaries in India, I would have been born into an entirely hindu family! So when I would have asked my grandmother the question, "do birds have souls?" she would have replied, "yes, dear"...and I honestly fear if that would have been the end of my childhood curiosity.
It's allright to close your eyes to these basic things and think everyone else except you would go to hell. It certainly is your right. I will move on and leave you to your beliefs.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Fine. I'll go on a mudering spree and kill everyone even remotely religious, saying that they're poisioning our civilization and ruining our gene pool, and that I'm purifying the human race.
Oh, and I'll mention how I'm an atheist.
And you can't say that he's not a true atheist to cover yourselves, because that's just "pulling a fast one".
|
This is just what the average christian thinks atheists are; heartless murderers bent on population planning. How incredibly stupid. Why am I not surprised by you saying this?
I will tell you the right term to use to decribe such people like you did: eugenists.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Your Hindu friend, for example. If there happened to be a faction who have the core beliefs of Hindu's, but also believed that violence is both permitted and required for spreading the religion, you're basically saying that your Hindu friend cannot claim she isn't a part of it in some way.
|
I will put it to you in very very simple terms since bigger posts apparently don't work. This ain't about factions, churches, and groups like you would love them to be so you can escape from accountability...it's about a religion that doesn't make sense...atleast when I learned to think for myself. And so when you reject the religion due to its absurdity and become atheist, the very same morons (parents) that brainwashed you in the first place as a kid bully you to "believe"...they denied me intellectual freedom and still are doing so apparently to save my soul!
I am leading a double life (like millions of others) because people like you are in the majority and have undeserved power of influence; and we are only now slowly coming out as the fastest growing group as well.
Do you understand this simple simple concept? Or should I make it simpler still for you? It doesn't matter which nationality you are or which denomination or church or which revised dogma you preach and uphold, thousands of idiotic parents across the whole world react the same way when their kid "strays"...even American parents.
No matter how hard you try to put the blame on other factions, groups, denominations, the problem (which you never acknowledge) lies deep within your religion and the all important question of basic intellectual freedom of thought it denies under threat of hell.
edit: typo
edit2: slight correction/revisions
[Updated on: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:54] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428270 is a reply to message #428220] |
Thu, 13 May 2010 22:58 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Fri, 30 April 2010 14:29 |
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?
|
Did we really exist at all before we were born? We weren't around...I mean where was I in 1980? My parents weren't even married. Then after I was in the womb for sure, I may have existed to my parents but I still didn't know anything. Even after birth, nothing is developed enough to give us a sense of self-awareness.
So as we grow up and the functionalities develop, we seem to get a better idea as to who we are. Hmmmm...is it possible that we humans have collectively mistaken our conscious...our self-awareness for the "soul"?
And what happens as we get older? Our brain functions and memory begin to slow down. What about people in coma or suffering from extreme alzeimers of sorts? They don't know who they are so it's almost like being a baby. And then after death, everything shuts down...so do we...err...is death then a reversal of birth? We were't around before birth and so we won't be around after death? Around meaning in terms of our existence?
And what about how this affects the birth of humans? We hear from theists all the time that we all have a purpose and we have a reason to be here. But do we really?
What if I married a woman and we both were healthy and fully capable of raising a family. But what if we choose to not have any children? That's atleast 1 potential unique human being (our kid) not bring born to walk on this rock and enjoy what "life" has to offer, no? I guess there was no purpose to him/her?
What about infants dying? We all had no idea whatsover of our infant years. I certainly can't remember the time when I was just less than 24 hours old. But I was very much alive as a helpless clueless zombie of sorts. Did I have a "soul" then? What if I died then? Theists say children go to heaven automatically. Well, I had no idea "I" even existed. So if I as a baby died then, would I suddenly get "instant self-awareness?" This idea does certainly sound completely asinine and makes theistic claim dubious.
Then we come to animals that have exibited intelligence. The corvid bird for example. It has been observed to exhibit superb memory. It can also apparently decide which shape stick it should use to pull out a hiding caterpillar from a tree trunk hole.
Anyway, what about birds in general? They gather sticks and make a nest that is almost like a bowl! This is one thing that never ceases to fascinate me. And birds are very social animals. Are they also somewhat, I don't like to use the terms, but "self-aware?" They migrate long distances as well. Perhaps it is basic survival sense. Gorillas can also recognize themselves in a mirror.
Seriously, is there even any difference between us humans and say the green algae I keep seeing on the backyard stones?
Is everything we have come up with, everything, products of hyper-activity? Is there really really a difference between a 747 jumbo jet and a bird's nest?
Let's note how fragile our existence is on this rock. No matter what, we know for sure that the sun will expand billions of years from now. So this party has a shutdown time too.
Is this something that happens over and over throught the universe? Thousands and thousands of years...billions infact. Nobody has showed up from space. The sky, the sun, the moon, the stars...oh so how many ancient lives must have looked up at these! The plants don't even know it yet benefit from it. The same sun that has shone it's warmth on my face today afternoon and lit up my room has did the same thing on mars and venus. How many strange animals and dinosaurs, and early primates and humans of the ancient world must have been warmed by this very same sun?
deep stuff. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428563 is a reply to message #428186] |
Sun, 16 May 2010 21:38 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Sorry for the extra delay. High school exams, graduation, college prep and driving tests all equal a busy schedule.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
God's not going to fry them with a lightning bolt today for those crimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't punish them wuth the laws of our land.
|
so who's really sorting the world out?
|
Good question, isn't it?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
secondly, how do you know god does not want you to set his commandments as the laws of the land?
|
Because he state in the NT that we should obey the laws of our land, provided they were just.
|
Oh, really? Your god says it's ok to opt-out of a legal system if it's morally shit?
Excellent.
I'm sure you can guess where I'm going with this.
|
Yeah. Your many-expressed opinion of what you think my moral beliefs are.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
your entire line of reasoning was based on taking "everything is either mind or matter" as a known fact, which it plainly isn't.
|
I still have yet to hear why. What can only be categorized in a third?
|
sigh... i didn't say there was a third option, i said it's bullshit to say these are the only two options.
|
Um, sure...
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
|
don't think i did. i think a bigger problem would be talking about religions as if they're facts.
|
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
So that kind of talk is only bad when theists use it?
|
you can talk that way if you like.
|
You said it's a problem to do it, and now you're OK with me doing it? What's with the change of opinion?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
NT explicitly states that we should be friendly with everyone, NOT make enemies with them.
|
ah, yes. it also says you should love and forgive your enemies, and turn the other cheek.
what a ridiculous teaching.
|
*shrug*
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
greed is usually undesirable, but would you rather have parents who want well-paid jobs or would you rather have parents who follow jesus's instruction to think nothing of the future and just follow him? (i.e. no investment, no looking after your family, etc etc etc)
|
If you think Christians do things like that in the name of faith, you are badly misinformed.
|
why don't they? it's what jesus supposedly said...
|
re: badly misinformed
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
Not surprising that all of these deal with human error.
|
well, if there's no god (or if there might be a god but there's no reason to suppose it's anything at all like the depiction in the bible) then this would be a human error in saying otherwise, wouldn't it?
|
Kinda stating the obvious here, but yes it would be.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
If the Bible is really God's word, he would have made sure it did not get screwed over by human error.
|
i think a rebuttal is superfluous
|
Good for you.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
don't act as if the two things are the same.
|
Excuse me? The basis IS the same: an individual changing what he believes.
|
there's a world of difference.
|
In the basic premise? I don't think so.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
nobody told starbuzzz what he must believe. what he believes is not a result of swallowing dogma.
|
Sure, I agree that. You just argued against what he already believed.
But now, since he's an atheist (I assume - forgive me if I'm wrong), do you say he now has no belief, whatsoever?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
secondly, i would never dream of saying he has to agree with me and he'll be punished if he doesn't - i'd be ashamed of myself if i said something so sick.
|
Then let's hope that 'punishment' truly doesn't exist.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
thirdly, it'd be all fine with me if, after breaking free of christianity, he made the free informed choice to follow a different religion.
|
Thus implying you're more agreeable with religions other than Christianity?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
the line certainly is thin and it's being tested all the time, isn't it?
|
Yep, and usually by the atheists. Almost every time we hear of a bill in petition, it's about some atheist group wanting so-and-so removed.
|
Such as?
|
Pretty much everything that refers to God.
|
Give a specific example? (or several if you like)
|
A few years ago, at a graduation, the valedictorian was giving her speech. At one point, she mentioned God - just a passing comment, something like how she, or th class, were truly blessed to be able to gain their education - and the board presiding cut off her microphone. They were afraid her comment might offend someone who didn't believe in God.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
Is it a simple assumption, then, that no matter how well a system is designed, there will be people who want no part of it, and deserve rights?
|
this isn't much of a rebuttal, since we don't accept that this system is well-designed at all.
|
Any system, actually.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
as to the second part of the question - will there always be people who want to assert their basic human rights? i certainly hope so.
|
Not basic human rights. Any 'rights' that the presiding system denies.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
And if the Biblical system is so bad, why are all the examples I've seen so far been OT based?
|
*cough* hell *cough*
|
There's one. Any more?
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up (not by anyone in partuclar - apparently I need to emphasize this).
|
by who, then?
|
The guys in our school system who want to teach it to us.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
|
Not sure about physical, per se. They'd certainly give us a lot of grief about it, saying that it's got so much evidence behind it and has been scientifically accepted and boy, we must be stupid to think it could be wrong.
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Spoony was the most lenient of them all. Why? Even though he offended me a lot and I hated him for it, I kept debating with him because I he never insulted me and or uselessly retorted to name-calling like the others.
|
I wonder why he does it now, then?
|
I wouldn't say I "uselessly resorted to namecalling".
|
I was looking at the "because I he never insulted me" part, actually.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
|
oh wow. Way to misunderstand. I honestly described how I was going to debate you:
Toggle Spoiler1) you say something first
2) I will state why exactly I don't share that same view
3) you provide clarification further
Here's an example; I asked you where humans learned how to wear clothes. You said it's a "belief thing" and said your god clothed them with animal skins before kicking their butt out of the garden. I then followed it up with why I wasn't sold on that and said something that made sense and also gave examples of people who still don't give much priority to clothing in this world. You didn't follow up to that and I didn't push.
So how dishonest of you to come back and post later I am "full of crap like this" and "atheists are right" view.
I abandoned the theistic position almost a year ago because it was so flawed and untenable This is where the difference between indoctrinated theistic dogma vs thinking for yourself comes in. If you want your religion to be accepted as fact, then asserting, and implying and simply asking to believe is not going to help.
|
Indeed, what a way to misunderstand!
I was, for the most part, referring to how you described Christians as "having blindfolds" and "having the truth hidden from them".
| Starbuzzz wrote |
You are one who "believes" and has asked us to do so over and over
|
What? No, I haven't.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
and when we wanted elementary proof to justify such belief, you called us a "hopeless case" a year ago.
|
And I've already apologized for that statement.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Say you have kids and you raised them christian and one of them becomes atheist after seeing through it when he is like 23. Are you going to let him go [to hell] just like that? What are all the options you think you will have to get him back?
|
We'd try to talk with him about it, sure. We wouldn't relentlessly bother him until he came back, though.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Or would you value your child's decision to think freely?
|
Of course.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
You already mentioned earlier that not doing anything when government sets fair laws for homosexuals equals you being accomplices in sin!
|
Did I?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
For someone who directed merciless military campaigns and oversaw systemic genocides, why this change of rule? Why didn't he say this at the start?
|
He was actively there at the start, that's why.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The "turn your other cheek rule" seriously undermines a human being's right to self-defense, tbh.
|
What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack? How silly.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The world and christianity doesn't revolve around a modernized, cleaned up revision of christianity being practiced in a small denomination in Tennessee.
"what isn't is what can break them" lol
|
Neither does it revolve around these bigger, "come one come all" groups.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Anyway, is this a church of christ? May I please ask?
|
Yes, it is.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Anyway, this is my 10th year in America and I have gone to a couple hundred different churches across many denominations (thanks to having religious zealots as parents). I also lived 3 months in Nashville, Tennesse 9 years ago and went to church there.
I have yet to go to an American church where the sermon even mentioned anything about the devil and his horrible mischief to trick us all.
|
That's surprising....
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I did hear how your culturally advanced denomination rejects the basic idea of god interefering with humanity. And I can see it for what it was; religious revision.
|
Care to explain how you 'know' it's such?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
So surprised to hear you reject a basic, supposed, historic fact about your religion.
|
I'm not so sure it is "basic, supposed, and historic".
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
The religious around here care more about rights than the local atheists.
|
"around here" , "local"
I understand you are not talking about the whole nation.
|
I'm sure that the areas like this aren't as small and remote as you'd like me to believe.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 16:44 |
Why the need for formalities and political correctness? It would be much easier if you just said it's man-made falsehood.
|
Easier if I lied, then? No.
|
I didn't believe you because when I read what you said, it seemed to greatly contradict with what you said on page 3:
| Altzan wrote on Tue, 30 March 2010 22:43 |
And no, I don't believe there were other gods, although those idolators apparently did.
|
When you refer to the faithful confident worshippers of another religion with a biblical and offensive smear word such as "idolators," I kinda thought how likely was it for you to be open to the concept of [reincarnation] that is believed by the world's sole remaining "idol-worshipping" religion.
|
IDOLATER: "A worshiper of idols; one who pays divine honors to images, statues, or representations of anything made by hands".
Is that so offensive? Why?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
It's scary how you are adamant and endorse the "reason" to kill them and say whining about it is not going to "bring them back!"
Do you even have a heart? It's amazing how corrupted you have been turned into without an ounce of mercy.
|
It's amazing how I'm labeled a heartless, evil, immoral jackass over one single aspect.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Why should they kill the children? They were babies/toddlers. They could have been adopted and raised in the israeli camp, no?
|
Can you not see just how badly this would have turned out?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I know the difference. And I know that I wasn't given 'shady information'. A lot of it has evidence to back it up and simple makes sense.
|
How can you just assume that you got the right "information" or you were shown the entire information? You got a selective information just enough to make you believe in christianity. Some get information that is enough to make them believe in hinduism. Some get information that makes them muslim. All claim that it makes sense.
|
What, you don't think we're taught what the other religions believe and why?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And what about when the information you were given didn't exist? What information was the child Alexander [the great] given?
|
?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
You see how "information" keeps changing over generations? That's the steady evolution of religion as new ideas are brought out.
|
No, I don't, actually.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up
|
I fail to see in this thread where you asked and someone actually said that.
|
Never said it was someone in this thread, did I?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
My question was, what makes you so positive that they worshipped nature first?
|
recorded history? Animism seems to have been rampant among the early humans and still is in many relgiions. And I see it as making sense with the development and evolution of religions over our social history.
|
Ah, yes. Recorded history. Just ignore the fact that we don't have reliable history dating that far back... and if we did, Christianity would have a much stronger case.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And you expect me to believe all Christians are the same. Bull.
We don't discriminate like that!
|
"sinners"
"the evil world"
"ways of the world"
"lost world"
The recent example is homosexuals and atheists. The discrimation is there.
|
I fail to see your point. We don't think atheists and homosexuals are "scum".
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Because when I refuse to bang my head on the already established "I cannot possibly believe this because it doesn't tie up with basic history, contradictory, immoral, with zero evidence to back it up and requiring "faith" and "belief" to convince ourself under threat of hell" brick wall, it's me just refusing to look at the facts.
|
Fixed. I am trying to get this thru to you.
|
Ironic how you say that as a result of not understanding what I'm trying to get through to you.
I understand why people will not believe in Christianity. What I refuse to believe is that it is completely and utterly IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to believe that Christianity could be right.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
jeez, "interesting" and "relevant" is not something I would associate with "useless." Anyway...I guess we all like this debate!
|
You serious? Practically everything humerous is this. It's useless for anything other than a cheap entertainment, but it can easily be seen as interesting.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And like it or not, it's brainwashing by a whole lot. No matter how hard you try to, the solid irrefutable fact remains that you are christian because you were born in America with its majority christian population into a christian family and it would have been different if say you were born in Iran.
|
Then every single person who is born is brainwashed, no? Even telling a child to not be fooled by all the religions out there is brainwashing in and of itself.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Oh the audacity of you to turn a blind eye to a billion variables that decided who you were going to be before you were even born and then claim your religion is the right one?! Oh my!
|
One, I don't. I recognize them quite well.
Two, you sound strange here - maybe you should take a break between large blocks of text and clear your mind a bit before continuing.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
This is just what the average christian thinks atheists are; heartless murderers bent on population planning. How incredibly stupid. Why am I not surprised by you saying this?
|
Why am I not suprised that you AGAIN took an example LITERALLY? "Oh my!"
I DON'T think all atheists are what you described. It was an EXAMPLE.
And I'm starting to think it flew right over your head.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I will put it to you in very very simple terms since bigger posts apparently don't work. This ain't about factions, churches, and groups like you would love them to be so you can escape from accountability...it's about a religion that doesn't make sense...
|
If it isn't, then you changed the subject. Point - don't try to put ME accountable for something in a belief system that I don't believe in. If you find a Catholic belief stupid or wrong, don't run to me - I don't go with it any more than you do.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And so when you reject the religion due to its absurdity and become atheist, the very same morons (parents) that brainwashed you in the first place as a kid bully you to "believe"...they denied me intellectual freedom and still are doing so apparently to save my soul!
|
If that's really how they're doing it... next time they visit, tell them they're doing it wrong.
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I am leading a double life (like millions of others) because people like you are in the majority
|
?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
and have undeserved power of influence
|
Oh really? How?
| Starbuzzz wrote |
No matter how hard you try to put the blame on other factions, groups, denominations, the problem (which you never acknowledge) lies deep within your religion and the all important question of basic intellectual freedom of thought it denies under threat of hell.
|
What problem, then? Do tell.
If it's about hell, back up - I have acknowledged it. I probably didn't give an answer you liked, though.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428601 is a reply to message #428563] |
Mon, 17 May 2010 13:06 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Sure, I agree that. You just argued against what he already believed.
But now, since he's an atheist (I assume - forgive me if I'm wrong), do you say he now has no belief, whatsoever?
|
Why do christians think atheism is a belief? It's not a "belief" system. There's a huge difference between commonsense and upholding dogma:
dogma: homosexuality is wrong!
commonsense: who gives a fuck? nobody can say what adults can do in their sex lives.
Get it?
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
In the basic premise? I don't think so.
|
A good "basic premise" analogy would be like jumping off a ship into the deep sea. You are keen on implying that it's like jumping to another ship. It's not...sorry to disappoint.
If you read the book 1984, read the part especially where that O'Brien bitch is torturing Winston to believe 2+2=5. If O'Brien is a christian and torturing me or Spoony to believe in your religion, we both would have the exact same "intellectual stumblingblock" as Winston did when he was forced to accept 2+2=5.
It's upto you to see that atheism is about free-thinking and not about any absolutes. You believe in indoctrinated absolutes (like commandments, way of life, punishments (lol) and so on) while we don't because there's no reason/evidence to. And your religion pales away anyway when put to historical scrutiny within a historical context.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
secondly, i would never dream of saying he has to agree with me and he'll be punished if he doesn't - i'd be ashamed of myself if i said something so sick.
|
Then let's hope that 'punishment' truly doesn't exist.
|
It doesn't since your hell is a concept ripped off by the jews from other early Mesopotamian religions.
This statement also serves as a sure indicator that you seem to be motivated and inspired by fear of hell(among other motivations) "stay in the faith" because of these indoctrinated fears of hell. Not surprisisng...
No matter how you want your religion to be true, I am going to bring up something you avoided replying to from my last post:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 14:57 |
Secondly, there is no evidence of this system existing with your god at the top, the people on the bottom praying their hearts out while in reality, life remains the same, the sick die, the young die, conquerors and cowards come and go, nations rise and fall, and everyone gets what they worked for in life or being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time, with death, disease, and disasters randomly striking anyone at anytime.
|
Sorry to be so harsh but despite your belief system and "supernatural protection," we both have about the same chance of losing our lives this week.
My sister's plane (she is a flight attendant) has the same chances of crashing like any other plane despite her prayers before every flight.
That's life...it sucks. A lot. There's absolutely no evidence of anyone running this show. We just have to make sure to not be in thr wrong place at the wrong time and hope nothing goes wrong. Though you certainly have the right to believe in whatever you want if it's comforting to you and makes you feel at ease. Though I will point out why it doesn't make sense if you asked me.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
[Thus implying you're more agreeable with religions other than Christianity?
|
He is saying that if I got on any religious bandwagon now, it would be under my own power and judgment. Not because I was shoved up there when I was a kid by parents.
There's a ton of difference.
You can fool a kid to get into your car by showing candy; though you won't dare try the same with an adult. Religion works the same way. And they do give out candy in sunday school.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
A few years ago, at a graduation, the valedictorian was giving her speech. At one point, she mentioned God - just a passing comment, something like how she, or th class, were truly blessed to be able to gain their education - and the board presiding cut off her microphone. They were afraid her comment might offend someone who didn't believe in God.
|
I read the true story was she veered off from the pre-approved speech and started to preach.
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that a child-killing god of a ancient murderous mediterrean tribe was also resonsible for blessing the education of American school students in 2006. Makes sense. It's all very delusional though I can see it being comforting.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
|
Not sure about physical, per se. They'd certainly give us a lot of grief about it, saying that it's got so much evidence behind it and has been scientifically accepted and boy, we must be stupid to think it could be wrong.
|
Yeah, causing "grief" and calling christians "stupid" is as bad as us stuck in "eternal screaming roasting in a lake of fire."
I will leave it at that.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I was, for the most part, referring to how you described Christians as "having blindfolds" and "having the truth hidden from them".
|
I was specifically referring to children with blindfolds. Thought I was clear on that...
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
You already mentioned earlier that not doing anything when government sets fair laws for homosexuals equals you being accomplices in sin!
|
Did I?
|
Yes, page 1:
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 22:22 |
Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin.
|
What a bullshit excuse to inflitrate into the political process.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
For someone who directed merciless military campaigns and oversaw systemic genocides, why this change of rule? Why didn't he say this at the start?
|
He was actively there at the start, that's why.
|
Doesn't answer the question.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The "turn your other cheek rule" seriously undermines a human being's right to self-defense, tbh.
|
What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack? How silly.
|
Of course, as expected they teach this crap symbolically on how we should lead our lives. It sets you up as the underdogs.
This is why the bible is so full of contradictions. You are told to love your enemy and turn the other cheek while it also says there's a time for war and a time to kill.
What a screw up.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The world and christianity doesn't revolve around a modernized, cleaned up revision of christianity being practiced in a small denomination in Tennessee.
"what isn't is what can break them" lol
|
Neither does it revolve around these bigger, "come one come all" groups.
|
Funny how you mentioned the CSI's rallying-call "come one come all" and attempted to use it against me. I didn't even hear of that motto until I looked up that Wikipedia article up for you lol.
What's really ridiculous here is how you are very quick to jump to denominational shitflinging. It's absoulutely pathetic. Then again, I found American christians to put more importance on their denominations than anyone else.
Need I tell you that I have been living in America since I was 13 and attending a baptist church? That's the majority of my life. Denominations weren't stressed at all in India and it didnt matter though catholics were the butt of jokes during evening teatime in the terrace.
Anyway, your religion revolves around the bible. That's enough to trump you all with 1 stone since all your doctrinal differences (which doesn't matter anyway) are derived from it.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Anyway, is this a church of christ? May I please ask?
|
Yes, it is.
|
Thanks for sharing. That clarifies a lot for everyone who is in this debate. Now that I know which denomiation you are a part of, I understand why you have been brought up without being taught much of the stuff in the OldT.
Anyway, I went to a church of christ too 9 years ago when I was in Nashville. Their rejection of musical instruments (because instruments weren't mentioned in the NewT) shocked me and was something new. I heard there is also a church of christ splinter group that does use musical instruments.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I did hear how your culturally advanced denomination rejects the basic idea of god interefering with humanity. And I can see it for what it was; religious revision.
|
Care to explain how you 'know' it's such?
|
Christianity is almost "religions among religion" considering how many denominations exist because someone had a different opinion and had the power to create a new church.
You don't even know who is reliable...let alone someone who's country/denomination didn't exist 300 years ago! I am being objective here.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
So surprised to hear you reject a basic, supposed, historic fact about your religion.
|
I'm not so sure it is "basic, supposed, and historic".
|
Denial. I will leave it at that considering I understand your denomination's failure to teach you basic OldT stuff.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
The religious around here care more about rights than the local atheists.
|
"around here" , "local"
I understand you are not talking about the whole nation.
|
I'm sure that the areas like this aren't as small and remote as you'd like me to believe.
|
Definitely not representative of the whole country.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
IDOLATER: "A worshiper of idols; one who pays divine honors to images, statues, or representations of anything made by hands".
Is that so offensive? Why?
|
A dictionary makes it seems harmless. You only need to see where it's mentioned in the bible. Idolater is mentioned right alongside "murderers" for example like as if it's such a bad thing to do!
And it's an offensive term to use. If you talk to hindus atleast. It's like referring to handicapped people as "cripples."
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
It's amazing how I'm labeled a heartless, evil, immoral jackass over one single aspect.
|
"one single aspect" where you defend/justify children being murdered.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Why should they kill the children? They were babies/toddlers. They could have been adopted and raised in the israeli camp, no?
|
Can you not see just how badly this would have turned out?
|
How so? They would be raised and integrated. Of course, this would never work with the "chosen people" tripe. And so we have to kill them, eh? It's their fault for even being born.
You are very corrupted, man. Nothing justifies killing helpless children. NOTHING.
Then again, I have come to expect this from you christians. I wonder if you guys would go on a killing spree if your god tells you too. I was reading the book of Nahum yesterday and was shocked at the gleefully-revengeful tone in which it describes the children of Nineveh being dashed against the stones. 
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I know the difference. And I know that I wasn't given 'shady information'. A lot of it has evidence to back it up and simple makes sense.
|
How can you just assume that you got the right "information" or you were shown the entire information? You got a selective information just enough to make you believe in christianity. Some get information that is enough to make them believe in hinduism. Some get information that makes them muslim. All claim that it makes sense.
|
What, you don't think we're taught what the other religions believe and why?
|
Read my post again...I quoted it for you. There's a difference between learning about other religions in schools AND getting indoctrinated in one to believe that it is true over the others.
Surely you will admit that you got a biased "information" set in favor of your religion? Were you taken to the worship places of other religions and observed people of different faiths worship? No. But yeah, you were taken to church and you read the bible and such. And guess what? You turned out christian.
In the same vein, I learned about other religions too. Not enough to make me a follower of others religions. Hence my original point of you getting only selective information.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And what about when the information you were given didn't exist? What information was the child Alexander [the great] given?
|
?
|
Why question mark when the question is so simple? What did the child Alexander learn and what belief systems did he have?
What about the Ötzi iceman? Just another human being we are fortunate enough to have found his body. What information was he given and what beliefs did he have? Is he in your hell too screaming and kickin? lol
I find all religious folks to not see the past that was before their religions came to power. It's all the more ridicluous when they say they are the one true religion ever.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
You see how "information" keeps changing over generations? That's the steady evolution of religion as new ideas are brought out.
|
No, I don't, actually.
|
sucks.
moving on...
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Ah, yes. Recorded history. Just ignore the fact that we don't have reliable history dating that far back... and if we did, Christianity would have a much stronger case.
|
I guess the older they are the more factual they would be. What an absurd thing to say over and over in this debate.
There are several older religions that would be a better bet if you were pulling the seniority law, like you did here.
Better yet is the realization that all these religions didn't exist at one point and have been written by man and so are irrelevant today.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I fail to see your point. We don't think atheists and homosexuals are "scum".
|
There's no denying christians hold such people in a lesser light.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I understand why people will not believe in Christianity. What I refuse to believe is that it is completely and utterly IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to believe that Christianity could be right.
|
When you refuse to believe this, you are plainly refusing to see what are all the factors that affects and motivates a person buying into christianity or any other religion. You did turn a blind eye as well when I told you why exactly I can't believe.
I have dealt with evangelists and pastors personally face to face that my parents brought in to try to re-convince me. They could have converted anyone but they can't really fool someone with their usual biblical bag of tricks when they are getting crossquestioned left and right.
The part they start out is when they tell you something along the lines of "we have all sinned with the fall of man in the garden and you have to accept jesus so whosoever believeth in him shall have everlasting life" jeez, they won't shut the f*** up with the original sin bullshit.
The usual conversion tricks and ploys won't work with someone who is actually thinking for themselves.
I know how these ministers roll. It's all about intellectual dishonesty like I described in my first post. They tell you the good parts, cheer you up, then they tell you the problem (you have sinned), hand you the solution (accept a 2000 year old dead man to forgive sin).
So that's your potential christian convert. And many of them buy it. It doesn;t matter to them if it makes sense or not...it's comforting and so if it is comforting, it must be true to them.
Not to mention so many people who are suffering really with so many problems with finances, relationships, crappy jobs or no jobs and who want a instant "solution" or seek comfort/refuge in religious delusion thru prayer (I don't blame them) like as if it will solve their problem.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Then every single person who is born is brainwashed, no? Even telling a child to not be fooled by all the religions out there is brainwashing in and of itself.
|
This statement is it's own refutation in itself.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Oh the audacity of you to turn a blind eye to a billion variables that decided who you were going to be before you were even born and then claim your religion is the right one?! Oh my!
|
One, I don't. I recognize them quite well.
Two, you sound strange here - maybe you should take a break between large blocks of text and clear your mind a bit before continuing.
|
If you did, you wont be defending a recent religion to all of us under threat of hell.
As for that ad hominem, atleast dude when you want to pull some insults, then don't make yourself look stupid in the process. At least you could've called me a "atheist mo fo - go to hell!" and I wouldn't have minded it at all!
I guess I need a break from large blocks of texts! C'mon. I have been trying to get another job so I can raise $1200 within the next few weeks to buy a plane ticket to see my dying grandfather in India. He is past his 11th hour; he is critical, fell recently and broke his leg, and I desperately wish to be holding his hands and talking to him.
What else? I got my sister's electric guitar, been to the music store to buy parts for it and have it strung...and am now learning to play it too.
Trust me, replying to posts on forums barely makes a dent on my time.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I DON'T think all atheists are what you described. It was an EXAMPLE.
|
An example that clearly showed what you think atheists are all about. It's wrong as well. Look up eugenicists and stop making yourself look so clumsy.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I will put it to you in very very simple terms since bigger posts apparently don't work. This ain't about factions, churches, and groups like you would love them to be so you can escape from accountability...it's about a religion that doesn't make sense...
|
| Starbuzzz wrote |
No matter how hard you try to put the blame on other factions, groups, denominations, the problem (which you never acknowledge) lies deep within your religion and the all important question of basic intellectual freedom of thought it denies under threat of hell.
|
If it isn't, then you changed the subject. Point - don't try to put ME accountable for something in a belief system that I don't believe in. If you find a Catholic belief stupid or wrong, don't run to me - I don't go with it any more than you do.
|
I have been from the start of this debate saying how religious indoctrination/and religion challenges our intellecual freedoms. And I still maintain the same.
Your belief system is christianity; anyone from any protestant denomination would have said the same dogma you said all thread.
[Updated on: Mon, 17 May 2010 21:50] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #428604 is a reply to message #428563] |
Mon, 17 May 2010 14:20 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 21:38 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
You're missing the point. The idea of my statement being fatuous is an opinion, so I naturally pointed out that you spoke of it as a fact.
|
don't think i did. i think a bigger problem would be talking about religions as if they're facts.
|
I just read Starbuzzz's post and it's full of crap like this, only it's an "atheists are right" view.
So that kind of talk is only bad when theists use it?
|
you can talk that way if you like.
|
You said it's a problem to do it, and now you're OK with me doing it? What's with the change of opinion?
|
of course i'm ok with you saying stuff that, while it may sound silly, isn't actually harmful.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Tue, 11 May 2010 08:32 |
| Quote: |
I feel the same way when someone is converted to Christianity after visiting our church for some time. It's a simple feeling of elation after conversion.
|
don't act as if the two things are the same.
|
Excuse me? The basis IS the same: an individual changing what he believes.
|
there's a world of difference.
|
In the basic premise? I don't think so.
|
what was good about starbuzzz's "conversion" (the word doesn't seem right to me but never mind that now) wasn't the fact he stopped being a christian and became an atheist, it was the fact he gained a basic human right that his religion was denying him... freedom of thought.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
nobody told starbuzzz what he must believe. what he believes is not a result of swallowing dogma.
|
Sure, I agree that. You just argued against what he already believed.
But now, since he's an atheist (I assume - forgive me if I'm wrong), do you say he now has no belief, whatsoever?
|
depends what you mean by "belief". the usual meaning of the word seems to be something like "accepting a supernatural claim as factually correct without much or any evidence to support it". but if you asked me if i believed in, say, democracy, i'd say yes... the meaning of the word there is more along the lines of advocating a precept.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
secondly, i would never dream of saying he has to agree with me and he'll be punished if he doesn't - i'd be ashamed of myself if i said something so sick.
|
Then let's hope that 'punishment' truly doesn't exist.
|
Do you hope that?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
thirdly, it'd be all fine with me if, after breaking free of christianity, he made the free informed choice to follow a different religion.
|
Thus implying you're more agreeable with religions other than Christianity?
|
no.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
Give a specific example? (or several if you like)
|
A few years ago, at a graduation, the valedictorian was giving her speech. At one point, she mentioned God - just a passing comment, something like how she, or th class, were truly blessed to be able to gain their education - and the board presiding cut off her microphone. They were afraid her comment might offend someone who didn't believe in God.
|
was it a secular school? i wonder what their policy is on this sort of thing.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
And if the Biblical system is so bad, why are all the examples I've seen so far been OT based?
|
*cough* hell *cough*
|
There's one. Any more?
|
it's a pretty big one on its own. i'd say it's the most cruel idea anybody came up with, and it's done an incalculable amount of psychological damage to humanity.
some of jesus' moral teachings are somewhat ahead of their time (but we're talking about an extremely primitive culture, let's not forget... they're behind the times now), some of them are downright silly, and some of them are harmfully bad (encouraging non-resistance to evil, for example).
as for the idea on how to atone for one's wrongdoings, i think that's done more harm than good too.
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up (not by anyone in partuclar - apparently I need to emphasize this).
|
by who, then?
|
The guys in our school system who want to teach it to us.
|
teachers, you mean?
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
|
Not sure about physical, per se. They'd certainly give us a lot of grief about it, saying that it's got so much evidence behind it and has been scientifically accepted and boy, we must be stupid to think it could be wrong.
|
i'm not understanding how this is grievous
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Say you have kids and you raised them christian and one of them becomes atheist after seeing through it when he is like 23. Are you going to let him go [to hell] just like that? What are all the options you think you will have to get him back?
|
We'd try to talk with him about it, sure. We wouldn't relentlessly bother him until he came back, though.
|
i think you ought to be relentlessly telling your God not to be such an evil piece of shit.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The "turn your other cheek rule" seriously undermines a human being's right to self-defense, tbh.
|
What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack? How silly.
|
that's my understanding of the turn-the-other-cheek teaching too.
| Quote: |
IDOLATER: "A worshiper of idols; one who pays divine honors to images, statues, or representations of anything made by hands".
Is that so offensive? Why?
|
i don't think the word is offensive, but according to the bible it's probably the one thing above all which drives your god into a murderous, bloodthirsty rage.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
It's scary how you are adamant and endorse the "reason" to kill them and say whining about it is not going to "bring them back!"
Do you even have a heart? It's amazing how corrupted you have been turned into without an ounce of mercy.
|
It's amazing how I'm labeled a heartless, evil, immoral jackass over one single aspect.
|
i don't know about "evil" or "jackass".
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Why should they kill the children? They were babies/toddlers. They could have been adopted and raised in the israeli camp, no?
|
Can you not see just how badly this would have turned out?
|
given how barbaric the israelis and their god supposedly were? sure, the babies would probably end up just as brutal. however, this doesn't alter the fact that you appear to've concluded that a scenario can be found where the massacre of innocent children is morally permissible (at least)
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
I know the difference. And I know that I wasn't given 'shady information'. A lot of it has evidence to back it up and simple makes sense.
|
How can you just assume that you got the right "information" or you were shown the entire information? You got a selective information just enough to make you believe in christianity. Some get information that is enough to make them believe in hinduism. Some get information that makes them muslim. All claim that it makes sense.
|
What, you don't think we're taught what the other religions believe and why?
|
it's not the same. being taught about a religion is absolutely nothing to do with being brought up as a particular religion.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
My question was, what makes you so positive that they worshipped nature first?
|
recorded history? Animism seems to have been rampant among the early humans and still is in many relgiions. And I see it as making sense with the development and evolution of religions over our social history.
|
Ah, yes. Recorded history. Just ignore the fact that we don't have reliable history dating that far back... and if we did, Christianity would have a much stronger case.
|
would it? when religions are recent enough that we can look up how they started, they tend to be incredibly feeble fabrications by conmen. (i'm specifically thinking of scientology and LDS/mormonism here)
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
And you expect me to believe all Christians are the same. Bull.
We don't discriminate like that!
|
"sinners"
"the evil world"
"ways of the world"
"lost world"
The recent example is homosexuals and atheists. The discrimation is there.
|
I fail to see your point. We don't think atheists and homosexuals are "scum".
|
odd, that. like i said, god spent half the old testament trying to make it clear he does.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And like it or not, it's brainwashing by a whole lot. No matter how hard you try to, the solid irrefutable fact remains that you are christian because you were born in America with its majority christian population into a christian family and it would have been different if say you were born in Iran.
|
Then every single person who is born is brainwashed, no? Even telling a child to not be fooled by all the religions out there is brainwashing in and of itself.
|
what atheists tend to do (and what we tend to recommend our schools ought to be doing) is encouraging critical thinking. it'd be nice if the ludicrous concept of "faith" was thoroughly discredited too, for the brain-damaging crap it is.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
This is just what the average christian thinks atheists are; heartless murderers bent on population planning. How incredibly stupid. Why am I not surprised by you saying this?
|
Why am I not suprised that you AGAIN took an example LITERALLY? "Oh my!"
I DON'T think all atheists are what you described. It was an EXAMPLE.
And I'm starting to think it flew right over your head.
|
an example which has nothing to do with atheism at all...
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And so when you reject the religion due to its absurdity and become atheist, the very same morons (parents) that brainwashed you in the first place as a kid bully you to "believe"...they denied me intellectual freedom and still are doing so apparently to save my soul!
|
If that's really how they're doing it... next time they visit, tell them they're doing it wrong.
|
what's your scriptural basis for saying they're doing it wrong?
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 #428819 is a reply to message #428604] |
Wed, 19 May 2010 23:14 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Why do christians think atheism is a belief? It's not a "belief" system?
|
No, it isn't. But declaring yourself an athiest doesn't banish every belief you have. You just have different beliefs... you change them. Surely you can understand that the term "belief" isn't tied to religion alone?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
It's upto you to see that atheism is about free-thinking and not about any absolutes. You believe in indoctrinated absolutes (like commandments, way of life, punishments (lol) and so on) while we don't because there's no reason/evidence to.
|
That's one way to look at it, I suppose.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Sorry to be so harsh but despite your belief system and "supernatural protection," we both have about the same chance of losing our lives this week.
My sister's plane (she is a flight attendant) has the same chances of crashing like any other plane despite her prayers before every flight.
That's life...it sucks. A lot. There's absolutely no evidence of anyone running this show. We just have to make sure to not be in thr wrong place at the wrong time and hope nothing goes wrong. Though you certainly have the right to believe in whatever you want if it's comforting to you and makes you feel at ease. Though I will point out why it doesn't make sense if you asked me.
|
I wish I knew what made you think I believed I was under divine protection.
Other than afterlife issues.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
You can fool a kid to get into your car by showing candy; though you won't dare try the same with an adult. Religion works the same way. And they do give out candy in sunday school.
|
My, and I'm the biased one?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
|
Not sure about physical, per se. They'd certainly give us a lot of grief about it, saying that it's got so much evidence behind it and has been scientifically accepted and boy, we must be stupid to think it could be wrong.
|
Yeah, causing "grief" and calling christians "stupid" is as bad as us stuck in "eternal screaming roasting in a lake of fire."
I will leave it at that.
|
I wasn't aware they needed to be compared.
One being worse than the other hardly exuses the lesser.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I was, for the most part, referring to how you described Christians as "having blindfolds" and "having the truth hidden from them".
|
I was specifically referring to children with blindfolds. Thought I was clear on that...
|
You're not very clear on anything, sorry to say.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 22:22 |
Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin.
|
What a bullshit excuse to inflitrate into the political process.
|
I hardly see how "voicing what you believe" compares to "infiltrating the political process".
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
The "turn your other cheek rule" seriously undermines a human being's right to self-defense, tbh.
|
What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack? How silly.
|
Of course, as expected they teach this crap symbolically on how we should lead our lives. It sets you up as the underdogs.
This is why the bible is so full of contradictions. You are told to love your enemy and turn the other cheek while it also says there's a time for war and a time to kill.
What a screw up.
|
Again:
"What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack?"
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Funny how you mentioned the CSI's rallying-call "come one come all" and attempted to use it against me. I didn't even hear of that motto until I looked up that Wikipedia article up for you lol.
|
I actually didn't know of the CSI or its rallying call. I thought I'd made the term up out of thin air, bad choice of words I guess.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
What's really ridiculous here is how you are very quick to jump to denominational shitflinging. It's absoulutely pathetic. Then again, I found American christians to put more importance on their denominations than anyone else.
|
The whole denomination thing is an easy way to reference different beliefs among groups, which, as you cannot deny, is very important. Hardly pathetic.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Anyway, I went to a church of christ too 9 years ago when I was in Nashville. Their rejection of musical instruments (because instruments weren't mentioned in the NewT) shocked me and was something new. I heard there is also a church of christ splinter group that does use musical instruments.
|
Christian or not, what are, or were, your thoughts on the subject, if I may ask?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
I did hear how your culturally advanced denomination rejects the basic idea of god interefering with humanity. And I can see it for what it was; religious revision.
|
Care to explain how you 'know' it's such?
|
Christianity is almost "religions among religion" considering how many denominations exist because someone had a different opinion and had the power to create a new church.
You don't even know who is reliable...let alone someone who's country/denomination didn't exist 300 years ago! I am being objective here.
|
A description of religion's origins and evolutions hardly explains why you think the idea is made up.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
So surprised to hear you reject a basic, supposed, historic fact about your religion.
|
I'm not so sure it is "basic, supposed, and historic".
|
Denial. I will leave it at that considering I understand your denomination's failure to teach you basic OldT stuff.
|
The denial card... are you sure you'd rather not just back up this claim?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Why should they kill the children? They were babies/toddlers. They could have been adopted and raised in the israeli camp, no?
|
Can you not see just how badly this would have turned out?
|
How so? They would be raised and integrated. Of course, this would never work with the "chosen people" tripe. And so we have to kill them, eh? It's their fault for even being born.
|
Raised and integrated by the people who murdered their parents, something they won't forget. Even if they did, the new parents would be loath to lie to the kid's eventual questions.
I'm sure you'll revert to chewing me out on the act itself now, but I still wish to know how you think this arrangement would work out.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Then again, I have come to expect this from you christians. I wonder if you guys would go on a killing spree if your god tells you too. I was reading the book of Nahum yesterday and was shocked at the gleefully-revengeful tone in which it describes the children of Nineveh being dashed against the stones.
|
I guess you'd have to decide what's more important: the morals themselves or who designed them.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Surely you will admit that you got a biased "information" set in favor of your religion? Were you taken to the worship places of other religions and observed people of different faiths worship? No. But yeah, you were taken to church and you read the bible and such. And guess what? You turned out christian.
|
Then I guess you'd better goto at least one worship service for every religion to make sure you decide fairly.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Why question mark when the question is so simple? What did the child Alexander learn and what belief systems did he have?
What about the Ötzi iceman? Just another human being we are fortunate enough to have found his body. What information was he given and what beliefs did he have? Is he in your hell too screaming and kickin? lol
I find all religious folks to not see the past that was before their religions came to power. It's all the more ridicluous when they say they are the one true religion ever.
|
Again = ?
What do those people have to do with the topic?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Ah, yes. Recorded history. Just ignore the fact that we don't have reliable history dating that far back... and if we did, Christianity would have a much stronger case.
|
I guess the older they are the more factual they would be. What an absurd thing to say over and over in this debate.
|
Older = less credibility
NOT more factual.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I fail to see your point. We don't think atheists and homosexuals are "scum".
|
There's no denying christians hold such people in a lesser light.
|
Depends on your meaning.
While I hold the acts as sin, I don't think less of a person's character for committing them.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
When you refuse to believe this, you are plainly refusing to see what are all the factors that affects and motivates a person buying into christianity or any other religion.
|
No, I'm not.
There's a difference between mentally incapable of belief and deciding not to believe.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Then every single person who is born is brainwashed, no? Even telling a child to not be fooled by all the religions out there is brainwashing in and of itself.
|
This statement is it's own refutation in itself.
|
I'd love to hear your explanation for this witty remark.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Oh the audacity of you to turn a blind eye to a billion variables that decided who you were going to be before you were even born and then claim your religion is the right one?! Oh my!
|
One, I don't. I recognize them quite well.
|
If you did, you wont be defending a recent religion to all of us under threat of hell.
|
Implying you are right and that I have yet to realize it. Pathetic.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
As for that ad hominem, atleast dude when you want to pull some insults, then don't make yourself look stupid in the process. At least you could've called me a "atheist mo fo - go to hell!" and I wouldn't have minded it at all!
|
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, incase you did not know.
And you surprise me, thinking I would say something like "atheist mo fo - go to hell!". Of course, you've easily misinterpreted things about me before.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
I guess I need a break from large blocks of texts! C'mon. I have been trying to get another job so I can raise $1200 within the next few weeks to buy a plane ticket to see my dying grandfather in India. He is past his 11th hour; he is critical, fell recently and broke his leg, and I desperately wish to be holding his hands and talking to him.
What else? I got my sister's electric guitar, been to the music store to buy parts for it and have it strung...and am now learning to play it too.
Trust me, replying to posts on forums barely makes a dent on my time.
|
I love how you take every sentence of mine breathtakingly literally. It really livens things up.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
I DON'T think all atheists are what you described. It was an EXAMPLE.
|
An example that clearly showed what you think atheists are all about. It's wrong as well. Look up eugenicists and stop making yourself look so clumsy.
|
Dude. I just said that it doesn't represent my view. Repeating it as fact just makes you look like the one in denial.
Being too literal. I was making a point, not sharing an opinion.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
secondly, i would never dream of saying he has to agree with me and he'll be punished if he doesn't - i'd be ashamed of myself if i said something so sick.
|
Then let's hope that 'punishment' truly doesn't exist.
|
Do you hope that?
|
Hope it doesn't exist? No.
But
Want it to exist? No.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
Give a specific example? (or several if you like)
|
A few years ago, at a graduation, the valedictorian was giving her speech. At one point, she mentioned God - just a passing comment, something like how she, or th class, were truly blessed to be able to gain their education - and the board presiding cut off her microphone. They were afraid her comment might offend someone who didn't believe in God.
|
was it a secular school? i wonder what their policy is on this sort of thing.
|
I believe it was a regular, public school.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
| Quote: |
And when I question these "basic evolutionary history and social processes", I am told to shut up (not by anyone in partuclar - apparently I need to emphasize this).
|
by who, then?
|
The guys in our school system who want to teach it to us.
|
teachers, you mean?
|
Specific teachers. Mainly science ones, like biology.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 08:01 |
and are you told that you'll be physically punished for daring to question these concepts?
|
Not sure about physical, per se. They'd certainly give us a lot of grief about it, saying that it's got so much evidence behind it and has been scientifically accepted and boy, we must be stupid to think it could be wrong.
|
i'm not understanding how this is grievous
|
Just look at the political world, and how sayings like this can ruin people's reputations. Pathetic manipulation.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
Say you have kids and you raised them christian and one of them becomes atheist after seeing through it when he is like 23. Are you going to let him go [to hell] just like that? What are all the options you think you will have to get him back?
|
We'd try to talk with him about it, sure. We wouldn't relentlessly bother him until he came back, though.
|
i think you ought to be relentlessly telling your God not to be such an evil piece of shit.
|
You're just affirming that there really is nothing to say about my belief on this. Just saying.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
I fail to see your point. We don't think atheists and homosexuals are "scum".
|
odd, that. like i said, god spent half the old testament trying to make it clear he does.
|
Opposing it doesn't compare to an opinion about it.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
what atheists tend to do (and what we tend to recommend our schools ought to be doing) is encouraging critical thinking.
|
If only that was all they did.
Or even if that was just the main priority.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
This is just what the average christian thinks atheists are; heartless murderers bent on population planning. How incredibly stupid. Why am I not surprised by you saying this?
|
Why am I not suprised that you AGAIN took an example LITERALLY? "Oh my!"
I DON'T think all atheists are what you described. It was an EXAMPLE.
And I'm starting to think it flew right over your head.
|
an example which has nothing to do with atheism at all...
|
Correct. It had to do with his ridiculous statement about how denominations don't seperate beliefs, and how I should be held against the beliefs of every person who calls himself a Christian.
Me and some other guy could both believe abortion is wrong... and if the other guy decides to blow up the local abortion clinic, apparently I should be in just as much trouble because I opposed abortion just like him.
Makes perrrrrrfect sense.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 16:20 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote |
And so when you reject the religion due to its absurdity and become atheist, the very same morons (parents) that brainwashed you in the first place as a kid bully you to "believe"...they denied me intellectual freedom and still are doing so apparently to save my soul!
|
If that's really how they're doing it... next time they visit, tell them they're doing it wrong.
|
what's your scriptural basis for saying they're doing it wrong?
|
I don't recall the specific verses, but they said that while you should try to talk to them about it, it's best to not hold company with one who's firmly decided to go against it.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #429977 is a reply to message #428821] |
Thu, 03 June 2010 14:06 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
No, it isn't. But declaring yourself an athiest doesn't banish every belief you have. You just have different beliefs... you change them. Surely you can understand that the term "belief" isn't tied to religion alone?
|
Religious belief is completely different.
I would like to know what "beliefs" you think I have now. And how it is even remotely comparable to "religious beliefs."
Religious people always tend to think atheism is another belief system just to try to bring it down to their level to show it is equal to their lowly dogmas. The fact that you think "not brainwashing a kid with religion itself is brainwashing" tells a lot about you.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Sorry to be so harsh but despite your belief system and "supernatural protection," we both have about the same chance of losing our lives this week.
My sister's plane (she is a flight attendant) has the same chances of crashing like any other plane despite her prayers before every flight.
That's life...it sucks. A lot. There's absolutely no evidence of anyone running this show. We just have to make sure to not be in thr wrong place at the wrong time and hope nothing goes wrong. Though you certainly have the right to believe in whatever you want if it's comforting to you and makes you feel at ease. Though I will point out why it doesn't make sense if you asked me.
|
I wish I knew what made you think I believed I was under divine protection.
Other than afterlife issues.
|
Is the only thing that caught your attention there? Considering you are coming from an absolute minority denomination that rejects such dogma, I am not too surprised.
The most important christian claim: that god is omnipresent watching your every move and shifting through your thoughts, punishing you (or "testing" you if you will), hearing prayers, answering them, and providing protection from danger would be too easy to observe or atleast discern but as I described above, there is no evidence, not a bit, of such a system existing.
If you were conveying your denomination's stance, I would have to say it is one of the biggest daring denominational revisionist frauds I have ever heard in my life and in no way can it be representative of the entire religion.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
I wasn't aware they needed to be compared.
One being worse than the other hardly exuses the lesser.
|
They need not be compared? We were talking about how atheism, unlike christianity, doesn't threaten anyone with punishment for disagreeing with it. You responded to that with a "but they cause us grief and call as stupid" and now you are asking to not compare the two?
Here's what happened:
Spoony: do atheists tell you that you will be punished in a roasting fire if you disagree with them?
Altzan: They don't threaten us with physical punishment! But they make us feel bad and call us "stupid"
Starbuzzz: Yeah, and that's as bad as roasting in a fire for eternity eh duuude?
Altzan: STOP comparing the two! Just cuz hell is worse doesn't mean calling me stupid and making me feel bad should be allowed!
You did restate this threat again by saying:
| Altzan |
"Let's hope that punishment truly doesn't exist"
|
Perhaps you should just concede the obvious; that atheism doesn't threaten anyone with painful eternal punishment for disagreeing with it.
And you said this to Spoony:
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Just look at the political world, and how sayings like this can ruin people's reputations. Pathetic manipulation.
|
Nowhere is this comparable to what the church did to intelligent folks when it was in power hundereds of years ago.
And this hardly equals burning in hell and harldy affects you personally with pain and suffering for eternity.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 17 March 2010 22:22 |
Would I fight against a governemtal decree legally allowing something I consider a sin? Yes, because not doing so would be allowing it, thus being an accomplice to said sin.
|
What a bullshit excuse to inflitrate into the political process.
|
I hardly see how "voicing what you believe" compares to "infiltrating the political process".
|
true but first you said "fighting against a govermental decree legally allowing something you consider to be a sin" which seems like a obvious intrusion into the political system to have the laws influenced to favour your side.
This is actually one of the reasons I dislike certain forms of democracy. It's not without its flaws.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
"What, you think this means not to defend yourself from physical attack?"
|
Considering this question has been a source of in-fighting among christians for centuries, there isn't an absolute answer (thanks to the bible being so contradictory). So based on your question, it's obvious you were brought up on the pro-defense side that encourages the use of violent force for self-defense while I was brought up to be non-violent and pacifist towards others. While both sides have specific verses to back up their story; it comes down down to the time-honoured christian tradition of nitpicking and choosing what they feel comfortable with and we can thank the bible for giving us such a sound direction. [sarcasm]
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
The whole denomination thing is an easy way to reference different beliefs among groups, which, as you cannot deny, is very important. Hardly pathetic.
|
As someone who grew up as a "christian" and not as a "baptist" or "catholic" or "methodist" etc etc, I don't see how denominational differences are important; they are at the most superficial really. In America, even if you are a "christian" the question that is automatically asked you is "which denomination are you associated with" like as if that matters.
All christians, despite denominations, believe in the doctrine of creation as in genesis (some differ with the days vs eras in creation), the old testament stories are considered factual, all accept christ as saviour, his teachings and that of his disciples (albeit with some nitpicking), have some view on what is going to happen in the "end times" (either a second coming or rapture), and believe in a heaven and a hell.
The minor denominational differences are hardly important (just a mere sampling of the differences in opinion) in relation to the christian religion as a whole because each denomination is critical of the other and consider themselves to be right. They are in essence the same. You see why I think denominational differences are pathetic? Perhaps "pathetic" is a strong/wrong word to use..."irrelavent" and "pointless" is more apropriate.
Anyone else see how ridiculous denominations are? Despite all their inhibitions, doctrinal differences, fingerpointing and in-fighting, they all worship the same god, accept the same saviour, and are either going to the same hell or the same heaven. I don't know if I should laugh here or not.
I am not holding you personally accountable and never did (that would be stupid) but the crime done against me (encroaching on my intellectual freedom) were all because of YOUR religion. I am holding your religion accountable. Somehow in this thread, you elected yourself to represent the entire religion and play cover for it while hiding behind your denomination. That didn't work very well.
After the 9/11 attacks, did you as an American really give a shit as to whether the terrorists were Shia or Sunni? You would be lying through your teeth if you said yes. So why is it that when I have a complaint about an outrageous atrocity commited against me in the name of your god and your religion that you felt the need to use the denominational card to cover yourself?
So there you go...I couldn't have put this in simpler terms. btw, Spoony got the bullseye on denominations when he said this on page 1:
| Spoony wrote on Thu, 18 March 2010 02:43 |
I am perfectly happy to recognise the differences between the innumerable flavours of Christianity, so long as they don't deny the similarities (which tend to outnumber the differences)
|
And that's my point as well.
So anyway, the fact remains that a young adult atheist was forced to go to church against his will by christian parents due to religion (christianity in this case) never respecting an individual's intellectual freedom. Maybe when you are dragged to a mosque against your will, you too will feel the pain of absolute mental rape (which you have the sheer bloody luxury of not having experienced and I hope you never do) and this debate will stop being a "humorous" source of "cheap entertainment" to you. At that time, I would have rather traded their mind-rape for a couple lashes instead.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
It had to do with his ridiculous statement about how denominations don't seperate beliefs, and how I should be held against the beliefs of every person who calls himself a Christian.
|
From the very beginning of this debate I have been saying how religious people don't understand intellectual freedom i.e, I can think whatever I want and come to my own conclusion as to who we are. My example was that of my parents who said "you have to believe, there is no other choice for you." What made them say that? Their religion...not their denomination or their church but their religion. Would they NOT have said the same thing (or something along the same lines) if they were in another denomination? You bet!
Do you get it now?
Instead, you clearly misunderstood every word of it thinking I am blaming you on some silly belief differences, accused me of changing the subject, and you had to bring in denominations and how your denomination doesn't believe this or that and you came up with so many "don't blame me!" statements, and you had to bring in the idiotic example of abortion clinic bombing while that wasn't my point.
And you topped it off with an absurd example of atheists going on a killing spree and showed everyone how you completely misunderstand what atheism really is.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Christian or not, what are, or were, your thoughts on the subject, if I may ask?
|
Sure, but I don't know what you are asking me. Is it about the lack of musical instruments? If it is, I was a bit surprised at first that they reject the use of instruments considering the majority of christians favour their use and cite the story of David on the harps. But eitherway, they sung very well and had an impressive voice.
I am left curious as to why a denomination would disregard the first half of the bible and base its doctrine strictly on the second half...so strict of an intrepretation infact [please forgive the use of this word but "anal" seems appropriate here] that it went down to affecting their use of musical instruments in worship services.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
A description of religion's origins and evolutions hardly explains why you think the idea is made up.
|
I wonder how you can honestly say this and actually mean it when you outright claim that a thousand other religions are plain wrong just because you think so. Tell me about the other religions and how they are not made up, if you will.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
The denial card... are you sure you'd rather not just back up this claim?
|
So I am the one who is making up this claim now? The story of Abraham is in genesis for you to read, how he was from Ur in the Mesopotamian regions, how a god promised him a land with his own people, out came the jews, out came the arabs from Ishmael, then came jesus many generations later, then the christians after that.
Why would magazine writers choose to write "Abraham is the father of all three religions" when the bible itself loudly claims so? Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are also referred to as the Abrahamic religions because all 3 scriptures of these religions give importance to Abraham.
again, am I one who is making this claim? It's not your fault you haven't been told these things.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Raised and integrated by the people who murdered their parents, something they won't forget. Even if they did, the new parents would be loath to lie to the kid's eventual questions.
I'm sure you'll revert to chewing me out on the act itself now, but I still wish to know how you think this arrangement would work out.
|
Remarkable how you "pre-mention" me going to chew you out for the childkilling itself. I will save it considering you have expressed yourself throughly enough on why the children should be killed.
Eitherway, it was one of the only suggestions I can seriously think of to avoid killing the children and make a humane choice instead. And you had to turn that into something you can use against me and pose it as a question!
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Then I guess you'd better goto at least one worship service for every religion to make sure you decide fairly.
|
So you want multiple indoctrinations like as if one weren't enough? How's that going to work considering how many religions have died out? Sure you can take your kid to the Parthenon for a good enlightening experience. You are better off teaching them about religions without bias i.e, telling them how many religions existed before yours and how there's no evidence to back it up.
This goes against your brainwashing statement you made too. If I had my own kid in the future, I will definitely tell him the genesis origin story just as I would tell him of all the obsolete religions and their myths. But what I won't do is tell him these stories as if they are factual; that they really happened. If I did, then that would be brainwashing.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Why question mark when the question is so simple? What did the child Alexander learn and what belief systems did he have?
What about the Ötzi iceman? Just another human being we are fortunate enough to have found his body. What information was he given and what beliefs did he have? Is he in your hell too screaming and kickin? lol
I find all religious folks to not see the past that was before their religions came to power. It's all the more ridicluous when they say they are the one true religion ever.
|
Again = ?
What do those people have to do with the topic?
|
Why am I not surprised that someone religious doesn't understand this despite me writing plainly...?
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
there's a difference between mentally incapable of belief and deciding not to believe.
|
So you are saying either a person must be clinically braindead OR simply outright stubborn to not believe?
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Implying you are right and that I have yet to realize it. Pathetic.
|
You said you understood all the variables that make us to who we are even before we are born. When you jump on a recent belief system (this by no choice of your own!) and lord it over to the rest, you are going to look a bit clumsy to those who do indeed see the other religions too.
What I find pathetic is you rejecting every other religion, even those that came before yours, and also condemning them all to some sadistic roasting for eternity. So are you right? Really? Are you christians really this desperate to be in the middle of the grand scheme of things in the universe? Give me a break!
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
I believe it was a regular, public school.
|
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
Specific teachers. Mainly science ones, like biology
|
Was your 10th grade biolody teacher really this nasty to you? I would be surprised and feel sorry if that was the case. 10th grade is when biology is introduced in the American high school syllabus.
I remember it very clearly and pretty much the entire class (all kids indoctrinated with religious myths thanks to parental influence) were full of silent protest. After the class, I went to my friend (who was jewish) and bashed evolution to him. We then went up to the teacher and mindlessly argued with her as to how everything was there in the beginning including dinosaurs and giraffes. She just stood there silently probably wishing one day we would both come to our senses and see the real crime.
The great mother of all ironies here is that you complain that you are being told to shut up when infact the real criminals you should be prosecuting is not your poor Biology teachers but your own parents and the criminals at church who had already taken hold of your mind at an early age by indoctrinating it with religious dogma in sunday schools.
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
If only that was all they did.
Or even if that was just the main priority.
|
What other things are atheists doing that feels so despicable to you?
I am pretty sure you hate atheists sticking up for homosexuality. Well critical thinking is cumulative. There used to be a time as a christian that I disliked homosexuals and I claimed some awful stuff about them. You can read about in early posts of mine. Then my thick skull realized that I was just thumping dogma and that there really was no reason for me to bitch about homosexuals because:
1) they are not hurting anybody
2) they are consenting adults
3) that I was needlessly interefering into their personal lives
4) I, a complete outsider, is interefering with someone else's sex life.
^ thumping the bible does't allow you to come up with these reasonings.
Then I realized that I was only feeling "threatened" by them because of me upholding dogma.
It doesn't stop there. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. So there is "under god" in it and tbh, I don't mind it. But is this really "one nation under god?" Under what basis do you imply that this is "one nation under god" and do you have anything solid to say about it? To me it sounds like typical pumped-up mix of christianity and some crude patriotic rhetoric. I am really an outsider here but obviously many Americans feel it needs to go and I don't blame your fellow atheist countrymen for attempting to do so...
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430250 is a reply to message #422616] |
Sun, 06 June 2010 19:10 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Religious people always tend to think atheism is another belief system just to try to bring it down to their level to show it is equal to their lowly dogmas.
|
Not a belief SYSTEM, no.
But it also is not comepletely DEVOID of belief.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
The fact that you think "not brainwashing a kid with religion itself is brainwashing" tells a lot about you.
|
No, telling a kid anything as fact at all (including telling, as a fact, that no higher power exists) is brainwashing.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
The most important christian claim: that god is omnipresent watching your every move and shifting through your thoughts, punishing you (or "testing" you if you will), hearing prayers, answering them, and providing protection from danger would be too easy to observe or atleast discern but as I described above, there is no evidence, not a bit, of such a system existing.
|
It's most important because it's most popular. People like the idea of a higher power watching over them, rewarding, punishing, and guiding. Therefore it becomes important.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
They need not be compared? We were talking about how atheism, unlike christianity, doesn't threaten anyone with punishment for disagreeing with it. You responded to that with a "but they cause us grief and call as stupid" and now you are asking to not compare the two?
|
Let me try again - while hell is most assuredly worse than a verbal attack, it does not make a verbal attack insignificant.
Understand now?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Perhaps you should just concede the obvious; that atheism doesn't threaten anyone with painful eternal punishment for disagreeing with it.
|
You can't quote me as claiming the opposite, so I don't understand why you're putting words in my mouth.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
true but first you said "fighting against a govermental decree legally allowing something you consider to be a sin" which seems like a obvious intrusion into the political system to have the laws influenced to favour your side.
|
Did I?
I said I believe in voicing myself, and being heard, on my opinions and thoughts, like everyone else (I think that might be called intellectual freedom by some)... but not that we should take that to a fighting level. No higher than the usual governmental process, which was used to pass the governmental decree in the first place.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
All christians, despite denominations, believe in the doctrine of creation as in genesis (some differ with the days vs eras in creation), the old testament stories are considered factual, all accept christ as saviour, his teachings and that of his disciples (albeit with some nitpicking), have some view on what is going to happen in the "end times" (either a second coming or rapture), and believe in a heaven and a hell.
|
True.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
The minor denominational differences are hardly important (just a mere sampling of the differences in opinion) in relation to the christian religion as a whole because each denomination is critical of the other and consider themselves to be right. They are in essence the same. You see why I think denominational differences are pathetic? Perhaps "pathetic" is a strong/wrong word to use..."irrelavent" and "pointless" is more apropriate.
|
Denominations are seperated by small details, yes. But that doesn't make them "pointless".
I will use another example at the risk of you misunderstanding once more...
Researchers nearly finish calculations for a new outer-space rocket. However, one of the details in the physical formulas is interpreted two different ways. The researchers split up, unable to resolve the issue. Each build their own rocket, and their calculations are nearly identical, with only the one detail different.
Yes, the detail may be insignificant and will not harm either rocket.
But it is very possible that one interpretation will get the rocket in space and beyond, and the other will end up in the rocket's destruction.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Somehow in this thread, you made me think that you elected yourself to represent the entire religion and that caused my misunderstanding regarding denominations.
|
Fixed. Yeah, I can do that too.
Look, it's simple. When you make a point against something I believe in, I'll respond; if it's about something I don't believe in or something I agree with you about, I won't.
If the majority of Christians believe it and we don't, I won't defend it, and attaching it to me is just plain STUPID if I tell you I don't adhere to it.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
After the 9/11 attacks, did you as an American really give a shit as to whether the terrorists were Shia or Sunni? You would be lying through your teeth if you said yes. So why is it that when I have a complaint about an outrageous atrocity commited against me in the name of your god and your religion that you felt the need to use the denominational card to cover yourself?
|
See above? If the complaint is about something I believe in, I won't fling the denominational card, plain and simple.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Maybe when you are dragged to a mosque against your will, you too will feel the pain of absolute mental rape (which you have the sheer bloody luxury of not having experienced and I hope you never do) and this debate will stop being a "humorous" source of "cheap entertainment" to you. At that time, I would have rather traded their mind-rape for a couple lashes instead.
|
I don't share your background, and therefore don't hold this debate on the same mental standpoint as you.
Also, I never said this thread was "cheap entertainment" for me, and claiming such is putting words in my mouth.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Instead, you clearly misunderstood every word of it thinking I am blaming you on some silly belief differences, accused me of changing the subject, and you had to bring in denominations and how your denomination doesn't believe this or that and you came up with so many "don't blame me!" statements, and you had to bring in the idiotic example of abortion clinic bombing while that wasn't my point.
|
Clearly, you musinderstood ME, actually. That's as false of a summarization as I have ever seen.
When I use the denominational aspect, it's over something you want to blame me for despite the fact that I don't believe in it any more than you do.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
And you topped it off with an absurd example of atheists going on a killing spree and showed everyone how you completely misunderstand what atheism really is.
|
Yes, EXAMPLE. I know what atheism is, thank you. So how long are you going to continue this charade?
I don't think atheists are like that. It was an example, hypothetical - whatever the heck word you please.
Continuing to say that the example represents my view on what atheism is just continues to prove how close-minded and unreasonable you are becoming.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
A description of religion's origins and evolutions hardly explains why you think the idea is made up.
|
I wonder how you can honestly say this and actually mean it when you outright claim that a thousand other religions are plain wrong just because you think so. Tell me about the other religions and how they are not made up, if you will.
|
I was referring to you saying "I did hear how your culturally advanced denomination rejects the basic idea of god interefering with humanity. And I can see it for what it was; religious revision."
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Remarkable how you "pre-mention" me going to chew you out for the childkilling itself. I will save it considering you have expressed yourself throughly enough on why the children should be killed.
Eitherway, it was one of the only suggestions I can seriously think of to avoid killing the children and make a humane choice instead. And you had to turn that into something you can use against me and pose it as a question!
|
Excuse me for making a counterpoint to your own point - I thought we were supposed to do that in debates, no?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 17 May 2010 15:06 |
Why question mark when the question is so simple? What did the child Alexander learn and what belief systems did he have?
What about the Ötzi iceman? Just another human being we are fortunate enough to have found his body. What information was he given and what beliefs did he have? Is he in your hell too screaming and kickin? lol
I find all religious folks to not see the past that was before their religions came to power. It's all the more ridicluous when they say they are the one true religion ever.
|
Again = ?
What do those people have to do with the topic?
|
Why am I not surprised that someone religious doesn't understand this despite me writing plainly...?
|
Why am I surprised that the point you're trying to make apparently cannot be explained any simpler than this?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
there's a difference between mentally incapable of belief and deciding not to believe.
|
So you are saying either a person must be clinically braindead OR simply outright stubborn to not believe?
|
Do you think that every time I disagree with you, then what I actually believe is always completely opposite?
Either you or Spoony believes it can be impossible for an individual to believe in Christianity. And now you are claiming I believe that it can be impossible to think as an athiest?
Nope. Try again.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
What I find pathetic is you rejecting every other religion, even those that came before yours, and also condemning them all to some sadistic roasting for eternity. So are you right? Really? Are you christians really this desperate to be in the middle of the grand scheme of things in the universe? Give me a break!
|
I'm not, but God is, provided he does exist.
If you are angry about the "nonbelievers are going to burn in hell" aspect, don't blame me for it - I didn't design the system. I believe that the system exists, but it's not how I would have set it up.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
Was your 10th grade biolody teacher really this nasty to you?
|
Not me specifically, but a fellow student who got into a discussion with him about it.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
I am pretty sure you hate atheists sticking up for homosexuality.
|
I'm pretty sure you're wrong.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
1) they are not hurting anybody
|
That's not absolute, you know. Homosexuality can hurt people in several ways.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
2) they are consenting adults
|
This is indeed almost always the case
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
3) that I was needlessly interefering into their personal lives
|
If there's wrong in it (not just wrong in the religious aspect), then it isn't needless
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
4) I, a complete outsider, is interefering with someone else's sex life.
|
Same as above... you, a complete outsider, are interfering with my beliefs, and I, a complete outsider, am interfering with your ideas.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
It doesn't stop there. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. So there is "under god" in it and tbh, I don't mind it. But is this really "one nation under god?" Under what basis do you imply that this is "one nation under god" and do you have anything solid to say about it? To me it sounds like typical pumped-up mix of christianity and some crude patriotic rhetoric. I am really an outsider here but obviously many Americans feel it needs to go and I don't blame your fellow atheist countrymen for attempting to do so...
|
This particular example is one I can agree with on their terms. I can understand why they want it removed.
But what they want removed and censored isn't always this simple.
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430258 is a reply to message #430250] |
Sun, 06 June 2010 21:29 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Not a belief SYSTEM, no.
|
good.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
But it also is not comepletely DEVOID of belief.
|
so what beliefs does it have?
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
No, telling a kid anything as fact at all (including telling, as a fact, that no higher power exists) is brainwashing.
|
Actually the child will come to know of the numerous flavours of "higher powers" that have been produced by the numerous religions past and present.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
It's most important because it's most popular. People like the idea of a higher power watching over them, rewarding, punishing, and guiding. Therefore it becomes important.
|
Let's not forget from which text the people got this "idea" from.
Eitherway, good on you to finally acknowlege this in this thread. It's precisely this concept of a biblical dictatorship for which there is no evidence for.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
while hell is most assuredly worse than a verbal attack
|
good of you admit this because there is no equal to hell.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Denominations are seperated by small details, yes. But that doesn't make them "pointless".
Researchers nearly finish calculations for a new outer-space rocket. However, one of the details in the physical formulas is interpreted two different ways. The researchers split up, unable to resolve the issue. Each build their own rocket, and their calculations are nearly identical, with only the one detail different.
Yes, the detail may be insignificant and will not harm either rocket.
But it is very possible that one interpretation will get the rocket in space and beyond, and the other will end up in the rocket's destruction.
|
Analogy doesn't work. So you are saying that despite denominations' and their "small details" and with you agreeing with this:
| Starbuzzz |
All christians, despite denominations, believe in the doctrine of creation as in genesis (some differ with the days vs eras in creation), the old testament stories are considered factual, all accept christ as saviour, his teachings and that of his disciples (albeit with some nitpicking), have some view on what is going to happen in the "end times" (either a second coming or rapture), and believe in a heaven and a hell.
|
there's still a chance that once of them got it wrong? wrong enough to lead to the "rocket's destruction?" how absurd! These small details don't matter a bit.
According to their dogma, if they accept their jesus and stay away from sin, and live the life, they are either going to heaven or hell.
Anyway, do you have any pointers as to which denomination got it so worryingly wrong?
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Also, I never said this thread was "cheap entertainment" for me, and claiming such is putting words in my mouth.
|
Here:
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Practically everything humerous is this. It's useless for anything other than a cheap entertainment, but it can easily be seen as interesting.
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Yes, EXAMPLE. I know what atheism is, thank you. So how long are you going to continue this charade?
I don't think atheists are like that. It was an example, hypothetical - whatever the heck word you please.
Continuing to say that the example represents my view on what atheism is just continues to prove how close-minded and unreasonable you are becoming.
|
Not saying it represented your view on atheism. It simply confirmed my view on what religious folks first impressions of atheism is and I wasn't surprised when you wrote that example of mass murderers. Good on you if you changed your view.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Excuse me for making a counterpoint to your own point - I thought we were supposed to do that in debates, no?
|
It was the only suggestion I can think of to avoid killing the children. To turn that into a counterpoint just shows you are more interested in settling some score rather than come to a mutual conclusion.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
That's not absolute, you know. Homosexuality can hurt people in several ways.
|
have any reasoning behind this?
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
3) that I was needlessly interefering into their personal lives
|
If there's wrong in it (not just wrong in the religious aspect), then it isn't needless
|
wow
What do you mean by "wrong" here that you feel justifies you interefering? I would like you to clarify these "aspects" under which you feel intereference is necessary into the personal lives of others.
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Same as above... you, a complete outsider, are interfering with my beliefs, and I, a complete outsider, am interfering with your ideas.
|
When was the last time I took a atheist sign and showed up at your door on sunday morning to prevent you from going to church? Christians have more experience doing something like that when they protest other peoples' lifestyle choices. Refuting religious dogmas doesn't count as "interference" unless you are feeling a bit rattled. I don't see you as "interfering" with my atheism on the other hand.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430303 is a reply to message #430250] |
Mon, 07 June 2010 08:07 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
The fact that you think "not brainwashing a kid with religion itself is brainwashing" tells a lot about you.
|
No, telling a kid anything as fact at all (including telling, as a fact, that no higher power exists) is brainwashing.
|
i've never met an atheist who advocates telling kids that there's no such thing as god. that there's no evidence that there is one, let alone that anyone has discovered the details, sure. that faith is always a bad thing, sure. kids should be taught those.
but are you suggesting that, for example, teaching a kid that 2+2=4 in a maths class is "brainwashing"?
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
They need not be compared? We were talking about how atheism, unlike christianity, doesn't threaten anyone with punishment for disagreeing with it. You responded to that with a "but they cause us grief and call as stupid" and now you are asking to not compare the two?
|
Let me try again - while hell is most assuredly worse than a verbal attack, it does not make a verbal attack insignificant.
Understand now?
|
a "verbal attack" (i'd love to hear specifics) absolutely is insignificant compared to the two thousand years of hell threats.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
true but first you said "fighting against a govermental decree legally allowing something you consider to be a sin" which seems like a obvious intrusion into the political system to have the laws influenced to favour your side.
|
Did I?
I said I believe in voicing myself, and being heard, on my opinions and thoughts, like everyone else (I think that might be called intellectual freedom by some)... but not that we should take that to a fighting level. No higher than the usual governmental process, which was used to pass the governmental decree in the first place.
|
how fortunate you are, then, to live in a country with a secular democratic constitution.
| Quote: |
Researchers nearly finish calculations for a new outer-space rocket. However, one of the details in the physical formulas is interpreted two different ways. The researchers split up, unable to resolve the issue. Each build their own rocket, and their calculations are nearly identical, with only the one detail different.
Yes, the detail may be insignificant and will not harm either rocket.
But it is very possible that one interpretation will get the rocket in space and beyond, and the other will end up in the rocket's destruction.
|
scientists tend to resolve these questions by testing and observation and evidence, rather than mutual excommunication. and, best of all, the enormously flawed "they're reading the bible wrong" argument.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 20 May 2010 01:14 |
there's a difference between mentally incapable of belief and deciding not to believe.
|
So you are saying either a person must be clinically braindead OR simply outright stubborn to not believe?
|
Do you think that every time I disagree with you, then what I actually believe is always completely opposite?
Either you or Spoony believes it can be impossible for an individual to believe in Christianity.
|
eh?
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
What I find pathetic is you rejecting every other religion, even those that came before yours, and also condemning them all to some sadistic roasting for eternity. So are you right? Really? Are you christians really this desperate to be in the middle of the grand scheme of things in the universe? Give me a break!
|
I'm not, but God is, provided he does exist.
If you are angry about the "nonbelievers are going to burn in hell" aspect, don't blame me for it - I didn't design the system. I believe that the system exists, but it's not how I would have set it up.
|
sure, but it's always worth judging how much time any particular christian spends criticising atheists... against how much time they spend criticising the god.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
1) they are not hurting anybody
|
That's not absolute, you know. Homosexuality can hurt people in several ways.
|
go on?
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
4) I, a complete outsider, is interefering with someone else's sex life.
|
Same as above... you, a complete outsider, are interfering with my beliefs, and I, a complete outsider, am interfering with your ideas.
|
define "interfering with your beliefs", please, and explain how it is possibly comparable to interfering with someone's love life.
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
It doesn't stop there. Take the pledge of allegiance for example. So there is "under god" in it and tbh, I don't mind it. But is this really "one nation under god?" Under what basis do you imply that this is "one nation under god" and do you have anything solid to say about it? To me it sounds like typical pumped-up mix of christianity and some crude patriotic rhetoric. I am really an outsider here but obviously many Americans feel it needs to go and I don't blame your fellow atheist countrymen for attempting to do so...
|
This particular example is one I can agree with on their terms. I can understand why they want it removed.
But what they want removed and censored isn't always this simple.
|
"under god" should never have been put into the pledge, and its removal is long overdue.
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 #430421 is a reply to message #430303] |
Wed, 09 June 2010 10:12 |
|
Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator |
|
|
another note on the catholic church.
check the list of people who the catholic church has excommunicated.
on the list:
| Quote: |
Mother of a nine-year old Brazilian rape victim, for obtaining an abortion for her daughter. Also the doctors performing the abortion.
|
i'm not aware of any catholic priests who were thrown out of the church for raping children (and there are plenty of possible examples).
so in summary...
if your 9-year-old daughter is raped and made pregnant, don't even think about getting her an abortion (even though pregnancy at that age is quite likely to life-threatening). you're going straight to hell if you do that. but you're OK if you're the man who raped her in the first place.
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 #430448 is a reply to message #422616] |
Wed, 09 June 2010 20:57 |
|
Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
But it also is not comepletely DEVOID of belief.
|
so what beliefs does it have?
|
Either a belief that no higher power exists, or a very skeptical view of the idea of a higher power.
I suppose you could also define atheism as being open-minded and unresolved, maybe, but my impression of an atheist usually incoporates someone who has clearly decided his belief on whether or not any higher power exists.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
there's still a chance that once of them got it wrong? wrong enough to lead to the "rocket's destruction?" how absurd! These small details don't matter a bit.
|
Seriously? It's happened countless times, a small error ending with the failure of a mission (on any front, not just space exploration).
Plus, as you said yourself:
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
According to their dogma, if they accept their jesus and stay away from sin, and live the life, they are either going to heaven or hell.
|
Many details that denominations pick over deal with matters that are sins if done improperly. Baptists, for example, do not believe that baptism is necessary to be saved - if they're wrong, then there's a big problem...
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Also, I never said this thread was "cheap entertainment" for me, and claiming such is putting words in my mouth.
|
Here:
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 16 May 2010 23:38 |
Practically everything humerous is [useless]. It's useless for anything other than a cheap entertainment, but it can easily be seen as interesting.
|
|
Don't see where I said that this thread was cheap entertainment.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
Not saying it represented your view on atheism. It simply confirmed my view on what religious folks first impressions of atheism is and I wasn't surprised when you wrote that example of mass murderers. Good on you if you changed your view.
|
Now you're making assumptions on my first impression of atheism? Nice try, but wrong.
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
It was the only suggestion I can think of to avoid killing the children. To turn that into a counterpoint just shows you are more interested in settling some score rather than come to a mutual conclusion.
|
If it's the only suggestion, it's automatically valid?
| Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
| Altzan wrote on Sun, 06 June 2010 21:10 |
That's not absolute, you know. Homosexuality can hurt people in several ways.
|
have any reasoning behind this?
|
One example is health - homosexuality can be physically unhealthy.
Another could be how people's relationships can be ruined by the homo/hetero social gaps. I suppose that could be attributed to a public lack of acceptance of the lifestyle, but there you are.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 10:07 |
i've never met an atheist who advocates telling kids that there's no such thing as god. that there's no evidence that there is one, let alone that anyone has discovered the details, sure. that faith is always a bad thing, sure. kids should be taught those.
but are you suggesting that, for example, teaching a kid that 2+2=4 in a maths class is "brainwashing"?
|
Conceded.
It's not brainwashing if it's fact. It's difficult, however, to explain to a child the evidences against a religion while avoiding drawing conclusions for him or her.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 10:07 |
| Quote: |
Let me try again - while hell is most assuredly worse than a verbal attack, it does not make a verbal attack insignificant.
Understand now?
|
a "verbal attack" (i'd love to hear specifics) absolutely is insignificant compared to the two thousand years of hell threats.
|
But not so insignifigant that it should be ignored.
It's ridiclous to vindicate any abuse over an idea by comparing it to another.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 10:07 |
| Quote: |
Either you or Spoony believes it can be impossible for an individual to believe in Christianity.
|
eh?
|
Here:
Spoony: what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works.
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 10:07 |
| Quote: |
| Starbuzzz wrote on Thu, 03 June 2010 17:06 |
4) I, a complete outsider, is interefering with someone else's sex life.
|
Same as above... you, a complete outsider, are interfering with my beliefs, and I, a complete outsider, am interfering with your ideas.
|
define "interfering with your beliefs", please, and explain how it is possibly comparable to interfering with someone's love life.
|
It's quite plain to see that challenging my ideas and beliefs is "interference". Not negative, but interference nonetheless.
I don't know what you mean by a comparison to their love life - it's just another debate over a different topic, that one being homosexuality. Challenging their ideas on it and calling that "interfering with their love life" is the same as challenging a religious person's ideas and calling that "interfering with their religious life".
I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire
|
|
|
|
| Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #430459 is a reply to message #430448] |
Thu, 10 June 2010 01:25 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Either a belief that no higher power exists, or a very skeptical view of the idea of a higher power.
I suppose you could also define atheism as being open-minded and
unresolved, maybe, but my impression of an atheist usually incoporates someone who has clearly decided his belief on whether or not any higher power exists.
|
When there is no evidence of a "higher power watching over, rewarding, punishing, and guiding" then there's no need to believe so.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Seriously? It's happened countless times, a small error ending with the failure of a mission (on any front, not just space exploration).
|
The rocket analogy is just fine but comparing it to denominational differences isn't since denominations are just differences in opinions.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Many details that denominations pick over deal with matters that are sins if done improperly. Baptists, for example, do not believe that baptism is necessary to be saved - if they're wrong, then there's a big problem...
|
So a person can be a very devout christian; accept jesus as saviour, be prayerful, faithful, reading the scriptures, being compassionate, and loving everyone around yet go to hell just for not being baptised?
The entire concept of baptism (like every other christian concept) comes down to wrangling and nitpicking bible verses to form such varied opinions. There is absolutely no reason to think that baptism is necessary to be saved.
These differences are really trivial.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Now you're making assumptions on my first impression of atheism? Nice try, but wrong.
|
I didn't have to assume anything considering you illustrated well with that example:
| Altzan wrote on Thu, 13 May 2010 00:58 |
Fine. I'll go on a mudering spree and kill everyone even remotely religious, saying that they're poisioning our civilization and ruining our gene pool, and that I'm purifying the human race.
Oh, and I'll mention how I'm an atheist.
And you can't say that he's not a true atheist to cover yourselves, because that's just "pulling a fast one".
|
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
If it's the only suggestion, it's automatically valid?
|
You miss the point. That's the only suggestion I could come up with to avoid killing the children. What suggestions have you brought up to avoid having them killed? That's the point of this.
And christians have better morals than atheists? Here's someone who can't bring himself to object to the mass-murder of children. And I will remind you that there were so many cities the isralis raided and slaughtered off the populations that did not have practice any child-sacrifices.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
One example is health - homosexuality can be physically unhealthy.
|
You are too vague here.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
Another could be how people's relationships can be ruined by the homo/hetero social gaps. I suppose that could be attributed to a public lack of acceptance of the lifestyle, but there you are.
|
There used to be a time when a non-white person in America was treated differently than a white person. And your country was more christian then. And it's scary to think how "normal" it was. It is unthinkable now.
imo, "public lack of acceptance" is irrelavent. Tyranny of the majority shouldn't stop anyone from enjoying their lives. It was the same with race, it was the same with gender, it was the same with interraccial marriages, and I feel is is the same with homosexuals.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
It's difficult, however, to explain to a child the evidences against a religion while avoiding drawing conclusions for him or her.
|
so here's a christian concerned about atheists inadvertely "drawing conclusions" for their child. The irony kills me.
I wonder what makes you think atheists are going to cram such topics to a "child" in the first place?
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
But not so insignifigant that it should be ignored.
It's ridiclous to vindicate any abuse over an idea by comparing it to another.
|
There's no need for you to play victim here. And I don't know how you came to the conclusion that we are "vindicating abuse" when what we are saying is hell and verbal threats are absolutely not equal.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
| Spoony wrote on Mon, 07 June 2010 10:07 |
| Quote: |
Either you or Spoony believes it can be impossible for an individual to believe in Christianity.
|
eh?
|
Here:
Spoony: what i can't do is flick a switch and make myself believe any of this, it's not the way the mind works, or at least not the way my mind works.
|
You too would be unable to "flick a switch" and just believe if a person from another religion was trying to sell it to you. Won't you request solid proof, evidence, and actually think about it while trying to come to a decision? It's the same deal with atheists about christianity.
It's crazy what religious indoctrination can do to a person...it makes them absolutely sure that they are right. I have the luxury of knowing what it feels like i.e, having "faith." And you cannot have "faith" if you take away childhood brainwashing.
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
It's quite plain to see that challenging my ideas and beliefs is "interference". Not negative, but interference nonetheless.
|
Simply stating it is interference doesn't make it so. How is it interfering? Any specifics?
| Altzan wrote on Wed, 09 June 2010 22:57 |
I don't know what you mean by a comparison to their love life - it's just another debate over a different topic, that one being homosexuality. Challenging their ideas on it and calling that
"interfering with their love life" is the same as challenging a
religious person's ideas and calling that "interfering with their religious life".
|
Trying to have laws that prohibt a certain lifestyle is definitely interfering. You would be obstructing and hindering someone from living out their life in whichever way they choose to live just because YOU have a problem with it.
How did someone challenging your beliefs obstruct and hinder you from practising your faith?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 18 18:03:34 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02292 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
