Religion

[NivexQ]

Originally Posted by Crator

Are you under the assumption that slavery was a bad thing in biblical times? Cause it wasn't really tyrannical slavery like there was in the US, as far as I know. But perhaps I'm just ignorant to all the details...

http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html

Not all slave owners were complete and total assholes in the US either. It was just standard practice back then. Many even ended up falling in love with their slaves. It's just that only the really bad stuff makes it into books and movies, which is the only exposure many people have to the issue.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Effective

Does a lack of photographs invalidate someone's existence? Not necessarily. It certainly doesn't hurt. But as I said, there a re many public documents concerning the guy. Not to mention 25 books the man had published himself. Then we have british government records on the man. He also was a christian (and stopped completely when his daughter died), so you can probably find church records on him. There's a lot of evidence of the existence of Charles Darwin from several legitimate sources.

But, as I said, credible according to whom? My point, which you are so skilfully evading, is that you never met him, but you believe in his existence based on what someone else wrote. No need to belabor the point when you can't refute it. You believing 1000 people all singing in chorus that Charles Darwin existed, and that evolution is right, and that Mars is red, or whatever, doesn't validate it.

Millions were in favor of Nazism in Germany, far more than were publishing material to oppose it. That doesn't make them more credible. To you, however, that would, evidently, because in that day, the Germans who subscribed to Nazism believe in evolution, inferiority of the black man, etc, and that would line up with your method of choosing what you believe, because it was the prevailing scientific thought of that time, held by many people.

Originally Posted by Effective

So... Everytime something good happens to you, it's god's work, everytime something bad happens... NO, he's not responsible for that! Ok then.

That is so hard to imagine? So, if you have a child, and you say "Don't go over there." And the kid does, falls on his face, and busts his nose, that's your fault? You perniciously hovered over the kid and rammed his face in the rocks? I hope not, but in any case, blaming God for stuff that is bad is impossible. It isn't his fault that the world's a mess. What is funny is to try to credit a perfect being with sins and faults, trying to create God in your own image. People have been doing that for millenia. The God of the Bible is not one made up by man. You may not believe that, but it is still true.

Originally Posted by Effective

It's ultimately impossible to test everything yourself, rather then never believe...

Right, that's what I said. The fact is you BELIEVE something. You are living without actual, first-hand proof that much of what you believe is true. I'm not arguing how valid it is or isn't. You believe because someone else, a fallible man or men said it. You drive down a freeway because thousands of others have done it before you. If a Christian was standing beside the road with a "Bridge Out" sign, you might decry his idiocy for that, even if you ran over the ruined bridge and died. Or would you then blame God, claiming that if he was real, and good, he would NEVER have let an exalted one such as you, yourself driver over said bridge, and that that proves God is not real?

Originally Posted by Effective

And more, these things wouldn't have been possible without science.

Science wouldn't exist without God.

You say the Bible isn't evidence? Well, there we disagree. You have things you believe, I have things I believe. But the Bible, like the prose written by those to whom you subscribe, was also written by men, the difference being that it was written by men as led by the Holy Ghost, unlike every single thing in which YOU believe. You having never seen what you regard as evidence of God's existence doesn't disprove God any more than me not having witnessed JFK's assassination in person proves that it didn't happen. You are dealing with, or avoiding dealing with, an entity who will allow you to believe whatever you want. If you don't want to believe in God, then you are likely not going to see much that you would credit to him. The way God works, for the most part, is you believe first, then you see. Just like you treat Darwin, evolution, whatever your favorite sins are, you believe stuff is right, okay, and good, so your actions and experiences follow.

But you trying to denigrate what I believe because it isn't what you believe, and you have never, supposedly, seen any evidence thereof? Why bother? I don't care what you believe. Believe that hogs fly if you want. It doesn't change my life.

Originally Posted by Effective

I see science, it provides tangible evidence, approved by peer review.

No, you don't. You see stuff that OTHER people have written and produced. And you believe it. Were you in the same room as the neutrino discovery? Did you see them yourself? Again, I'm not discounting Neutrinos, buckytubes, or Strong Force. I'm just saying that most of our lives is lived based on discoveries and writings of others.

Originally Posted by Effective

The bible most certainly not evidence. Not understanding why something happened is not evidence of God.

I've directly followed instructions in the Bible and gotten supernatural, direct, personal results. You not having the same experience doesn't make it not true. It just makes it something YOU haven't experienced. And what in the Bible says that not understanding something proves God exists? I've read it through. Have you? It doesn't even imply that anywhere.

Originally Posted by Effective

I don't believe because there is no evidence, it has nothing to do with want or need.

You can believe what you want based on what you've experienced. I've experienced plenty that demonstrates that God is real. But, most of it was after I chose him. God is not obligated to run around proving his existence to people who wouldn't bother with him anyway, anymore than I'm required to prove to every woman on the planet that I can support her and a family. If a woman chooses me, she gets plenty of evidence that I am adequate to the task. But I don't need to buy a Lamborghini and start a web site to advertise and impress all the women on Earth, because they aren't, except for one maybe one day, going to choose me anyway.

Originally Posted by Effective

I don't let myself be brainwashed by a 2000 year old religion that comes up with rules and meaning that make no sense, have no evidence, and teaches people to be bigots.

Knowing God is not being brainwashed. I know it's cool to sling around such terms as bigot and brainwashing, because it casts shadows on others and makes you look erudite, scholarly, and sophisticated, at least to those who believe as you do, but believing different things are right and wrong than you do doesn't make people inferior to you.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by NivexQ

Not all slave owners were complete and total assholes in the US either. It was just standard practice back then. Many even ended up falling in love with their slaves. It's just that only the really bad stuff makes it into books and movies, which is the only exposure many people have to the issue.

Poltically incorrect, is once again, actually correct. Slavery blows. But, it wasn't always whitey thrashing poor slaves with a whip and working them to death. It goes on today, such as in Thailand and SE Asia in general (not so much Vietnam). As an alternative to starving to death, it's a choice many make.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Thanks for the laugh Traak. It's hard to believe all that was serious.

Please try to actually talk about the subject at hand, and not use this as another vent for some irrelevant character assault.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by Traak

But, as I said, credible according to whom? My point, which you are so skilfully evading, is that you never met him, but you believe in his existence based on what someone else wrote. No need to belabor the point when you can't refute it. You believing 1000 people all singing in chorus that Charles Darwin existed, and that evolution is right, and that Mars is red, or whatever, doesn't validate it.

This has come up before in a field totally unrelated to what we're talking about; security. The concept is trust and integrity (accuracy) of information. There's a line that is often drawn between boundaries. In the most classic examples you have graphs of trust where someone trusts someone else and that person trusts another creating a trusted network. The system can't work if someone doesn't trust anyone, and that node is often marked as "paranoid". (This analogy is to how computer networks are designed to the point where we have Trusted Third Parties (TTP) for handling certificates between untrusting users). What I'm trying to say is that arguing that everyone is lying to one another is paranoid. It's not dodging anything as it's a very lame argument to use since it assumes a huge cover-up.

Originally Posted by Traak

Science wouldn't exist without God.

From an Atheist perspective deities wouldn't exist without us.

Originally Posted by Traak

Knowing God is not being brainwashed. I know it's cool to sling around such terms as bigot and brainwashing, because it casts shadows on others and makes you look erudite, scholarly, and sophisticated, at least to those who believe as you do, but believing different things are right and wrong than you do doesn't make people inferior to you.

It's funny how you try to make our reasoned viewpoints out as "cool" as if to somehow make it seem like being a bigot is acceptable if it wasn't for "cool" people calling out illogical viewpoints toward same-sex relationships. Also if the people arguing against you seem scholarly that's not us doing that. I think you're just linking reasoned arguments to higher education. Santorum did the same thing in a few speeches lambasting Universities for indoctrinating students with "liberal" ideas when in fact Universities just teach people extremely strong critical thinking skills that in turn make them more reasoned usually.

The whole brainwashing thing is mostly related to childhood indoctrination of ideologies which many Atheists feel strongly about. (You'll see this in Atheist forums for instance where parents don't want to indoctrinate their children to be Atheist and there's complexities with that in US culture. The let them figure it out like I did approach). Children are way too easily manipulated by ideas and reversing "harmful" ways of thinking can be nearly impossible if they release all reason. You see this with Children that have grown up in the Westboro Church holding up signs they can't even read and being around hate speech. The same happens in the middle east when children are kidnapped and trained to be suicide bombers. Atheists generally just want Children to learn the basics of human knowledge and learn about the controversies when they're old enough to understand them and decide for themselves. Thankfully most education is objectively accepted or this could be a problem.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Traak

But, as I said, credible according to whom? My point, which you are so skilfully evading, is that you never met him, but you believe in his existence based on what someone else wrote. No need to belabor the point when you can't refute it. You believing 1000 people all singing in chorus that Charles Darwin existed, and that evolution is right, and that Mars is red, or whatever, doesn't validate it.

Millions were in favor of Nazism in Germany, far more than were publishing material to oppose it. That doesn't make them more credible. To you, however, that would, evidently, because in that day, the Germans who subscribed to Nazism believe in evolution, inferiority of the black man, etc, and that would line up with your method of choosing what you believe, because it was the prevailing scientific thought of that time, held by many people.

Your point is nonexistent, there is evidence for darwin's existence, through multiple sources and public government records. Using that line of logic, having never met someone personally, I guess Obama and the majority of the US government don't exist.

The fact that their are multiple publications regarding those topics, from multiple sources validates that they indeed exist. Whether or not they were written by fallible people is irrelevant.

The whole Nazim subject is something that can be debated in a completely different topic. As overall it's unrelated to what we're discussing at this time. The science behind the beliefs they held at the current times are either disproven replaced, or they aren't and are kept. This is the way science works.

Originally Posted by Traak

That is so hard to imagine? So, if you have a child, and you say "Don't go over there." And the kid does, falls on his face, and busts his nose, that's your fault? You perniciously hovered over the kid and rammed his face in the rocks? I hope not, but in any case, blaming God for stuff that is bad is impossible. It isn't his fault that the world's a mess. What is funny is to try to credit a perfect being with sins and faults, trying to create God in your own image. People have been doing that for millenia. The God of the Bible is not one made up by man. You may not believe that, but it is still true.

No, it is the kids fault, but you evaded the bit I was getting at. You immediately give credit for anything good happening as god's work, as if he personally wanted you to live happily (though looking at evidence for which people in the world are happiest suggests that atheists are indeed living longer, healthier, more peaceful lives). God by the definition is a "perfect" omnipotent being. All evidence suggests the bible was written by multiple people. Hardly the work of a divine creator.

Originally Posted by Traak

Right, that's what I said. The fact is you BELIEVE something. You are living without actual, first-hand proof that much of what you believe is true. I'm not arguing how valid it is or isn't. You believe because someone else, a fallible man or men said it. You drive down a freeway because thousands of others have done it before you. If a Christian was standing beside the road with a "Bridge Out" sign, you might decry his idiocy for that, even if you ran over the ruined bridge and died. Or would you then blame God, claiming that if he was real, and good, he would NEVER have let an exalted one such as you, yourself driver over said bridge, and that that proves God is not real?

What I believe has evidence published publicly and is subject to peer review and is always subject to change through the scientific method. This is what we call scientific theory.

Why would I believe a sign some random person is holding up? What if says "Unicorns are real!" Are you that gullible? Why would a random christian stand beside a road and not on it? Why would he not simply drive his own car and turnon his blinkers and block the road? Why would the local government not already have blocked it off and setup detours? Why would I blame someone who I don't even think exists?

Originally Posted by Traak

Science wouldn't exist without God.

Can you prove that God exists? Until you can statements like this hold no relevance. It's like a hippy telling me he's going to punch my aura.

Originally Posted by Traak

You say the Bible isn't evidence? Well, there we disagree. You have things you believe, I have things I believe. But the Bible, like the prose written by those to whom you subscribe, was also written by men, the difference being that it was written by men as led by the Holy Ghost, unlike every single thing in which YOU believe. You having never seen what you regard as evidence of God's existence doesn't disprove God any more than me not having witnessed JFK's assassination in person proves that it didn't happen. You are dealing with, or avoiding dealing with, an entity who will allow you to believe whatever you want. If you don't want to believe in God, then you are likely not going to see much that you would credit to him. The way God works, for the most part, is you believe first, then you see. Just like you treat Darwin, evolution, whatever your favorite sins are, you believe stuff is right, okay, and good, so your actions and experiences follow.

There are a lot of things written in the bible and other religious texts that don’t make any sense, or have been scientifically disproven or are even self-contradictory. This seems to suggest that these texts had misinformed or multiple human authors who sometimes overlapped and contradicted each other. Or there have been errors made reproducing these texts over time because they’re copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Either way it doesn’t seem like the work of a divine creator.

As I said, I already acknowledged that anything is possible. But that means I to technically means I have to be agnostic about the existence of unicorns, vampires, werewolves, and Santa Claus. You cannot prove these things don't exist. Through out time, things that were credited to a god or divine being have been proven to be actually completely explainable through science.

So if you simply need to believe, how do I know which religion is correct? Hinduism is older then Christianity. Are they the correct religion? What about Islam? The Greek Pantheon? Wiccan? How many more are there out there? The most likely reason you believe as you do, is that is what your parents taught you. What about people who will never hear of the Abrahamic god? Through the logic of the bible, these people will go to hell for the simple "crime" of having never been born in a place where Christianity is popular.

Originally Posted by Traak

But you trying to denigrate what I believe because it isn't what you believe, and you have never, supposedly, seen any evidence thereof? Why bother? I don't care what you believe. Believe that hogs fly if you want. It doesn't change my life.

How are my criticisms of your faith unfair? Because I ask for you to provide evidence of your belief? You make a claim god exists, and the bible is his holy word. It's your responsibility to show the evidence to prove your claim.

Originally Posted by Traak

No, you don't. You see stuff that OTHER people have written and produced. And you believe it. Were you in the same room as the neutrino discovery? Did you see them yourself? Again, I'm not discounting Neutrinos, buckytubes, or Strong Force. I'm just saying that most of our lives is lived based on discoveries and writings of others.

I do, the fact that other people wrote them are irrelevant. As what they write is subject to criticism, peer review, and allows the flow of new information to replace old information. No I wasn't, but the scientific publications on the subject were fascinating.

Originally Posted by Traak

I've directly followed instructions in the Bible and gotten supernatural, direct, personal results. You not having the same experience doesn't make it not true. It just makes it something YOU haven't experienced. And what in the Bible says that not understanding something proves God exists? I've read it through. Have you? It doesn't even imply that anywhere.

So did Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman, they both claim to have personal contact from God. Can you prove that you had "contact" with god? Without proof you're just another conman or crackhead to me. If I had the same experience, I would immediately assume I was hallucinating and would seek medical attention from a trained professional. You're misinterpreting what I said. Religion was used to explain why natural phenomena occurred during a time where science was mostly non-existent. Today that same argument is used in arguments of the origins of the universe and a few other topics. We don't know, doesn't mean we won't learn the real reason eventually.

Yes I have read the bible and of course the bible is incorrect on a few scientific topics.

Originally Posted by Traak

You can believe what you want based on what you've experienced. I've experienced plenty that demonstrates that God is real. But, most of it was after I chose him. God is not obligated to run around proving his existence to people who wouldn't bother with him anyway, anymore than I'm required to prove to every woman on the planet that I can support her and a family. If a woman chooses me, she gets plenty of evidence that I am adequate to the task. But I don't need to buy a Lamborghini and start a web site to advertise and impress all the women on Earth, because they aren't, except for one maybe one day, going to choose me anyway.

I'll "believe" when there's evidence. Jesus appearing on a piece of toast isn't evidence. You claim to have these experiences but provide no proof. I can claim I've experience firebreathing dragons. Doesn't make them true, or it just means I need to seek immediate medical attention for my mental health. If God wants worship, yes he should provide evidence, and maybe a bit more reasons as to why anyone would want to worship a narcissistic tyrant that makes Hitler seem all cuddly and fluffy. Your potential as a romantic suitor is a completely different and unrelated subject, and has evidence to show if you are legit partner or just another person.

Originally Posted by Traak

Knowing God is not being brainwashed. I know it's cool to sling around such terms as bigot and brainwashing, because it casts shadows on others and makes you look erudite, scholarly, and sophisticated, at least to those who believe as you do, but believing different things are right and wrong than you do doesn't make people inferior to you.

You are indeed brainwashed and you are a bigot. The point of brainwashing is that generally the subject doesn't even know that they have been brainwashed. Had you been raised in a different country you would have a different set of beliefs that differ from what you have now. This indoctrination is prominent across the entire planet, but it's hold of the world is slowly breaking and free thinkers are starting to become more and more open now that they don't have to worry about being murdered for not believing in the "values" of another..

Whether or not I'm scholarly or sophisticated is irrelevant. I don't say you're brainwashed to insult you, I say it because I pity you. It has little to do with superiority or inferiority.

You believe for example that being gay is a sin. Why is it a sin? Because the bible says so? Why does it say so? Why does it matter? Why is it wrong? How does it affect me personally? If a gay guy in the next apartment over sleeps with another man, do I wake up the next morning with leprosy? Oh it doesn't? Why should it matter then?

What other people do with their lives is none of your or my business. Because you think it's your business, and because you feel what these people are doing as wrong, and because of that you spread fearmongering words such as "you're going to hell". This is what makes you a bigot. You're refusal to let other people who don't believe as you do live their lives in peace, when they have done nothing wrong.

[Traak]

Originally Posted by Effective

Your point is nonexistent, there is evidence for darwin's existence...

I never claimed he didn't. Try reading what I say instead of what you dearly wish I said so you can look clever for refuting something I never claimed. You believe Darwin existed. You never met him, and without reading stuff that others wrote, you wouldn't know he existed. Please don't twist this into some other unrelated anything

Originally Posted by Effective

The fact that their are multiple publications regarding those topics, from multiple sources validates that they indeed exist. Whether or not they were written by fallible people is irrelevant.

Proliferation does not make something more true. If that were the case, then the proliferation of Nazi propaganda posters would prove Hitler was right, while all the books that didn't exist claiming he wasn't would add fuel to the fire.

Originally Posted by Effective

You immediately give credit for anything good happening as god's work...

Actually, the Bible does it. I just believe it.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Originally Posted by Effective

What I believe has evidence published publicly...

So does what I believe. I have seen evidence, I have seen it get peer review, review from doctors, etc. who found it to be true. Miracles, healings, all attested to by disinterested third parties. YOU haven't seen the evidence I have. That doesn't make the evidence you choose to peruse better than mine.

Originally Posted by Effective

Can you prove that God exists?

Did I claim that I could? Or that I cared if you believe if he does? It isn't your job to prove that he doesn't, especially to me. Might as well tell fish that water is a fallacy because you live in a desert.

Originally Posted by Effective

There are a lot of things written in the bible and other religious texts that don’t make any sense...

There are things that Einstein said that you don't understand, also. That doesn't disprove Einstein's intelligence. It disproves yours.

Originally Posted by Effective

As I said, I already acknowledged that anything is possible. But that means I to technically means I have to be agnostic about the existence of unicorns, vampires, werewolves, and Santa Claus. You cannot prove these things don't exist. Through out time, things that were credited to a god or divine being have been proven to be actually completely explainable through science.

And stuff that has been done by God has been proven to be physically, medically, and any other way, impossible but for it being God at work. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean no one else on the whole planet hasn't.

Originally Posted by Effective

What about people who will never hear of the Abrahamic god? Through the logic of the bible, these people will go to hell for the simple "crime" of having never been born in a place where Christianity is popular.

Yes, you have never read the Bible, have you? I mean, not even one word, I'm guessing?

Romans 2
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

God holds you responsible for what you DO know, or what you REFUSE to know, not what you DON'T know and can't know.

Originally Posted by Effective

How are my criticisms of your faith unfair?

Who said that?

Originally Posted by Effective

Because I ask for you to provide evidence of your belief? You make a claim god exists, and the bible is his holy word. It's your responsibility to show the evidence to prove your claim.

No it isn't. I am not obligated to show you anything. You are free to do whatever you want. I state what I believe. I'm not your puppy, who has to produce stuff or do tricks at your command. When did you get that idea? Do I ask you to prove anything? No. I stated that everyone believes stuff, and that you believe stuff based on evidence you accept, but your claims that your beliefs are based on such VASTLY different and superior evidence? You believe what men told you. In your case, if enough people say something, you are more likely to believe it. Propaganda and advertising prey on that trait.

Originally Posted by Effective

I do, the fact that other people wrote them are irrelevant. As what they write is subject to criticism, peer review, and allows the flow of new information to replace old information. No I wasn't, but the scientific publications on the subject were fascinating.

It is evident that if something is regarded, by you, as being "scientific" then it is better, somehow. At least, YOUR definition of scientific, which means, loosely, anything that doesn't give evidence of there being a God. Why is "old information" in need of replacing? Something being old makes it bad? Not everything that is old is bad. When something is right, it doesn't need replacing and re-theorizing. However, when something is wrong, it is replaced, most often by something else that is wrong, ad infinitum. That is the "scientific approach". The reason many rail against the Word of God is that it doesn't NEED to change. Murder is still wrong. Having sex with someone else's wife is still wrong, and can often lead to death, if you are caught. God's Word is not in need of change.

How is it that something that needs changing every so often is deemed more accurate than something that needs no change? Should we quit having men mating with women, because that is the old fashioned way? I know the species would go extinct if everyone was gay, but it's new so, thus, better? How many people have to extol something before you believe it? 10? 20? 200,000,000? Where is the tipping point? As I said, using your "more is better" method, you would have agreed that negroes were inferior monkey beings in WWII, if you lived in Germany because the prevailing propaganda and scientific thought said so.

Darwin's writings are inclusive of such racism, which the Word of God is not. Should we have changed the Bible to suit the new, current, hip, trendy Nazi ideals, then changed it back when the Civil Rights movement took hold?

Originally Posted by Effective

Can you prove that you had "contact" with god?

As I said, you aren't my God, I don't have to prove anything to you. You state what you believe, which is almost entirely what you have been told, or read, by other people, many or most of whom are dead. I believe what God says, and he's still alive. I believe he is almighty enough to inspire people to write a book so people can know Him. Why do you keep whinging about ME proving anything to YOU?

Originally Posted by Effective

Yes I have read the bible and of course the bible is incorrect on a few scientific topics.

Is it?

Originally Posted by Effective

I'll "believe" when there's evidence.

I don't care what or when you believe. Please quit assuming I do.

Originally Posted by Effective

I am indeed brainwashed and I am a bigot. The point of brainwashing is that generally the subject doesn't even know that they have been brainwashed. Had you been raised in a different country you would have a different set of beliefs that differ from what you have now. This indoctrination is prominent across the entire planet, but it's hold of the world is slowly breaking and free thinkers are starting to become more and more open now that they don't have to worry about being murdered for not believing in the "values" of another..

There. I fixed that quote for you to make it more accurate. You are the one with the hostility, who uses accusations and slander in what you post. You consistently fail to address what I actually said, instead claiming I say stuff, or care what you believe, which I don't.

Originally Posted by Effective

You believe for example that being gay is a sin.

The Bible says it. More than once.

Originally Posted by Effective

Why is it a sin?

Because sin brings death. Sin in any form brings death. The more egregious the sin, the more death it brings. Take, for example, the massive proliferation of the AIDS epidemic, where a minute sample of the population is responsible for over half the infections. Namely, homosexual men. Homosexuality was a sin long before the AIDS epidemic, however, and will remain one long after, if ever, they find a cure.

Originally Posted by Effective

Why does it say so? Why does it matter? Why is it wrong? How does it affect me personally? If a gay guy in the next apartment over sleeps with another man, do I wake up the next morning with leprosy? Oh it doesn't? Why should it matter then?

Sin isn't only sin when it directly and immediately harms others. It's sin when the only persons involved are the sinner and God. Sin is wrong because it is harmful to the person who does it, not just the person it is done to. Eventually, the results will poison the lives of those nearby on outward. Lying is a sin. I know most think lying is okay, but it isn't. If nobody lied, what would politics be like? Marriages? Life in general? Lying is bad. Accepting it is also bad. What is inconsequential on an individual basis poisons the world when it is practiced by more and more people.

Originally Posted by Effective

What other people do with their lives is none of your or my business.

Really? So there are no laws, none whatsoever, that deal with what people do themselves? No laws against drug use? Possession? Lying on a tax form? Cruelty to animals? Society is loaded with laws that make it our business what others do, even when it has no immediate or direct impact. Anarchy only leads to the worst scum ruling over everyone else. Nazi rule was bad. What was worse was the Russians when they came in, with almost no discipline whatsoever, and raped their way across Europe.

You can't have a society where everyone gets to do whatever they want, because it doesn't STAY with them. Homosexuals proselytize by raping and otherwise indoctrinating young boys, such as in the Catholic "church." The problem with sin is that it never stays satisfied ruining the life of the practitioner. It poisons the lives of others, also. If it were possible for someone to sin, all by himself, and have it not affect anyone at all, anywhere, then it is likely that he is living on a deserted island, alone. Sin ruins the character of the person who does it, who, in turn sins against others.

Originally Posted by Effective

Because you think it's your business

Do I? I make it my business to promote Godly heterosexuality. This is at odds with homosexuality. I oppose sin in general. Homosexuality, however, is among the most aggressively marketed, lobbied, and pushed sins, along with being one of the most damaging to its victims, willing or otherwise, so I oppose that more. If homosexuality ceased to exist in America, as many people would NOT die (from AIDS, along with other STD's) as from eliminating gun crime, per year, but that is not the point. Sin is wrong whether it spreads an STD or makes you a million dollars. Not everyone feels content to sit down and let others advance their cause without opposing it. You made it your business to repeatedly misquote and distort what I said, adding in assumptions and just plain untruths. Why? Because you don't agree with me? Imagine that. You don't agree, and you oppose, but you accuse me of being negative because I do that, also.

Originally Posted by Effective

and because the Bible, which is God's Word, states without any equivocation that what these people are doing is wrong, and because of that you spread warning words such as "you're going to hell".

There, I altered that quote for you to accurately represent the truth, not your made-up version.

Originally Posted by Effective

You're refusal to let other people who don't believe as you do live their lives in peace, when they have done nothing wrong.

How am I doing anything different than what you are doing? You oppose me, and what you think/believe/make up that I stand for, and I oppose sin. But when you do it, it's okay, but when I do it, it's wrong?

[Figment]

Traak, coincidentally just posted this in the other thread, did you know the bible classifies bats as birds?

And let's not get started on geology.

So yes, it is incorrect.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by Traak

I never claimed he didn't.

Then the I refer to the first sentence of my statement, your point is nonexistent.

Originally Posted by Traak

Proliferation does not make something more true. If that were the case, then the proliferation of Nazi propaganda posters would prove Hitler was right, while all the books that didn't exist claiming he wasn't would add fuel to the fire.

Comparing nazi war propaganda to well known information provided in your average high school education is a pointless endeavor and does nothing to further your claim that God exists.

Originally Posted by Traak

Actually, the Bible does it. I just believe it.

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Quoting the bible does nothing to further your argument. Pretending it does is a waste of your time.

Originally Posted by Traak

So does what I believe. I have seen evidence, I have seen it get peer review, review from doctors, etc. who found it to be true. Miracles, healings, all attested to by disinterested third parties. YOU haven't seen the evidence I have. That doesn't make the evidence you choose to peruse better than mine.

If there was a well documented incident of faith healing legitimately working, then it would be all over legitimate medical journal publications. "Peer Review" by biased christian doctors is not exactly the same thing as a legitimate form of peer review.

Originally Posted by Traak

Did I claim that I could? Or that I cared if you believe if he does? It isn't your job to prove that he doesn't, especially to me. Might as well tell fish that water is a fallacy because you live in a desert.

Your rather poor analogy does nothing to further your argument, if you cannot back up your claim posting anything regarding the topic is a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Traak

There are things that Einstein said that you don't understand, also. That doesn't disprove Einstein's intelligence. It disproves yours.

While it's true that not everything Einstein I understand. This has nothing do with the fact that the bible is (allow me to post that full quote for you)

Originally Posted by Effective

There are a lot of things written in the bible and other religious texts that don’t make any sense, or have been scientifically disproven or are even self-contradictory. This seems to suggest that these texts had misinformed or multiple human authors who sometimes overlapped and contradicted each other. Or there have been errors made reproducing these texts over time because they’re copies of copies of copies of translations of translations of translations. Either way it doesn’t seem like the work of a divine creator.

Not to mention Einsteins theories are subject to peer review and can always be disproven under the scientific method. Where as religious texts cannot.

Originally Posted by Traak

And stuff that has been done by God has been proven to be physically, medically, and any other way, impossible but for it being God at work. Just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean no one else on the whole planet hasn't.

Not understanding how something happened is not evidence for the existence of a God.

Originally Posted by Traak

Yes, you have never read the Bible, have you? I mean, not even one word, I'm guessing?

Romans 2
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

God holds you responsible for what you DO know, or what you REFUSE to know, not what you DON'T know and can't know.

I'm willing to bet I've read more of the bible then you have.

and know more about the contradictions surrounding that particular passage you picked.

Romans 2
30Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Hey look I can quote the bible too!

Originally Posted by Traak

Who said that?

Definition of denigrate = Criticize unfairly

Originally Posted by Traak

No it isn't. I am not obligated to show you anything. You are free to do whatever you want. I state what I believe. I'm not your puppy, who has to produce stuff or do tricks at your command. When did you get that idea? Do I ask you to prove anything? No. I stated that everyone believes stuff, and that you believe stuff based on evidence you accept, but your claims that your beliefs are based on such VASTLY different and superior evidence? You believe what men told you. In your case, if enough people say something, you are more likely to believe it. Propaganda and advertising prey on that trait.

If you cannot provide legitimate testable data on the existence of god, then you have no footing to stand and throw claims around. And yes, what I believe does have superior evidence. If you understand how the scientific process worked, you would realize how utterly futile your "argument" is in this case.

Originally Posted by Traak

It is evident that if something is regarded, by you, as being "scientific" then it is better, somehow. At least, YOUR definition of scientific, which means, loosely, anything that doesn't give evidence of there being a God. Why is "old information" in need of replacing? Something being old makes it bad? Not everything that is old is bad. When something is right, it doesn't need replacing and re-theorizing. However, when something is wrong, it is replaced, most often by something else that is wrong, ad infinitum. That is the "scientific approach". The reason many rail against the Word of God is that it doesn't NEED to change. Murder is still wrong. Having sex with someone else's wife is still wrong, and can often lead to death, if you are caught. God's Word is not in need of change.

How is it that something that needs changing every so often is deemed more accurate than something that needs no change? Should we quit having men mating with women, because that is the old fashioned way? I know the species would go extinct if everyone was gay, but it's new so, thus, better? How many people have to extol something before you believe it? 10? 20? 200,000,000? Where is the tipping point? As I said, using your "more is better" method, you would have agreed that negroes were inferior monkey beings in WWII, if you lived in Germany because the prevailing propaganda and scientific thought said so.

Darwin's writings are inclusive of such racism, which the Word of God is not. Should we have changed the Bible to suit the new, current, hip, trendy Nazi ideals, then changed it back when the Civil Rights movement took hold?

You clearly misunderstand what science. Science is the search for knowledge and truth. No legitimate evidence has ever been discovered that actually backs up the hypothesis of a divine creator. The scientific method allows old information that becomes proven incorrect to be replaced by the more up to date correct information. This is how science constantly improves upon itself. It is not infallible, and scientist make no claims that it is infallible. And no, wrong information does not replace wrong information. The theory of gravity has not chanced for some time. Does this mean gravity is false? Why don't you jump of the top of a tall building, see how that works out for you.

Yes because the word of god is completely infallible! Oh wait...
Contradictions in the Bible
Scientific Errors
Not to mention a outdated bronze-age "morality".

Murder is indeed wrong, sleeping with someone else's wife is indeed wrong. But the bible seems to approve of slavery, genocide, murder and more then a few other things.

The scientific method makes it so that no theory is infallible, if new information is revealed that disproves a previous theory, the theory is reworked to include the new information. This system allows science to constantly better itself so we can understand how the world works.

Your next bit is a rather pointless strawman argument. Nothing I've posted suggested anything of the sort.

How many people is irrelevant, once it is agreed upon by the scientific community, experts in a particular field of study. That is enough for the majority of anyone who knows anything about how science works, though some might try to find ways to disprove a theory, which is good. Because that's how science is meant to work. This has little to do with "more is better"

And clearly the science behind the "******" are inferior would be disproved in this day and age, thus that information would be discarded and the new theory would reflect that change.

Darwin's racism has little to do with anything, his original idea of evolution has led us to the theory that ties everything we know about biology. Many people have been less then perfect in one aspect or another.

The bible would be against the civil rights movement actually, since slavery is cool and all.

Originally Posted by Traak

As I said, you aren't my God, I don't have to prove anything to you. You state what you believe, which is almost entirely what you have been told, or read, by other people, many or most of whom are dead. I believe what God says, and he's still alive. I believe he is almighty enough to inspire people to write a book so people can know Him. Why do you keep whinging about ME proving anything to YOU?

If you cannot provide evidence, then you have no case, you're just another poor indoctrinated person who didn't have the good fortune to learn good critical thinking skills

Originally Posted by Traak

Is it?

Yes

Originally Posted by Traak

I don't care what or when you believe. Please quit assuming I do.

Caring is irrelevant. Your bronze-age novel is not proof.

Originally Posted by Traak

There. I fixed that quote for you to make it more accurate. You are the one with the hostility, who uses accusations and slander in what you post. You consistently fail to address what I actually said, instead claiming I say stuff, or care what you believe, which I don't.

Except in order to be a bigot, I would have to be intolerant of your Christianity/religion, which I'm very tolerant of actually. I don't generalize Christians like you do with gay people. I recognize that some Christians are indeed not bigots.

I've really ultimately only asked for proof of your claim, something you've failed to do. You however on multiple occasions have belittled and insulted anyone who doesn't think the way you do, the tone of those posts making those people out to be less then animals. I have no hostility towards you. You consistently fail to actually address anything relevant, all you've ultimately done is create a bunch of strawmen, who do nothing to further your claims of a supernatural supreme being.

And in order to be brainwashed, I would have to radical beliefs that are highly unreasonable. Asking for proof is not unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Traak

The Bible says it. More than once.

Bronze age fairy tails are not relevant. Nor does it address questions I've asked.

Originally Posted by Traak

Because sin brings death. Sin in any form brings death. The more egregious the sin, the more death it brings. Take, for example, the massive proliferation of the AIDS epidemic, where a minute sample of the population is responsible for over half the infections. Namely, homosexual men. Homosexuality was a sin long before the AIDS epidemic, however, and will remain one long after, if ever, they find a cure.

Actually AIDs spread mostly because of unsafe sex practices, it had little to do with being gay or not gay. Also there are a few decent hypothesis as to where HIV came from. There is a similar virus that affects chimpanzees's called SIVcpz. The hypothesis is that it mutated and jumped species, obviously speculation, but the similarities between the 2 virus's are very close, and of course humans are close related to chimpanzees (naturally this is only a hypothesis, but it brings an interesting course of thought). And of course homosexuality as you mentioned has existed for a very long time, and AIDs/HIV started appearing in the late 1980's. Seems and awful long time to punish for a "sin".

Originally Posted by Traak

Sin isn't only sin when it directly and immediately harms others. It's sin when the only persons involved are the sinner and God. Sin is wrong because it is harmful to the person who does it, not just the person it is done to. Eventually, the results will poison the lives of those nearby on outward. Lying is a sin. I know most think lying is okay, but it isn't. If nobody lied, what would politics be like? Marriages? Life in general? Lying is bad. Accepting it is also bad. What is inconsequential on an individual basis poisons the world when it is practiced by more and more people.

What evidence is there that being gay harms the person? As far as I can tell, every gay person I've ever met is generally just as happy as anyone else. Strange, I've never felt the need to lie when I met a gay person. My manager from my first job in high school was gay and said I was cute. I told him, I'm not interested in men and that ended that. I'm still me. Have I lied? Yes, back when I was a little kid and didn't want to get in trouble. Nowadays, telling a lie usually involves a practical joke on a friend, hardly an environment that breeds distrust and "sin".

Originally Posted by Traak

Really? So there are no laws, none whatsoever, that deal with what people do themselves? No laws against drug use? Possession? Lying on a tax form? Cruelty to animals? Society is loaded with laws that make it our business what others do, even when it has no immediate or direct impact. Anarchy only leads to the worst scum ruling over everyone else. Nazi rule was bad. What was worse was the Russians when they came in, with almost no discipline whatsoever, and raped their way across Europe.

You can't have a society where everyone gets to do whatever they want, because it doesn't STAY with them. Homosexuals proselytize by raping and otherwise indoctrinating young boys, such as in the Catholic "church." The problem with sin is that it never stays satisfied ruining the life of the practitioner. It poisons the lives of others, also. If it were possible for someone to sin, all by himself, and have it not affect anyone at all, anywhere, then it is likely that he is living on a deserted island, alone. Sin ruins the character of the person who does it, who, in turn sins against others.

Creating a strawman again.
Add 2 and 2. Clearly I don't care if someone is gay or not. It doesn't affect me personally at all. It's none of my business nor is it yours.

Perhaps you should stop generalizing and realize that being gay doesn't define a person's personality and way of life. I seriously doubt every gay man wants to rape a little boy. How does it poison the life of others? Give me evidence, not your sensational claims. I see a gay person and don't even blink, it doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't bother any of my personal friends. How exactly does it poison the lives of others?

Originally Posted by Traak

Do I? I make it my business to promote Godly heterosexuality. This is at odds with homosexuality. I oppose sin in general. Homosexuality, however, is among the most aggressively marketed, lobbied, and pushed sins, along with being one of the most damaging to its victims, willing or otherwise, so I oppose that more. If homosexuality ceased to exist in America, as many people would NOT die (from AIDS, along with other STD's) as from eliminating gun crime, per year, but that is not the point. Sin is wrong whether it spreads an STD or makes you a million dollars. Not everyone feels content to sit down and let others advance their cause without opposing it. You made it your business to repeatedly misquote and distort what I said, adding in assumptions and just plain untruths. Why? Because you don't agree with me? Imagine that. You don't agree, and you oppose, but you accuse me of being negative because I do that, also.

Yes by making rather odd claims that being gay affects everyone around the gay person, which makes no sense. "By aggressively marked and lobbied" you mean equal rights for everyone in america regardless of sexual orientation. What scientific studies supports being gay damages it's "victims". Sounds like a religious bigotry to me. Especially this bit about homosexuality ceasing in america causing less death. Which of course has no evidence whatsoever. Safe sex practices would do a better job of that. The best course of action for that would be to eliminate poverty. Not to mention that's something that's actually possible. You can't stop someone from being gay. Homosexuality exists in several mammal species, not just humans.

As for this "agenda", I wouldn't call equality for gay people a bad thing. I'll happily support them, they've done nothing wrong.

I've actually directly addressed anything that had actual relevancy to the topic, little of your posts do. Where exactly have I "misrepresented and misquoted" you. Where are these plain untruths, can you provide the necessary information to show that I'm wrong? It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.

Originally Posted by Traak

There, I altered that quote for you to accurately represent the truth, not your made-up version.

My "version" as you put it, is still truthful. Especially since you blindly follow an inaccurate, unethical, bronze age morality book and use it as an excuse to harass people who have never harmed you or yours.

Originally Posted by Traak

How am I doing anything different than what you are doing? You oppose me, and what you think/believe/make up that I stand for, and I oppose sin. But when you do it, it's okay, but when I do it, it's wrong?

What I'm doing is a bit different, most of what I do is
A. Requesting proof for a claim of Bigfoot and invisible pink unicorns (aka god).
B. I haven't told you you're going to spend an eternity in a 6 foot hole for doing "x".
C. in the most recent posts. Defended equality among people of all sexual orientations.

I don't exactly go around telling people they're going to spend an eternity in hell for not worshiping a divine tyrant. Ultimately I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't intend to try and use government power to force their bullshit onto me and as long as they keep their faith to themselves and don't use it to harass innocent people.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Effective

Then the I refer to the first sentence of my statement, your point is nonexistent.



Comparing nazi war propaganda to well known information provided in your average high school education is a pointless endeavor and does nothing to further your claim that God exists.



Quoting the bible does nothing to further your argument. Pretending it does is a waste of your time.


If there was a well documented incident of faith healing legitimately working, then it would be all over legitimate medical journal publications. "Peer Review" by biased christian doctors is not exactly the same thing as a legitimate form of peer review.


Your rather poor analogy does nothing to further your argument, if you cannot back up your claim posting anything regarding the topic is a waste of time.



While it's true that not everything Einstein I understand. This has nothing do with the fact that the bible is (allow me to post that full quote for you)



Not to mention Einsteins theories are subject to peer review and can always be disproven under the scientific method. Where as religious texts cannot.



Not understanding how something happened is not evidence for the existence of a God.



I'm willing to bet I've read more of the bible then you have.

and know more about the contradictions surrounding that particular passage you picked.

Romans 2
30Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Hey look I can quote the bible too!



Definition of denigrate = Criticize unfairly



If you cannot provide legitimate testable data on the existence of god, then you have no footing to stand and throw claims around. And yes, what I believe does have superior evidence. If you understand how the scientific process worked, you would realize how utterly futile your "argument" is in this case.



You clearly misunderstand what science. Science is the search for knowledge and truth. No legitimate evidence has ever been discovered that actually backs up the hypothesis of a divine creator. The scientific method allows old information that becomes proven incorrect to be replaced by the more up to date correct information. This is how science constantly improves upon itself. It is not infallible, and scientist make no claims that it is infallible. And no, wrong information does not replace wrong information. The theory of gravity has not chanced for some time. Does this mean gravity is false? Why don't you jump of the top of a tall building, see how that works out for you.

Yes because the word of god is completely infallible! Oh wait...
Contradictions in the Bible
Scientific Errors
Not to mention a outdated bronze-age "morality".

Murder is indeed wrong, sleeping with someone else's wife is indeed wrong. But the bible seems to approve of slavery, genocide, murder and more then a few other things.

The scientific method makes it so that no theory is infallible, if new information is revealed that disproves a previous theory, the theory is reworked to include the new information. This system allows science to constantly better itself so we can understand how the world works.

Your next bit is a rather pointless strawman argument. Nothing I've posted suggested anything of the sort.

How many people is irrelevant, once it is agreed upon by the scientific community, experts in a particular field of study. That is enough for the majority of anyone who knows anything about how science works, though some might try to find ways to disprove a theory, which is good. Because that's how science is meant to work. This has little to do with "more is better"

And clearly the science behind the "******" are inferior would be disproved in this day and age, thus that information would be discarded and the new theory would reflect that change.

Darwin's racism has little to do with anything, his original idea of evolution has led us to the theory that ties everything we know about biology. Many people have been less then perfect in one aspect or another.

The bible would be against the civil rights movement actually, since slavery is cool and all.


If you cannot provide evidence, then you have no case, you're just another poor indoctrinated person who didn't have the good fortune to learn good critical thinking skills


Yes


Caring is irrelevant. Your bronze-age novel is not proof.



Except in order to be a bigot, I would have to be intolerant of your Christianity/religion, which I'm very tolerant of actually. I don't generalize Christians like you do with gay people. I recognize that some Christians are indeed not bigots.

I've really ultimately only asked for proof of your claim, something you've failed to do. You however on multiple occasions have belittled and insulted anyone who doesn't think the way you do, the tone of those posts making those people out to be less then animals. I have no hostility towards you. You consistently fail to actually address anything relevant, all you've ultimately done is create a bunch of strawmen, who do nothing to further your claims of a supernatural supreme being.

And in order to be brainwashed, I would have to radical beliefs that are highly unreasonable. Asking for proof is not unreasonable.


Bronze age fairy tails are not relevant. Nor does it address questions I've asked.



Actually AIDs spread mostly because of unsafe sex practices, it had little to do with being gay or not gay. Also there are a few decent hypothesis as to where HIV came from. There is a similar virus that affects chimpanzees's called SIVcpz. The hypothesis is that it mutated and jumped species, obviously speculation, but the similarities between the 2 virus's are very close, and of course humans are close related to chimpanzees (naturally this is only a hypothesis, but it brings an interesting course of thought). And of course homosexuality as you mentioned has existed for a very long time, and AIDs/HIV started appearing in the late 1980's. Seems and awful long time to punish for a "sin".



What evidence is there that being gay harms the person? As far as I can tell, every gay person I've ever met is generally just as happy as anyone else. Strange, I've never felt the need to lie when I met a gay person. My manager from my first job in high school was gay and said I was cute. I told him, I'm not interested in men and that ended that. I'm still me. Have I lied? Yes, back when I was a little kid and didn't want to get in trouble. Nowadays, telling a lie usually involves a practical joke on a friend, hardly an environment that breeds distrust and "sin".



Creating a strawman again.
Add 2 and 2. Clearly I don't care if someone is gay or not. It doesn't affect me personally at all. It's none of my business nor is it yours.

Perhaps you should stop generalizing and realize that being gay doesn't define a person's personality and way of life. I seriously doubt every gay man wants to rape a little boy. How does it poison the life of others? Give me evidence, not your sensational claims. I see a gay person and don't even blink, it doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't bother any of my personal friends. How exactly does it poison the lives of others?



Yes by making rather odd claims that being gay affects everyone around the gay person, which makes no sense. "By aggressively marked and lobbied" you mean equal rights for everyone in america regardless of sexual orientation. What scientific studies supports being gay damages it's "victims". Sounds like a religious bigotry to me. Especially this bit about homosexuality ceasing in america causing less death. Which of course has no evidence whatsoever. Safe sex practices would do a better job of that. The best course of action for that would be to eliminate poverty. Not to mention that's something that's actually possible. You can't stop someone from being gay. Homosexuality exists in several mammal species, not just humans.

As for this "agenda", I wouldn't call equality for gay people a bad thing. I'll happily support them, they've done nothing wrong.

I've actually directly addressed anything that had actual relevancy to the topic, little of your posts do. Where exactly have I "misrepresented and misquoted" you. Where are these plain untruths, can you provide the necessary information to show that I'm wrong? It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing.



My "version" as you put it, is still truthful. Especially since you blindly follow an inaccurate, unethical, bronze age morality book and use it as an excuse to harass people who have never harmed you or yours.



What I'm doing is a bit different, most of what I do is
A. Requesting proof for a claim of Bigfoot and invisible pink unicorns (aka god).
B. I haven't told you you're going to spend an eternity in a 6 foot hole for doing "x".
C. in the most recent posts. Defended equality among people of all sexual orientations.

I don't exactly go around telling people they're going to spend an eternity in hell for not worshiping a divine tyrant. Ultimately I don't care what a person believes as long as they don't intend to try and use government power to force their bullshit onto me and as long as they keep their faith to themselves and don't use it to harass innocent people.

You're wasting your breath Traak.

These kids have it all figured out bud.

Apparently because we choose to believe in something they don't we're ignorant childish bigots and they're our intellectual superiors.

Don't waste your time bud.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

You're wasting your breath Traak.

These kids have it all figured out bud.

Apparently because we choose to believe in something they don't we're ignorant childish bigots and they're our intellectual superiors.

Don't waste your time bud.

Actually you don't fit the definition of a bigot. Ignorant? Yes (but who isn't in some way or another?).

If you actually took the time to read anything I posted, I don't claim to have figured anything out. And it has nothing to do with what you believe or don't believe in.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Effective

Actually you don't fit the definition of a bigot. Ignorant? Yes (but who isn't in some way or another?).

If you actually took the time to read anything I posted, I don't claim to have figured anything out. And it has nothing to do with what you believe or don't believe in.

Oh, well then I stand corrected then. I thought you were just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

All I REALLY remember of what you said to me or about my posts was a personal attack.

"Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how pathetic any argument you've put out is. You've added nothing relevant here to this thread beyond "WAAHH DON'T DISRESPECT MY BELIEFS!" - Effective


So when you tell someone all of their arguments are pathetic, your credibility in my eyes went tits up and I stopped listening to anything you had to say.

You take what I have said in the past as trying to belittle you? Quite the opposite, I'm trying to stop you and others of your ilk from belittling other people, namely those that choose to believe in God and have never tried to force their opinion on you.

Like me.

We got off on the wrong foot.

Name's Tomcat...I believe in God but I also have my heart in science and exploration.

[Effective]

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

Oh, well then I stand corrected then. I thought you were just being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

All I REALLY remember of what you said to me or about my posts was a personal attack.

"Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of how pathetic any argument you've put out is. You've added nothing relevant here to this thread beyond "WAAHH DON'T DISRESPECT MY BELIEFS!" - Effective


So when you tell someone all of their arguments are pathetic, your credibility in my eyes went tits up and I stopped listening to anything you had to say.

You take what I have said in the past as trying to belittle you? Quite the opposite, I'm trying to stop you and others of your ilk from belittling other people, namely those that choose to believe in God and have never tried to force their opinion on you.

Like me.

We got off on the wrong foot.

Name's Tomcat...I believe in God but I also have my heart in science and exploration.

No, I'm definitely an asshole, there is no other way around that.

I mostly posted that because of what you posted here

Originally Posted by WildGunsTomcat

A: They think that believing in God is childish and shows lack of intelligence. Therefore they equate intelligence with lack of faith in anything but their beloved scientific ideals.

B: They have had bad things happen to them, so selfishly they say "If God exists he is cruel because bad things happened to me or other people, so logically if there is a loving God he wouldn't let bad things happen." Which is complete and utter bullshit because we're here to learn a lesson...not be babied and coddled. That's why we were given free will.

C: It's the cool thing to do. Not believing in God, talking down to the religious among us is the "cool" thing to do. This directly relates back to A, which says that if you're a smart person, you don't need a "God" figure in your life because God is a concept for the less intelligent among us, less "cool" among us.

I personally found it rather insulting. I don't really fit into any of those categories. I have several intelligent religious friends from where I went to high school, some of whom are a great deal smarter then I am. Nothing really bad ever happened to me before I came an atheist. And I never really thought of it as the "cool" thing to do, especially since I've lived in the bible belt for the last 12 years.

I personally have nothing against people who believe in God, that is their right to do so. It's people like Westboro (Traak) who bug me.

Name is Effect. Out of all the sciences I find biology the most interesting :x

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Effective

No, I'm definitely an asshole, there is no other way around that.

I mostly posted that because of what you posted here



I personally found it rather insulting. I don't really fit into any of those categories. I have several intelligent religious friends from where I went to high school, some of whom are a great deal smarter then I am. Nothing really bad ever happened to me before I came an atheist. And I never really thought of it as the "cool" thing to do, especially since I've lived in the bible belt for the last 12 years.

I personally have nothing against people who believe in God, that is their right to do so. It's people like Westboro (Traak) who bug me.

Name is Effect. Out of all the sciences I find biology the most interesting :x

I was mainly pointing those comments at Warborn, because he said something along the lines of: (I'm going to generalize here because I'm too lazy to find the post)

"The belief in God will eventually be looked at as "silly" and people that believe in God won't have much credibility among serious scholars and people of reason."

I generalized a lot there, but that's what I have taken away from Warborn's arguments.

I want to stop here and say that I disrespect no man's opinion on here at all. I think you're all very intelligent men/women and you have my respect.

But that got on my nerves a little, so I had to show my fangs and say what I said.

My basic thought is this:

We don't know everything.

So when someone comes up to me and very smugly says "Your beliefs are silly and the burden of proof is on you to show me that God exists..."

At that moment in time I literally feel my heartbeat in my eyelid.

It's not up to me to prove a cotton picking thing to you. You don't want to believe, don't. No skin off of my ass.

But don't presume to tell me I'm wrong or silly for my thoughts....or combat is fucking imminent.

That's all I was saying.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Warborn

I completely reject god claims and thing believing in god(s) is pretty silly, but I also accept that it is unknowable and am willing to have my mind changed. I also believe in things, just not supernatural things. What does this make me?

Warborn's Doppelganger.