Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Atheists arguments against God

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
310 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#61

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:54 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 19:06)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 00:28)
I disagree completely. Those morals were taught by religion and, while forced upon people, eventually become a regular part of life. What you are assuming is totally short-sighted, and frankly, ridiculous. "We would've had them anyway" is worse than a strawman argument. Keep in mind though I agree with most of your sentiment otherwise.

So you are saying that religion predates ethics? If that's the case, then why did early man not annihilate itself? I mean, most early religions were polytheistic, and monotheism only really began to take effect with Judaism (and that's only arguably monotheistic), so I think you dramatically overstate the importance of "God" as opposed to the general principal of "higher beings". Personally, I feel that the opposite of your suggestion is true. Logically, what is "moral" or "ethical" can be entirely explained in terms of protecting a species and avoiding diluting the gene pool. It's the same principle that stop animal species from annihilating themselves for no apparent reason, and I feel that to insinuate that somehow religion is responsible for the creation of ethics entirely contracts our understanding of instinct. I mean, if animals defend the purity and depth of the gene pool without the influence of a higher being, then why do humans need another "higher" power to do exactly the same?

You're stretching what I said. What I essentially argued is that religion provided a set of morals for people to abide by. Those morals eventually turned into mores. I'm not arguing that we wouldn't have known morals if some higher being did not tell us them. I'm arguing that the scripture codified by early humans lead to the morals of today. Look at common law. So much of it is a direct result of biblical scripture. Ethics such as not sleeping with your neighbor's wife, or even not killing another man - is that something humans would know from the start? I don't think so. These ethics became social mores because of religion dictating as such in earlier times. Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal?

Rusty Balls
  • Rusty Balls

    love spuds

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 04 Feb 2010
  • Scotland

#62

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:20 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 01:54)
Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal?

Ey?

We're not a solitary lived species. Since the dawn of man we've existed in groups as a means to survive our harsh habitat.

The more successful the group, the more successful man is and an unloyal group is certainly not going to be a successful one. I'm sure even Neanderthal man was quick to establish that pissing off his mate caveman bob was a poor way to aid his own survival.

Thus, the beginnings of a common moral code.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#63

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:43 AM

QUOTE (Rusty Balls @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 21:20)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 01:54)
Why would early humans who didn't subscribe to any religion whatsoever choose to not sleep with their neighbor's wife? To not steal?

Ey?

We're not a solitary lived species. Since the dawn of man we've existed in groups as a means to survive our harsh habitat.

The more successful the group, the more successful man is and an unloyal group is certainly not going to be a successful one. I'm sure even Neanderthal man was quick to establish that pissing off his mate caveman bob was a poor way to aid his own survival.

Thus, the beginnings of a common moral code.

It's not as simple as pissing another man off though. There are numerous parts of scripture and even today's moral code that hurt the feelings of others but are "alright".

I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why.

trip
  • trip

    ~

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2007
  • United-States

#64

Posted 06 May 2012 - 04:05 AM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:43)
I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why.

I'm not sure it is animosity or more just a greater number of people who question religion and spirituality thus making it more visible. It also may be a next generation thing. I'm willing to bet my parents generation was the first generation to start questioning this whole religion/church thing in large numbers. They went on to have kids, and just like all kids they inherit the religious or no religious beliefs of their parents until they are able to think for themselves.

Thanks to a required class at university I have read all of the main religious texts, and you have to admit that the book of Genesis is pretty far fetched. I can see how something as simple as the first book in the bible having the more free thinking youth of today scratch their heads and say "yeah right"

A lot of things boil down to volume. It's like going to a frat party of meat heads and thinking to yourself "wow, why are there so many assholes here?"

Sorry for the long pointlessness to point out something as simple as there are just more nonbelievers now.

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#65

Posted 06 May 2012 - 05:59 AM

Well...

QUOTE

@3niX That's prepostorous. Your statement is most obviously inspired by the propaganda of the capitalists. The Soviet Union was not a dictatorship. The process of Russification has led people to believe that. And they only banned the Russian Orthodox Church and other forms of Christianity. The Bolsheviks mostly consisted of Jewish representatives, who may have indeed turned Athiest, but had a large amount of support from the Jewish community. Lenin and Stalin looked down on pogroms and other anti-semitic acts, so no, the Soviet Union was not anti-religious. Christianity is merely an inspirer of Monarchy and of whom Stalin considered an enemy of Communism. I hate Christianity anyways, who cares. (Other than Christianity)

[Supreme]

Propaganda eh?

QUOTE (Wikipedia on 'dictatorship')
A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by an individual: a dictator. It has three possible meanings:

1. A Roman dictator was the incumbent of a political office of the Roman Republic. Roman dictators were allocated absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was originally neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such dictatorships after the beginning of the 2nd century BC, and later dictators such as Sulla and the Roman Emperors exercised power much more personally and arbitrarily.

2. A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.

3. In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.

And the definition of stalinism (since you seem to glorify the period in which Stalin ruled):
QUOTE
The bureaucratic, authoritarian exercise of state power and mechanistic application of Marxist-Leninist principles associated with Stalin.

QUOTE
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the theory and form of government associated with the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (original name Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili; 1879-1953): a variant of Marxism-Leninism characterized by totalitarianism, rigid bureaucracy, and loyalty to the state

QUOTE
Stalinism - a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.)

QUOTE
Stalinism,  the method of rule, or policies, of Joseph Stalin, Soviet Communist Party and state leader from 1929 until his death in 1953. Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule.


Also, the soviet leadership actually persecuted all forms of religion (including different forms of christianity and islam) but the Russian Orthodox Church was hit hardest because it had the largest following. Stalin might have openly said that he was against anti-semitism but he also said stuff like:
QUOTE
Every Jewish nationalist is the agent of the American intelligence service. Jewish nationalists think that their nation was saved by the USA. . . They think they are indebted to the Americans. Among doctors, there are many Jewish nationalists.

Which is as clear a case of closet anti-semitism as Ive ever seen.
Not to mention many of the actions that were taken against jewish individuals.

Furthermore, I find it hypocritical to claim that you dont like beliefs being pushed down on you but dont mind the persecution of christians in order to raise prominence of atheism. So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#66

Posted 06 May 2012 - 06:41 AM

QUOTE (trip @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 23:05)
QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 22:43)
I just think that there is a real animosity towards anything and everything religious by a vast amount of people, especially Europeans, and I'm just not sure why.

I'm not sure it is animosity or more just a greater number of people who question religion and spirituality thus making it more visible. It also may be a next generation thing. I'm willing to bet my parents generation was the first generation to start questioning this whole religion/church thing in large numbers. They went on to have kids, and just like all kids they inherit the religious or no religious beliefs of their parents until they are able to think for themselves.

Thanks to a required class at university I have read all of the main religious texts, and you have to admit that the book of Genesis is pretty far fetched. I can see how something as simple as the first book in the bible having the more free thinking youth of today scratch their heads and say "yeah right"

A lot of things boil down to volume. It's like going to a frat party of meat heads and thinking to yourself "wow, why are there so many assholes here?"

Sorry for the long pointlessness to point out something as simple as there are just more nonbelievers now.

Once again, I know the Book of Genesis is nonsensical. I am a Catholic in the sense that I agree with the religious teachings and it is what my family is. But in terms of my actual beliefs, I am really just a Deist.

To define a Deitst:

Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of an intelligent creator(s). According to deists, the creator rarely, if ever, either intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending instead to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by intervening in it. This idea is also known as the clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#67

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:36 AM Edited by sivispacem, 06 May 2012 - 09:45 AM.

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 02:54)
Ethics such as not sleeping with your neighbor's wife, or even not killing another man - is that something humans would know from the start?

Well, they are quite prevalent in hierarchical animal societies. Most pack animals, when operating in packs, have assigned mating partners based on their position in the pack, and it's rare for them to try and mate outside these limits without some kind of aggression from those higher up the hierarchy. Not killing other members of one's own species is pure common sense and is equally prevalent in the animal world- you fight for control, but inside a pack hierarchy there are seldom cases of one animal killing another.

HydraulicWarrior- to deny the fact that Communism is dictatorial when it is, by it's very definition, is pretty insane. You also appear to be making a conscientious effort to re-write history to match your own beliefs. You appear to have largely ignored the MASSIVE level of persecution directed at Jews during the later part of Stalin's rule. By the early 1940s, Judaism had been almost entirely annihilated in the public consciousness of the Soviet Union, and during the period 1946-53 the Politburo lead a violent campaign against "Zionists" (as usual, a guarded term used by anti-Semites to justify targeting all Jews) which has resulted in a modern Russia which still clings to the lingering remains of anti-Semitism. Also, your comment about Communists being Jewish descended is largely irrelevant, primarily because in that context "Jewish" refers to an ethnic and not a religious group.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#68

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:24 PM Edited by HydraulicWaRiOr, 06 May 2012 - 09:47 PM.

QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59)
So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

[Supreme]

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#69

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:46 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 16:24)
QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59)
So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just dispise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

[Supreme]

Stalin wasn't Jewish.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#70

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (Irviding @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 21:46)
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 16:24)
QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59)
So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just dispise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

[Supreme]

Stalin wasn't Jewish.

Alright I messed up there. He was Georgian Orthodox. But I believe his mother was of Jewish descent. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Supreme]

Tyler
  • Tyler

    It's you

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Unknown

#71

Posted 06 May 2012 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 15:24)
Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite,

You very much are. There is a staggeringly large section of the religious population that either does not know of the atrocities that were attributed to religion itself, or does not realize the implication. There is also a large section that was groomed to be religious from birth, with no other choice, and as such know no other way. To simply dismiss all these people as firebrand priests and hypocritical zealots- no matter what percentage actually is, is atrocious in and of itself.

QUOTE
And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish


It can be seen through many sources that Stalin was a proponent of atheism and antitheism. He established the Society of the Godless. He demolished numerous churches, executed tens of thousands of priests and monks. The Great Purge, although not specifically targeting religious populations in general, still accumulated various deaths of Jehovah's Witnesses and the like.


Vladislav of Kronstadt
  • Vladislav of Kronstadt

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 May 2012

#72

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:00 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 21:24)
QUOTE (3niX @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 05:59)
So its actually OK to shove down beliefs on someone if they match your views?

Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for. Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.

[Supreme]

Your post is incredibly offensive.
Listen, I don't know you, or if you really are the genocidal bastard you just showed yourself to be in that post. You just praised the greatest mass murderer in human history like he was some sort of crusader against the corrupt Church.
Well, sorry to break you dreams, but Stalin killed more people than Hitler himself, around 25 million in the Inter War Period alone.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Great_Purge
Besides the fact that he demolished churches and murdered hundreds of thousands of people, he also had lots of fun at the Katyn Massacre , when he ordered the death thousands of polish officers :
http://en.wikipedia..../Katyn_massacre
So you see, my dear Stalinist friend, your hero was a "crusader" against humanity itself.
If you deny these things, than you are no better than a neo nazi, really.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#73

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:09 PM Edited by HydraulicWaRiOr, 06 May 2012 - 10:28 PM.

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.

[Supreme]

3niX
  • 3niX

    Lazy idiot

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

#74

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:11 PM Edited by 3niX, 06 May 2012 - 10:19 PM.

Well...

QUOTE
Who ever said that? I like Jews. I like Muslims, I myself am a follower of most Buddhist philosophy, I just hate Christians. If it were my decision, I would have them all imprisoned until they all denounced their beliefs, I would remove churches, and I would hold book burnings of the bible. I'm not a hypocrite, I just despise laws coming from a book which persecute those for no reason. This is the very reason the whole religion deserves a reform, or absolute annihilation. And Stalin wasn't a closet case at all. He was jewish. He was also Georgian. But despised any idea of non-Russian nationalism. That's what Russification was for.

Your posts imply such a way of thinking. And how is an average christian so much different from a muslim, buddhist, atheist or any other person? What makes you such a bitter person towards them?

Stalin was definitely a closet case. He was a lunatic with huge amounts of power. It shouldnt be that surprising that he abused that power to promote his own twisted views. Also, he might have had jewish roots (though I doubt it) but he definitely wasnt jewish. And russification was more about subjugation than anything else.

QUOTE
Stalin was very much like Bismarck. Bismarck was highly Prussian nationalist, and advocated the removal of the Catholic Church and Socialists along with everyone who wasn't loyal to him.


Except that Bismarck was actually liked on merit and that he worked to improve the lives of his countrymen (unlike Stalin who was just a paranoid and power hungry little f*ck).

EDIT:
QUOTE
Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.

So, pretty much most of Cosmopolitan readers?

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#75

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:12 PM Edited by Typhus, 06 May 2012 - 10:14 PM.

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09)

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.


But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to?
Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others.
Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#76

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:43 PM

QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:12)
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09)

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.


But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to?
Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others.
Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence.

I have enough fun having Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish friends. I tire of wallowing around the idiocracy that is Christianity. According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction. Mostly Athiests like myself. According to the bible, Blasphemy is unforgivable, so I see no reason why I should care for the persecution of any Christian, because he himself will only continue to criticise those others for being raised differently, so I don't understand why that itself doesn't justify the destruction of Christianity. Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way. What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?

[Supreme]

Vladislav of Kronstadt
  • Vladislav of Kronstadt

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 May 2012

#77

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:50 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:43)
QUOTE (Typhus @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:12)
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:09)

It's entirely justified. The very fact that there are Christians who even despise each other for a small variety of little difference in the area of belief should say that the destruction of the religion should at least be considered as a radical solution to the problem. The bible is an anti-semitic, racist, homophobic atrocity that deserves it's destruction indefinitely. And there are many who are not aware of the prejudice beliefs they are attatched to, but the very fact that they are unable to see the error of their ways should make them obsolete as human beings. Anyone who looks down on one for what they consider to be imperfections simply because a book told them so deserves to be removed from public and isolated.


But wouldn't your life feel empty without having such idiots to compare yourself to?
Honestly, there's nothing more uplifting than the sense of superiority one gains from the folly of others.
Like I said before, Utopians like yourself seem to grieve over every little injustice. Just enjoy the diversity of the world, enjoy their pitiful, meaningless existence.

I have enough fun having Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish friends. I tire of wallowing around the idiocracy that is Christianity. According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction. Mostly Athiests like myself. According to the bible, Blasphemy is unforgivable, so I see no reason why I should care for the persecution of any Christian, because he himself will only continue to criticise those others for being raised differently, so I don't understand why that itself doesn't justify the destruction of Christianity. Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way. What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?

[Supreme]

If I would meet you, become good friends, and after a long period of time, I would tell you I am a christian, would you abandon me ?


Would you forget the good times we had , just judging by my beliefs ? Take note, I will not judge you for being a atheist.

Tyler
  • Tyler

    It's you

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2009
  • Unknown

#78

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:51 PM

QUOTE
What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?


It also says "..render unto Caesar.." Can you imagine glorious, quotable phrases like that being burned for the sake your personal satisfaction?


QUOTE
According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction.


Why do you have such an immense hard-on for Christianity? You realize Islam draws from the same Abrahamic texts, and institutes similar laws according to blasphemers and nonbelievers, right? They even have a special sub-type dedicated to the unconverted Muslims they may come across (it's not a pretty fate for that lot).

QUOTE
Christianity has pushed itself through to existence by any means necessary, whether it be genocide, imprisonment, or threats, so I don't quite understand why it shouldn't go out the same way.


Because that's extremely barbaric and asinine. Not to mention a fallacy. The way in which something is formed is not exclusive to which the way that same thing must dissipate, especially in cultural or social concepts.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#79

Posted 06 May 2012 - 10:55 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:43)
According to the bible, anyone who isn't Christian qualifies for their destruction.

According to the bible (both Christian and Jewish), God permitted Satan to torture Job as part of an sadistic wager. You can't take scripture literally without coming across as a massive idiot. And as for clauses celebrating the destruction of other religions, it's quite obvious you've never read either the Torah or Koran. Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#80

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:13 PM

QUOTE (Vladislav of Kronstadt @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 22:50)
If I would meet you, become good friends, and after a long period of time, I would tell you I am a christian, would you abandon me?


Would you forget the good times we had, just judging by my beliefs?Take note, I will not judge you for being a atheist.

I would probably shun you, let alone try as hard as I could to refrain from removing you from existence.

QUOTE (sivispacem)
Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.


That predates civilized culture. The whole of Jewish people showcases no severe disapproval of anything other than anti-semitism and hasn't ever during A.D. However, Christianity has encouraged the complete eradication of several things within the last 100 years, which stumps anything any other religion has ever done.

[Supreme]

AlexGTAGamer
  • AlexGTAGamer

    Time flies when you throw a clock.

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2010
  • None

#81

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:19 PM

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Sunday, May 6 2012, 23:43)
What does it say in the bible? An eye for an eye?

Matthew 5:38: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth."

Originally this command was only meant to be applicable as a judicial rule and was meant to only be applied with magistrates, not for personal use. But the command was stretched into personal rule by some as they believed that it was justified to do the same onto another person as they had done onto said self at their own hands. confused.gif

But also, as Gandhi said:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#82

Posted 07 May 2012 - 08:19 AM Edited by sivispacem, 07 May 2012 - 10:41 AM.

QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Monday, May 7 2012, 00:13)
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.


That predates civilized culture. The whole of Jewish people showcases no severe disapproval of anything other than anti-semitism and hasn't ever during A.D. However, Christianity has encouraged the complete eradication of several things within the last 100 years, which stumps anything any other religion has ever done.

[Supreme]

Seen as civilised culture has existed since about 3,000BC it's pretty unlikely it predated it. The Egyptians- who, lest we forget, attempted to destroy the Israelites some two thousand years before the Assyrian genocide which occurred round 681BC). Then again, the idea of "civilised" is quite subjective, especially if you interpret it as sharing the same moral base as current Western society (in which case, there are dozens of nations that aren't "civilised" right now). But to me, "civilised" means an organised, hierarchical society characterised by a shared identity. And that's something that's been present in human experience for a very, very long time.

Now we come onto your point about Christianity preaching destruction on things. Firstly, you are making one fundamental mistake by addressing Christianity as a whole. It isn't a religion, it's a group of religions. To imply Christianity as a religious concept is responsible for violence and destruction is absolutely and utterly absurd- principally because it has no power of it's own. A religion cannot be held responsible for the actions of organised, politicised sects. The same way it is possible to be a Catholic without condoning the sexual abuse of altar boys, it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and not follow any of the main schools of Christian thought. And, again, I feel I must point out that if you are holding Christianity responsible for death and destruction perpetrated by followers, then you must do the same with Islam. Conflict between sects of Islam, and between Islam and other religions, has killed more people in the last thirty years than every other kind of conflict combined. It's killed more than died in the Holocaust. But I (quite rightly) don't see you blaming the religion itself for this killing; so why do so with Christianity unless you've got some kind of intrinsic bias; some phobia or irrational hatred of Christianity?

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#83

Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:17 AM

this whole thread seems to be on the wrong track.
you guys are debating scripture and individual religions... which is where these kinds of discussions usually end up on the internet.

isn't the topic about atheism versus deism?
this has nothing to do with organized religion and all the obvious ways that man has misused it. we can talk about that crap from here to the Moon until we rot in our chairs and die of starvation. Jews, Christians, Muslims, their crusades, their dogmas; this gets us nowhere, this doesn't move the conversation forward.

I refer to my original post which seems to have immediately been lost in the tired, stale, lugubrious back-and-forth that everyone is so hot and bothered for. the person who created the topic, Vormek, predicates his opening argument very clearly on one simple principle.

QUOTE (Vormek @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 05:55)
God is outside of His Creation. He is outside of our universe. God created time, space and matter and God is OUTSIDE of all that.


but he says this very early on, near the top of his post.
and then goes on to provide quite a detailed analysis for the rationale of his views.

but how can we go on?
we can't go anywhere.

the moment he says that God must exist outside the purview of all rational criticism, or that (basically) God = Superman, is the moment that he has invalidated everything else he is about to try and explain. if God is simply an infallible, indefensible, unassailable, impenetrable, and utterly unknowable force then how could Vormek even make this thread? how could he expect a reasonable discussion when his side gets to start out by being unreasonable and asking that everyone else remain within the confines of the defensible, assailable, penetrable, and clearly observable?

this cannot be the position of the deist or they cannot participate in this discussion.
for every point that an atheist could make, the deist who takes Vormek's position can just sit there and say "well he's God. he can do anything."

that's bullsh*t.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#84

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:44 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Monday, May 7 2012, 10:17)
I refer to my original post which seems to have immediately been lost in the tired, stale, lugubrious back-and-forth that everyone is so hot and bothered for. the person who created the topic, Vormek, predicates his opening argument very clearly on one simple principle.

QUOTE (Vormek @ Saturday, May 5 2012, 05:55)
God is outside of His Creation. He is outside of our universe. God created time, space and matter and God is OUTSIDE of all that.

With all due respect, many of us have posted direct critiques of the original author's work which have been ignored principally because he hasn't posted in the topic against since the original one (perhaps unable to find it after it's move from GC to D&D?). The derailment of the topic is, in my view, preferable to stagnation- put simply, you aren't going to get your responses answered, and nor am I or any of the other posters who picked logical holes in the original argument.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#85

Posted 07 May 2012 - 10:59 AM

lol so wait.. is Vormek the only theist here?

are we arguing with each other? turn.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#86

Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:09 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Monday, May 7 2012, 11:59)
lol so wait.. is Vormek the only theist here?

are we arguing with each other? turn.gif

There are deists, but not theists. I'm arguing with HydraulicWarri0r and his attempts at historical revisionism and rampant anti-theism, or more accurately anti-Christian-ism. I'm an atheist myself but I absolutely cannot abide people trying to blame religion for atrocities committed by humans for political purposes. Religion, in my view, is harmless regardless of what denomination it is- especially the three primary monotheistic, Abrahamic ones- principally because they are, for the most part, almost exactly the same. Anyone who teaches that Christianity (or for that matter Islam, Judaism or any other religion for that matter) preaches death and destruction whilst other religions do not either has a very poor understanding of religious texts, is unable to determine between literal and figurative teachings, can't tell the difference between religion and politics, or is a raging bigot with an irrational hatred of one religious sect over all others.

Oddsock
  • Oddsock

    Fresh and strong the world we seize

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2004
  • United-States

#87

Posted 07 May 2012 - 09:04 PM Edited by sivispacem, 07 May 2012 - 10:36 PM.

Oh heavens, you're a follower of Kent Hovind. No small wonder why you're so misled.

QUOTE
1) Atheist: Who created God?

I hear this argument all the time! Atheist use this argument frequently to disprove the existence of God. I understand the argument, I do, but there are many flaws. First of all, the question "who created God?" ASSUMES that God is limited. It assumes that God has a beginning and will therefor have an end. But the God of the Bible doesn't have a limit, He doesn't have a beginning and an end. God was never created because He does not consist of the unaware created matter, but by the aware eternal spiritual energy. Besides, God can't have been created by someone else, because God by definition is FIRST, the reason of all cause! God was first. How on Earth's name can the first one be created? That's like asking "what letter comes before A?".

THE CREATER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED BECAUSE IN THAT CASE HE WOULDN'T BE THE CREATOR!


If you accept that, by the laws of nature, all things have a beginning and an end, you cannot magically remove those properties from something can then call it God. It's breaking your own rules. Also, it's really not like asking what comes before the letter A, because the all alphabets are known to have been structured and created by man, whereas God is supposed to be a natural non-man made force.

QUOTE

Where did Big Bang come from? Big Bang, according to the text books, created everything in the universe. It therefor created time, space and matter as well. Which came first? Without space, where do you put matter? Without time, WHEN do you put matter? You see how time, space and matter must have been created at the EXACT same time? Big Bang teaches us that everything created itself out of absolutely nothing. Let me ask you this. How did Big Bang explode? Where did the energy for this explosion come from? Out of nowhere? Where did time, space and matter come from? Out of nowhere? For some reason, people really believe Big Bang occured. People seriously believe that everything in existence created itself out of absolutely nothing.


All we know about the Big Bang is theory is that the universe was at one point much hotter and denser than it is right now and then a bunch of stuff happened (which you can look up because I'm not a quantum mechanics expert) that led to the rapid expansion and cooling of the universe. The energy came from the existing matter and antimatter at the time. Where space, time, and matter came from isn't really know as far as I'm aware, just theorized. And yes, people believe the Big Bang happened because, based on scientific study of our universe, it is a much more plausible explanation for the creation of the universe than a magic man in the sky.

QUOTE
The universe must have an original cause!
There has to be a first original cause otherwise the universe wouldn't exist. Matter can't be the first cause becase life, awareness and intelligence can simply not plop out of lifeless matter. Matter cannot have created itself. To believe that matter is the original cause of the universe is the same as believing that mud is the cause of the crock. By practical experience every human knows that there's NOTHING which can create itself out of nothing. Mud had a creator. Believing that something can create itself is a stupid fable and only narrow minded atheists will believe that. (Sorry for being a tad harsh but it's true)

Not believing in an original first cause which created our universe is as stupid as believing that everything we see around us came out of nothingness.
God is in His original spiritual shape forever in the spiritual world, in God's kingdom, which was never created and will never be gone. Humans are just by nature greedy and full of pride. We want to be God's ourselves, we want to follow our own rules. The suffering in this world is a wake up call for all of us to realize that we do not belong here in this world full of evil of pain.


Alright, knock off the "His Kingdom" bullsh*t. Nobody wants to listen to a holy roller talk about how great their god is. If you want to argue anything, argue from facts, not the unstable emotions you have for your imaginary friend. That being said, just because you assume everything needs a cause doesn't mean everything needs a creator or intention. Also, life CAN originate from nonliving things. It's called abiogenesis, look it up. You are extremely uninformed about a number of basic scientific concepts that explain our origins and what's worse, you're insulting about it. "Narrow-minded atheists" look at actual repeatable and testable scientific evidence to back up their belief. You trust in a 2000 year old book written by people even dumber than we are now, then rewritten hundreds of times so that the original texts no longer exist. And you put your faith of how the universe created in such a thing? THAT is narrow-minded.

QUOTE
2) Atheist: God does not exist!

That is a definite assumption, an absolute. Only someone who's all knowing can come with definite assumptions like that. Are you all knowing? By saying something like that you sure make it seem like that. In that case, you're God! Because you know EVERYTHING there is!
But no man knows everything, we know very little in ratio to what there is to know. But let's just assume for one moment that you know 50% of everything. That's a lot of knowledge. What if God exists on the other side, the other 50%?

There's a such thing as agnosticism and gnosticism. Agnostics believe something but do not claim to know it. Gnostics believe something but claim to know it. There are agnostic atheists (believing there is no god but not claiming to know it) and there are gnostic atheists (believing there is no god and claiming to know it). Don't assume we're all gnostic atheists, because we're not. I'm an agnostic atheist. Anyone who is gnostic about their beliefs is not very smart.

As for your question on the end there, you can throw out hypotheticals all you want, it doesn't help you prove a god exists.

QUOTE
3) Atheist: The existence of God is illogical.

If you think that it's illogical for God to exist, did you ever stop to think the same thing about yourself? Do you think it's logial for you to exist? Why is your own existence more logial than God's? To believe that our own existence came about without an existing cause is the same as believing that sunrays can exist without the sun.

Depending on your definition of God, certain definitions can be logical or illogical. I'd say most are illogical and the rest are worth being skeptical about. If anything, the point to be argued should be about likelihood. Based on evidence, it doesn't seem very likely that the God of the Bible exists and has done what the Bible says he has done. Based on evidence as well, it's not likely that I should exist either because of the complex processes that led to my being. That is why life is so spectacular. However, I am known to exist and I am not supernatural, so it is much more likely that I exist than any god because I am more demonstrable and believable.

Also, as I said, believing that we came about through natural processes like abiogenesis, natural selection, and evolution are not the same as "believing that sunrays can exist without the Sun." These processes are much more logical and evident than any claim of a divine creator to date.


QUOTE
4) Atheist: Can God create a rock so heavy He cannot lift it Himself? And if he can't lift it, he's not almighty.

God is so almighty that He can expand Himself in two seperate shapes in which he lifts the rock in one, and does not lift the rock in the other shape. Besides, God is infinitely strong so it's a piece of cake for Him to lift a rock which is infinitely heavy.
If I would ask you to draw a square triangle what would you do? Would you take out your pencil and draw one? No you wouldn't because you know that a triangle per definition has three sides, not four. To draw a "square triangle" says nothing about your ability to draw triangles (or squares) because a "square triangle" is simply a nonsense expression I made up by puttin two words together. A rock so heavy no one can lift it is the same nonsense expression because a rock is per definition an object with a weight and can always be lifted assuming you're strong enough. To talk about a "rock to heavy for anyone to lift" is just as much nonsense as a square triangle. The "argument" is not a proper argument against God or his Almightyness, it's just a game with words. It's a logical contradiction, which is indeed pretty funny, but it does not hold up as an argument.


Ehh, sorry, but your explanation doesn't really work out. An infinitely heavy rock is not the same as a square triangle. Just because something is given the definition of weight does not mean that it, by that definition, must be able to be lifted. Also, I like your goofy God = Wonder Twin idea where he splits himself in two, where he would simply be lifting the rock. Still, the paradox (which is logical) does not get to the point, because while it questions being all-powerful, a better paradox challenges his morals and character: Can the God fof the Bible commit suicide? You would say yes, but he won't because it's against his moral character. In that case, he can never commit suicide because it goes against his character. If he did it, he would be breaking his character and we should not trust his morals and law.


QUOTE
5) Atheist: Prove God!

Atheists always demand God to appear Himself in front of their eyes before they will start believing. This is simply pride and God does not answer prideful challenges just as much as the President of USA would pay you a visit without you giving him any worthy qualifications which caught his attention. Ask yourself this: Do you, as an atheist, deserve to have a personal visit by the Almighty? What are your qualifications? When you can't even get the President of USA to pay you a visit, what makes you think God would appear in His all Greatness in front of your very eyes? It's the opposite. Atheists despise God, they spit on Him and do not want to get rid of their illusion that God does not exist. They want it to stay that way and because God does not interfere with the free will, the atheist will never feel the presence of God until he change his attitude. For the atheist, God will prove His existence when it's too late, when you're dead.
You cannot *see* God until you *realize*. Remember that. You must realize that God is essential and that His existence is the foundation of everything that is. First *realize* then *see*. If you cannot realize that the existence of God is essential for the universe to exist, how can we ever prove to such a blind person the existence of God when he doesn't have a clue about God's spiritual nature, looks and personality. You can never prove or convince an atheist about God or anything other that's spiritual because that atheist is spiritual blind.
This is like proving a color for someone who's blind.


Not really. Also, stop grouping atheists. A lot of us simply don't care about the existence of god. The world atheist population is around half a billion, so please stop thinking we're all the same.

Equating the POTUS and God is quite silly. The POTUS is not all-powerful nor all-knowing, so if he took time out of his day to speak to everyone who asked, that would take up all his time. However, the God of the Bible is supposed to exist everywhere and see everything, meaning that at any time and all times he can reveal himself to a human. Quite different from the President.

Do I deserve a personal visit from the Almighty? I think a better question is why wouldn't he grant me one? I am one of his creations and he is supposed to love me. If he does, he knows exactly what will make me a believer and he would make that happen so I don't burn in Hell eternally. To this day I have not received divine proof of any god's existence. I suppose your god wants me to burn.

It's comically tragic when people say "you will see God when you open your eyes to him." First off, when I opened my eyes to the world, he wasn't there. Secondly, I could tell you to open your eyes to Allah, Zeus, Poseidon, Shiva, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any number of other deities. If you want to see a god, you will. Plain and simple.

QUOTE
6) Atheist: I only believe in what I can see and touch.

Can you see, hear or touch your thoughts?
Can you see, hear or touch your intelligence?
Can you see, hear or touch your conciousness?

No, you can't. There are phenomenon in this world which cannot be perceived with our physical senses. That's just the way it is. Because you don't really believe you're thoughtless, without a concious and an IQ with a negative value? I thought so. That's all I have to say.


Anyone who says that isn't very smart, so don't trust that to be an atheist opinion. That being said, you can hear your thoughts and evaluate your intelligence and consciousness through your thoughts, which are created through what you feel of your senses. Although such things are immaterial, we can still feel them, just like we can feel emotions even though we can't touch them with our fingertips.

QUOTE
7) God is spiritual and is proved with spiritual methods.

God is outside of the capabilites of science because God is spiritual and eternal and is not bound by time and matter as we are. He created a world accessable for scientific methods, but He is beyond it. This is not a weakness for a belief in Creation, just a limitation within science. The definition of science is gathering information by observing and experimenting, and from this make logical conclusions. God created a world which we can define by science. But He Himself cannot be defined in the same way. We can't see Him in a microscope or a telescope because He is outside of His Creation and using material instruments to find Him is useless. God is not material, He's spiritual all through and God is therefor not a part of our scientific competency which only deals with the material part of reality.
Science is a method, formulated by man, to study the physical reality. There's absolutely NOTHING which says (more than your own pride) that there isn't anything beyond our physical reality.

MATERIAL phenomenon can only be proven by MATERIAL methods!
SPIRITUAL phenomenon can only be proven by SPIRITUAL methods!

God's existence can only be found in the spiritual dimension which means that all of the atheists attempts to find Him with material methods have all been in vain and will forever fail. God can be found in our hearts and He will never leave our hearts. But to see, hear, experience or feel Him in our hearts is only possible when your heart is completely pure and washed away from all your sins. You just need to humble yourself and be sincere, first then will the proof come to you. You cannot find proof by using a binocular or measuringtape


If he created a world for scientific methods, I wonder why he made everything look like it originated 13.75 billion years ago, this planet originated 4.56 billion years ago, life originated shortly after that and evolved for several billion years up until now. "Mysterious ways..."

Nothing says there can't be anything beyond our physical reality (as far as I'm aware), but that's not proof of your god, that just allows you to theorize that there might be one, and oh my heavens, will you quit proselytizing? Spouting the whole "he's in our hearts, wash away your sin" nonsense is appealing to emotion. It's completely devoid of fact and evidence; you're telling people to believe just to believe, not because it's something that makes sense to believe in. Once you've established that your god is effectively not proveable by scientific means, you've made your god an idea, and that's all.

QUOTE
8) Logical proof of God.

Perfection in the Creation:

How can it be that everything is so perfect? Everything is just so balanced and it's just simply amazing. The human body is so complex that scientists can't even explain half of how it works. Many interactions in nature are hard to explain without a "Creator". The whole Creation shows that there must be some form of logic behind it all. For many people, the perfection of our planet and the universe is proof enough.


Everything isn't perfect. That's just your opinion. There are lots of unbalanced things happening in the universe. Also, just because we can't explain some things doesn't mean that "God did it" is the right answer. The best answer is "we're don't know yet, but we're going to try to find out." If you settle with "God did it" on everything you don't know, you're going to miss out on a lot of amazing knowledge.

QUOTE
The quest for the meaning of life:

Humans always needs something to live for because it's not enough to just exist. For some reason we always seek some form of a meaning. It's like we lost our meaning of life and since then we try to find it again in a way or another. Someone can give us the meaning of life, this Someone has to be God. The need for a meaning of life is a clue or proof that God exists.


Again, just because God is a possible reason to keep living or have a purpose doesn't prove his existence. The requirement for a meaning to life is just basic human psychology, not some divine intervention. You'd need more proof of that. We are intelligent and social creatures, and because of that we require purposes to fulfill ourselves. All creatures also have purposes, but they are based on the instinct of reproduction and survival. Our intelligence allows us to form more complex purposes like obtaining occupations or traveling across our little world. None of these purposes have to depend on a god.

QUOTE
The innver void:

Sometimes we speak of an inner void in humans, something which is missing. There are surprisingly many people who feel like there's something missing. Why do we have that feeling of emptiness? This emptiness came when we decided not to have anything to do with God. When you seek God it's just like this emptiness is replaced with a meaning. It's the same for all believers in God and this is a clue or proof that God exists.


No, it's not. You're assuming we feel a void, and then you say "Because this X exists, God exists." There is absolutely no connection, and if you make that connection with your god, then anyone can make that connection with their god. For example: If we all feel a void, it must be a clue of Allah.

QUOTE
The personal experience of God:

You often hear believers say: "I've experienced God". So many people can witness about the presence of God that it simply cannot be made up. This presence of God is mutual for all believers and something like that would have been impossible if God was just a made up person. Faith is a conviction of things you do not see.
The whole universe just seems so perfectly calibrated to make life possible. For this to be the work of Mr. Coincidence a.k.a. Big Bang is something only dopey, foggy theorists believe in. Just take your eyes as an example. Each eye has 110 million pixels each. Only someone as brilliant as God can come up with something that genius!


Again, no. A bunch of people speaking from individual personal experience without evidence to back up their claims makes their claims useless. Many people believe they were abducted by aliens. Many believe they saw Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. None of us believe them because they have very little evidence or no evidence at all. The same applies to your god.

As for the eye thing, it's called evolution cowboy. Read "The Blind Watchmaker".

QUOTE
9) Einstein and Strindberg. Wise men!

"When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous." Albert Einstein

"It's just as illogical to believe in the world but deny God, as it is to believe in the shoe but deny the shoemaker" August Strindberg


"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." - Albert Einstein (one of many quotes from him about his religious beliefs. He was a freethinker and a deist).

And where does your quote from Strindberg get you? Should I trust his judgment because he's a famous dead dude or something? If you want to argue from authority (which is a fallacy), you should look up a study performed in 1996 that found that about 60% of Western scientists expressed doubt or disbelief in a god. You should pay attention more to their word than a 19th century playwright.


As for your end argument about how we all need salvation and we're in the end times, geez you really are eating your own nonsense. I almost don't know where to start. Everyone thinks they're living in the end times. Whenever anyone tries to prove it, they fit contemporary events into old prophecies. And it really bugs me that at the end of all this insulting drivel you'd threaten us with eternal damnation if we don't "get saved."

I don't mind religious people for the most part. I really don't. This, however? This is insulting to humanity.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#88

Posted 07 May 2012 - 11:53 PM

Theism and Deism are completely different though. That's like saying Theism and Roman Catholicism are the same thing.

HydraulicWaRiOr
  • HydraulicWaRiOr

    I Left My Wallet In El Segundo

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2011

#89

Posted 08 May 2012 - 03:47 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 7 2012, 08:19)
QUOTE (HydraulicWaRiOr @ Monday, May 7 2012, 00:13)
QUOTE (sivispacem)
Remember, the early Israelites practically revel in the destruction and genocide of 200,000 Assyrians at the behest of God, and literal interpretations of the Koran are responsible for Salaffi Takfirism which actively celebrates and idolises one committing murder or even suicide for the purpose of killing unbelievers.


That predates civilized culture. The whole of Jewish people showcases no severe disapproval of anything other than anti-semitism and hasn't ever during A.D. However, Christianity has encouraged the complete eradication of several things within the last 100 years, which stumps anything any other religion has ever done.

[Supreme]

Seen as civilised culture has existed since about 3,000BC it's pretty unlikely it predated it. The Egyptians- who, lest we forget, attempted to destroy the Israelites some two thousand years before the Assyrian genocide which occurred round 681BC). Then again, the idea of "civilised" is quite subjective, especially if you interpret it as sharing the same moral base as current Western society (in which case, there are dozens of nations that aren't "civilised" right now). But to me, "civilised" means an organised, hierarchical society characterised by a shared identity. And that's something that's been present in human experience for a very, very long time.

Now we come onto your point about Christianity preaching destruction on things. Firstly, you are making one fundamental mistake by addressing Christianity as a whole. It isn't a religion, it's a group of religions. To imply Christianity as a religious concept is responsible for violence and destruction is absolutely and utterly absurd- principally because it has no power of it's own. A religion cannot be held responsible for the actions of organised, politicised sects. The same way it is possible to be a Catholic without condoning the sexual abuse of altar boys, it's perfectly possible to be a Christian and not follow any of the main schools of Christian thought. And, again, I feel I must point out that if you are holding Christianity responsible for death and destruction perpetrated by followers, then you must do the same with Islam. Conflict between sects of Islam, and between Islam and other religions, has killed more people in the last thirty years than every other kind of conflict combined. It's killed more than died in the Holocaust. But I (quite rightly) don't see you blaming the religion itself for this killing; so why do so with Christianity unless you've got some kind of intrinsic bias; some phobia or irrational hatred of Christianity?

No matter. Jews haven't been responsible for an atrocity since before the Holy Roman Empire, at least unless you're one of those retards who blames the Jews on the death of Jesus, without any credible evidence that he existed in the first place.

It is a religion. They are all barbaric monstrosities that read from the same book, worship the same prophet, and believe in the same prophet. As a group of ideas based on a concept, it is responsible. That's like saying Hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust. Although Christianity doesn't directly orchestrate anything, it's belief system reflects much on what people will do to others, like imprison them, put them in gas chambers, and stick them in furnaces. The only big dispute in Islam is Jerusalem. They will not cease issues until they recieve direct ownership, and neither will the Jews, which is why I suggest the destruction of the city. I hate Christianity because it is the harbinger of death, and inspires such.

[Supreme]

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#90

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:06 AM Edited by sivispacem, 08 May 2012 - 07:16 AM.

You keep repeating yourself without substantiating what you are saying. I know full well that you believe that Christianity is the harbinger of death, what I don't understand is why. I used my examples of examining Judaism and Islam alongside Christianity to demonstrate the fallacy in your logic by claiming one is a destructive force and not all three. You have thus far failed demonstrate a single example of evil committed by religion. And you will continue to gaily, principally because there never truly has been one. Religion's purpose in conflict is to serve as a motivator and nothing more.

Besides, you claim to be a Communist. How can you quantify that with the evil things communist regimes have done yet argue test religion is intrinsically a cause of conflict? By your own logic, the system you put your faith in is every buy as evil, and arguably substantially worse.

Your Hitler example is terrible, too. I'm not arguing that Hitler wasn't responsible ot the Holocaust in this example, I wild be arguing that Fascism wasn't. Which is quite accurate. And there goes Godwin's Law. I also struggle to see any tangible link between Nazism and Christianity in terms of belief system. Surely ultranationalism entirely contradicts the very principles of Christianity. Also, if your going to biologically try and blame Christianity for the Holocaust, then surely I can use the same logic to blame atheism for the Great Purges?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users