Do you like it when poeple argue about theism/atheism ??

Do you like it when poeple argue about theism/atheism ??

  • Total voters
    87
KaMaKaZi-BLiTz said:
Huh?

I am confused? D:
Click to expand...

confused%5B2%5D.jpg
 
Uriel said:
Agreed, the religion I am apart of believes that true Christianity was lost shorty after the resurrection and there was a "Restoration"
Click to expand...
No, you aren't agreed. I'm not talking about belief; I'm talking about historical fact.

The original christianity was an elaboration on the laws of the old testament and nothing more.

LDS has absolutely nothing to do with the original christianity.
Also, there was no resurrection.

Umm, where does Jesus say kill all sinners? Doesn't he state hate the sin, love the sinner? Love thy neighbor and thy enemy? I'm not very familiar with the Bible but I don't remember it stating that anywhere.
Click to expand...

Not all sinners. Just the ones the old testament tells you to kill:
Adulterers, rape victims, unruly children, etc.
Those sorts of sinners.
Jesus, at no point, cancelled or over-ruled the old testament. He repeatedly re-affirmed it, however.

Loving someone doesn't stop you from killing them. That's a presentist viewpoint: you're applying present concepts of morality onto past events.
What did you think the Binding of Isaac is all about?

Abraham loved his son Issac, but when the voices in his head claimed to be god and told him to slaughter his son like an animal, he did it and was rewarded.
God pulled out at the last second, but the obvious moral of the story is that you must love people and execute them at the same time.
This is what Jesus demanded and subsequent christians, including you, continue to ignore.

Seriously, you're doing yourself a great disservice by not actually reading the bible.
How can you be christian when you aren't familiar with the bible?!

I define someone as a Christian if they believe in Jesus Christ
Click to expand...

Beleiving in Jesus Christ is easy.
He did exist, he preached the old testament and adding the importance of having faith. And then he died. Permanently.

If you are a christian, you don't beleive in Jesus.
You believe in all that claptrap in the bible that you haven't read.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
No, you aren't agreed. I'm not talking about belief; I'm talking about historical fact.

The original christianity was an elaboration on the laws of the old testament and nothing more.

LDS has absolutely nothing to do with the original christianity.
Also, there was no resurrection.
Click to expand...


Opinion, I know there's scriptures explaining the law of moses was fulfilled and replaced.

It's also opinion that Jesus was or was not resurrected and that the LDS religion has nothing to do with original Christianity.

Mechagodzilla said:
Not all sinners. Just the ones the old testament tells you to kill.
Adulterers, rape victims, unruly children. Those sorts of sinners.
Jesus, at no point, cancelled or over-ruled
Loving someone doesn't stop you from killing them. That's a presentist viewpoint.
What did you think the Binding of Isaac is all about?
Click to expand...

Again, I know I have read in the Bible about the law of Moses being replaced.

Mechagodzilla said:
Seriously, you're doing yourself a great disservice by not actually reading the bible.
How can you be christian when you aren't familiar with the bible?!



Beleiving in Jesus Christ is easy.
He did exist, he preached the old testament and added the importance of faith in reching heaven. And then he died, permanently.

If you are a christian, you don't beleive in Jesus.
You believe in all that claptrap in the bible that you haven't read.
Click to expand...

As a "Mormon" I believe the correct word of God is the Book of Mormon, which we believe is a testament of Jesus Christ. Thats what makes me a Christian and I could care less whether you think of me as one or not.
 
Uriel said:
Opinion, I know there's scriptures explaining the law of moses was fulfilled and replaced.
Click to expand...

Jesus NEVER replaced the laws. That's a total myth.

Those scriptures that do make claim were written 50-100 years after jesus died by Paul of Tarsus, who as far as I can tell, never even met Jesus.

Could you please provide a single thing Jesus said which contradicts this?

It's also opinion that Jesus was or was not resurrected and that the LDS religion has nothing to do with original Christianity.
Click to expand...

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof rests on your to support your opinion, not on me. It didn't happen unless you can prove it to a reasonable degree.

Also, if your sect does not follow the old testament, it is not the original. Sorry. How can you follow the original version of christianity if you added all that new stuff onto it along with Paul of Tarsus?

Again, I know I have read in the Bible about the law of Moses being replaced.
Click to expand...

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of Moses or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law. So anyone who breaks the least of these commandments or teaches others to do so will be called "least" in the kingdom of heaven."

Jesus said that. Your church teaches you to break the commandments of the old testament. You and they are "least" in the kingdom of heaven, which means you are going to hell.

As a "Mormon" I believe the correct word of God is the Book of Mormon, which we believe is a testament of Jesus Christ. Thats what makes me a Christian and I could care less whether you think of me as one or not.
Click to expand...

Why don't you care? If you're wrong about the book you don't understand, you are going to hell.
Isn't hell supposed to be a bad place?

I'm surprised how many christians think they're going to heaven by default just because they go to church.
God never said that he's letting any asshole in. He only lets in the best and brightest of your faith, and they are evidently not you.
 
pomegranate said:
Sorry to butt in, but you could care less? So quite how much do you care, then?
Click to expand...

Haha, it's one of those things you say, but when you break it down, it doesn't quite fit.

Like, "I couldn't give the biggest crap about what he says"

Well a pretty big crap is going to have more value than a smaller crap.

Especially if we're taking into consideration what type of crap, like ancient petrified dinosaur crap.

Then you begin to wonder why you're dealing in crap in the first place.
 
i dont lean against one side, but i dont like it when people argue about it
 
Uriel said:
Haha, it's one of those things you say, but when you break it down, it doesn't quite fit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's one of those things that you say incorrectly because you don't bother to think that you're talking nonsense. The phrase should be "I couldn't care less", which clearly means that you do not care at all about the matter at hand. "I could care less" is a corruption of that.
 
I don't like arguing about religion. What will always happen is that people will get overly agitated, tempers will flare, and no one will change their minds.
 
Ode^to^Joe said:
My personal opinion is that people should tolerate others' beliefs, however irrational those beliefs may sound to us.
Click to expand...
Tolerance is not ignoring. Tolerance is understanding why people would be religious; I personally feel this way. Tolerance is disagreeing but still respecting their right to have their own beliefs. It doesn't mean I can't still point out that they're stupid. I tolerate and understand racism (because I have to), but that doesn't mean I agree with it or will not argue about it with a racist.

Ode^to^Joe said:
I also think these discussion about theism/atheism are stupid. I have never seen a single person change his beliefs solely as a result of something that was revealed to them during one of these discussions. After one of these discussions, I have never seen a theist become an atheist and I have certainly never seen an atheist become a theist. What's the point then ??
Click to expand...
These sorts of discussions can function as catalysts quite easily. I can't say that that is how I became an atheist (as it was mostly internal) but I know that at least Geogaddi posted a thread a couple of months ago thanking those of us that argue because it opened his eyes a lot.

Ode^to^Joe said:
Do you think you are more intelligent than theists because you only believe in things supported by reason and scientific evidence?
Click to expand...
Not more intelligent, but surely less misguided. Religion is almost always contrary to reason or logic, and while I believe in spirituality being somewhat intuitive and internal and not relying on either of those, it still needs to have some sort of reasoning behind it, other than a 2000 year old book and a few tall tales about a guy who's long dead and was supposedly born in a barn.

Ode^to^Joe said:
Did you know that Einstein was a theist ?? Does that make him not so intelligent next to you?
Click to expand...
Oh, I guess I was supposed to answer "yes" to the question above. Sorry! ;)

Ode^to^Joe said:
Go to the library and read books on philosophy. You'll find that a lot of philosophers were atheists, but a bunch were theists also.
Click to expand...
yeah - the theist ones were the ones who could recognize that religion is stupid, but couldn't bring themselves to seperate it. Too much time went into the conditioning of the 'God' feeling within them.

Ode^to^Joe said:
For that reason alone, I do not think that theism, and atheism, are related to intelligence. (I am willing to bet the last Pope was more intelligent than anyone here.)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's an idiotic conclusion. Anyone can see that.

Ode^to^Joe said:
So please let us stop being so arrogant and respect others' opinions. Who cares if you are right or they are right? Just believe whatever you want to believe and let others believe whatever they want to believe.
Click to expand...
We care, obviously, and so do they.
 
I'm not religious in nature (If I had to catagorise myself I'd say I'm a lapsed Taoist), but the people who tend to irk me the most in any form of religious conversation are 'holier than thou' atheists, very similar in nature to ardent non-smokers and politically charged vegans. The sort of people who you actively avoid at parties because you know how pushy they are going to be with their beliefs. Real religious types, tend to respect your opinions even if they differ from theirs and give you space. Atheists, much like the non-smokers and vegans are on a perpetual crusade to convert you to the ways of rightousness.
 
I feel it's reasonable to assume that the desire to impress your beliefs on others is a pretty constant, widespread human tendency.
 
No, I'm sick to death of it and if I see another thread about it I'm gonna leave and not come back.
 
I like discussing philosophy and religion intrigues me. I wouldn't go out looking to try and decry someone's beliefs for no real reason but I wouldn't shy away from a debate.
Greatgat said:
I don't like the politics forum. What will always happen is that people will get overly agitated, tempers will flare, and no one will change their minds.
Click to expand...
Fixed.
 
I'm unapologetically anti-stupid ..be it jew, christian, muslim, pastafarian, atheist etc ...it's just that some religions/faith systems are much easier (deservedly so) to redicule in comparison to others
 
Yes, but not in public.
EDIT: and on the subject of "zelous atheists", it is certainly a cultural bias that makes it seem that way to religious people.

There are only 14 percent atheists in america, and about 80 percent religious people, of them a little less than half are evangelical, and many are extremely likely to try to "convert" you. On the other hand, atheists are extremely unlikely to say anything at all in public, especially here in the south, where atheism is almost a taboo.

Thus, those few atheists who actually do speak out about their beliefs are dubbed "crazy" or "zealous" and are seen as "pushing their beliefs onto others". Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, both of which write fairly reasonable and polite books are constantly berated at raving lunatics by almost any religious writer.

The cause is not an overzealousness of atheists, but the taboo that atheism holds in society.
 
theotherguy said:
Yes, but not in public.
EDIT: and on the subject of "zelous atheists", it is certainly a cultural bias that makes it seem that way to religious people.

There are only 14 percent atheists in america, and about 80 percent religious people, of them a little less than half are evangelical, and many are extremely likely to try to "convert" you. On the other hand, atheists are extremely unlikely to say anything at all in public, especially here in the south, where atheism is almost a taboo.

Thus, those few atheists who actually do speak out about their beliefs are dubbed "crazy" or "zealous" and are seen as "pushing their beliefs onto others". Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, both of which write fairly reasonable and polite books are constantly berated at raving lunatics by almost any religious writer.

The cause is not an overzealousness of atheists, but the taboo that atheism holds in society.
Click to expand...

I could hardly say I was Mormon in Indiana or Kentucky :frown:
It's not just atheists
 
xcellerate said:
...so you're telling me that there is a third option (or more)?
Click to expand...

That's actually inherent, yes. There isn't just one god. There are near-infinite different equally "possible" gods.

Thus the actual probability of christians being correct, given the utter lack of evidence, is actually pretty close to infinity-to-one against, and not 50-50.
 
Ennui said:
I feel it's reasonable to assume that the desire to impress your beliefs on others is a pretty constant, widespread human tendency.
Click to expand...

And actually, probably a damn good one for humankind, despite the mess it usually causes.

That's probably a big part of why humans have produced society.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
That's actually inherent, yes. There isn't just one god. There are near-infinite different equally "possible" gods.

Thus the actual probability of christians being correct, given the utter lack of evidence, is actually pretty close to infinity-to-one against, and not 50-50.
Click to expand...

Why would quantity change the fact though? God(s) exist or God(s) don't exist. It still works.

And you say Christian's don't have any evidence. I haven't run into the mountain of evidence saying God doesn't exist yet. Neither side has anything.
 
Probability at this point is rather useless, because you simply cannot just imagine something and expect a 50-50 chance of it being real. Without evidence, the odds are against you.

Why would quantity change the fact though? God(s) exist or God(s) don't exist. It still works.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point. Included in that infinite number are only approximately 3000 who are actually thought to give a shit about earth, prayer and etc.

We aren't arguing about the plain existence of a god; we are arguing the existence of a god that is relevant to people on earth.
Otherwise you're just being a sophist, arguing for junk you don't really believe.
Either god is relevant or who gives a shit?

And you say Christian's don't have any evidence. I haven't run into the mountain of evidence saying God doesn't exist yet. Neither side has anything.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Atheism has the advantage of not making any unscientific claims. It's falsifiable, which is the only possible way to show an idea is correct.
By being unfalsifiable, christianity is lesser by default. We don't need evidence because we aren't claiming anything.

Neither is atheism purely about disproving god. Again, it's mainly the idea that there is not enough evidence to make any silly conclusions about ghost-men.

Ironically, your post is an atheistic standpoint.
 
Mechagodzilla said:
No, you aren't agreed. I'm not talking about belief; I'm talking about historical fact.

The original christianity was an elaboration on the laws of the old testament and nothing more.

LDS has absolutely nothing to do with the original christianity.
Also, there was no resurrection.



Not all sinners. Just the ones the old testament tells you to kill:
Adulterers, rape victims, unruly children, etc.
Those sorts of sinners.
Jesus, at no point, cancelled or over-ruled the old testament. He repeatedly re-affirmed it, however.

Loving someone doesn't stop you from killing them. That's a presentist viewpoint: you're applying present concepts of morality onto past events.
What did you think the Binding of Isaac is all about?

Abraham loved his son Issac, but when the voices in his head claimed to be god and told him to slaughter his son like an animal, he did it and was rewarded.
God pulled out at the last second, but the obvious moral of the story is that you must love people and execute them at the same time.
This is what Jesus demanded and subsequent christians, including you, continue to ignore.

Seriously, you're doing yourself a great disservice by not actually reading the bible.
How can you be christian when you aren't familiar with the bible?!



Beleiving in Jesus Christ is easy.
He did exist, he preached the old testament and adding the importance of having faith. And then he died. Permanently.

If you are a christian, you don't beleive in Jesus.
You believe in all that claptrap in the bible that you haven't read.
Click to expand...




Im sorry to tell you this,but all this bugging Uriel proves you have nothing better to do then sit in front of a PC all day and complain.Uriel certainly is one of the people that does no harm,there is no need to educate him in this matter,he is happy in what he believes and thats all that counts.




get a life.:)





oh and btw,if you write one of those silly texts about me,then you prove my point once more.
 
Ænema said:
Im sorry to tell you this,but all this bugging Uriel proves you have nothing better to do then sit in front of a PC all day and complain.Uriel certainly is one of the people that does no harm,there is no need to educate him in this matter,he is happy in what he believes and thats all that counts.




get a life.:)





oh and btw,if you write one of those silly texts about me,then you prove my point once more.
Click to expand...

:|
 
i personally like these types of arguments, but it gets funner win you argue both sides. Like when i attempted to argue Mecha on his interpretation of the bible (i agree with his belief on Paul of Tarsus, but disagree on the the kill every sinner argument), but i still consider myself atheist and would argue that viewpoint.
 
I enjoy arguing a lot.

I don't believe anything, really, so I get my kicks out of just arguing against people for the fun of it.

Is that what you mean by sophist, mecha? Or anyone for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Barking Dog Studios' work for Valve
Replies
0
Views
11K
Barnz
B
Back
Top