Good Job halflife2.net

[A.I.]

Maybe I wasn't precise enough. Science is similar to religion in the way it hands over the knowledge to the common people. Knowledge is power and science has the key to it. Five hundred years ago only Church possesed the knowledge (which was based mostly on Aristotle) and no other even could because it was against reason of that time. There were individuals who questioned that and faced death penalty for heresy. Of course death penalty might seem an extreme to these days, but we know that those were actually pretty violent times.

After the Enlightenment intelectuals from universities finally began systematically taking away the power of knowledge Church had. They had different methods, which proved more sensible useful than those of Church. Psychology and sociology went even further in discovering amazing things about human "nature". But in ethics, there was no significant advance. Why so?

 

[brink's]

Like I said before, the difference between science and religion is that in most cases the "common people" can and are encouraged to logically question the answers that science gives us. Not only that, but with enough effort the common people can prove or disprove these answers.

Religion is the exact opposite.

 

[A.I.]

Like I said before, the difference between science and religion is that in most cases the "common people" can and are encouraged to logically question the answers that science gives us. Not only that, but with enough effort the common people can prove or disprove these answers.

Religion is the exact opposite.

Well, what about Martin Luther? He demanded reform (but not schism) of the Church which happened eventually. He demanded to have the Bible translated into the local languages which actually sparked the formation of nations as we know them today.

Religion is not the exact opposite of science. People do ask themselves about the purpose of life, don't they? You cannot make outright proof in religion because that would not be religion, it would be science then. We are debating and question ourselves about religion in this thread in a logical manner, how is this not the same as in science?

 

[ríomhaire]

You don't have to, but it's definately better to. And dammit, I'm really angry because I mustn't kill people. Damn 5th commandment.

In the original Hebrew, the commandment reads "You shall not murder". I think you'll agree that enforcing the laws of God is not murder.

Technically speaking actually not, he was just a leader of Israel.

Technically speaking, he was. He talking with God and God gave him the laws to tell the people.

They should not be followed every time they contradict the first two.

How is it a contradiction? You just have to love them while stoning them to death for breaking the laws of God.

You're right. Sane people do not question whether to kill other people or not.

It's not about being sane, it's about following the laws of God.

I'm sorry which part of 18 should contradict 20? I must be blind.

You are claiming that Jesus telling you to love your neighbour contradicts Jesus saying follow the laws of the prophets.

 

[delusional]

jesus also tells you to be forgiving and to not punish those who sin against you because god wont forgive you of your sins if you wont forgive others.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Jesus still owes me a beer.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[A.I.]

In the original Hebrew, the commandment reads "You shall not murder". I think you'll agree that enforcing the laws of God is not murder.
Yes, but you missed my point what I was trying to say.

Technically speaking, he was. He talking with God and God gave him the laws to tell the people.


How is it a contradiction? You just have to love them while stoning them to death for breaking the laws of God.
And after stoning them, you'd have to stone yourself to, because you "love your neighbour as yourself." Theoretically deceitful, practically impossible. ven in the times of inquisition, fanatic "good-doing-burning" was a cloak for wrath upon the heretics.

It's not about being sane, it's about following the laws of God. And God is the ultimate good. Thus it is sensible to follow the laws of God.


You are claiming that Jesus telling you to love your neighbour contradicts Jesus saying follow the laws of the prophets.

So, then I should not love my neighbour because of a contradiction derived from an interpretation?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You don't have to [follow the laws of the prophets], but it's definately better to. And dammit, I'm really angry because I mustn't kill people. Damn 5th commandment.

Don't trivialize. Either you follow the laws or you go to hell.

Technically speaking [moses was] actually not [a prophet of god, he was just a leader of Israel.

Now come on, no technicalities. He personally spoke with god face to face on multiple occasions, and god tasked him with recording the laws to which all christians must obey until the end of time.

Not true [jesus does contradict moses].

Wrong again.
That single passage is the best to show any contradiction? You'd think a peaceful anti-moses jesus would take a stronger stance against genocide, especially since god fully endorsed it earlier.
This is another of those things I have to repeat every time:

If you've read the old testament, you should know that God will forgive people on occasion. He did it with Cain, and he's doing it here. That doesn't exempt you from following the laws.

In the story of the adulteress, Jesus says "judge not lest ye be judged."
He doesn't just say "judge not." and leave it at that.
He says "judge not, unless..."

That's like saying "you get no ice-cream unless you clean your room."
That does not mean that ice-cream does not exist!

Judging is fully allowed.
And it continues to be, so long as you agree to place yourself under the jurisdiction of biblical law.

The men in the story, like you, refused to submit themselves to old-testament judgement and, as a result, lost their ability to judge.

[The Laws of moses] should not be followed every time they contradict the first two.

Alright, then genocide is okay as long as you enjoy it (which you should since it's the will of god and also jesus your savior).
Remember genesis 22?
You're supposed to gladly sacrifice you kids to god if he asks you to.
When god says jump, you say "how high?"

God's mercy is limitless. Jesus was human and had doubts too (e.g. Garden of Gethsemane).

Whoopidee-doo. You worship Jesus. You don't worship doubt.

God's mercy is limitless but - as the bible documents - it is only avaliable to those who follow the laws of moses and repent for their sins (preferably through one of the animal sacrifices listed as absolutely mandatory in moses's laws).
Funny enough, only some versions of the original new testament bible contain the story of jesus praying so hard that he shoots blood like a horned toad.
This implies that they were added later. Now, who wrote the book of Luke?
Oh, just a follower of Paul o' Tarsus - the guy who contradicts pretty much everything both god and jesus ever said.
No-one can rightfully claim that the bible is perfect, but it is still internally consistent to an adequate degree - unless you listen to anything paul says. Then it falls apart.

If you believe the bible, god isn't just handing out free samples of forgiveness. You have to earn it, and that right comes from being christian. People who don't follow god's laws aren't christian.

You're right. Sane people do not question whether to kill other people or not.

That's a gross generalization. I'd like to kill terrorists so we needn't deal with so much hardship from fundamentalists. I'm mildly glad that Saddam will be hung, but also very appalled that hanging still exists. There are always cases where killing is debatable, so long as there are dangerous people who need to be killed.

God acknowledged that fact when he demanded that all christians kill or exile their worst offenders, who may corrupt those around them.
When your eternal life is at stake, killing homsexuals, jews and unruly children is serious business.
The bible says do not murder, but executions on the behalf of god are killing, not murder. So they're - remember? - mandatory for all christians to support forever until the end of time.

I'm sorry which part of 18 should contradict 20? I must be blind.

The part where jesus says that every commandment given by god and written by Moses must be followed by all christians forever until the end of time.

I don't remember of Paul claiming that he is the Messiah, and [...] I think he would still anwser that Jesus is the Messiah.

You answered that as well, but that does not mean you are actually listening to what jesus actually said.
Jesus said the laws are mandatory. He wasn't doubtful, and he wasn't sweating blood. He was saying, straight up, by orders from his dad who is also himself, that people who don't follow the laws of moses are excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

Now that we have agreed that jesus is the messiah and that Paul is unreliable, the important question is now:
If jesus is real and you he is giving you lessons on how to avoid going to hell for eternity, why are you so lax about his teachings?

Paul is the one who messed up a couple of Christs ideas. Have you read The Last Temptation of Christ from Nikos Kazantzakis? It's really an interesting read.

It's also a work of fiction.
See, this is the essential problem with christians today. Everyone is worshiping what they want christ to be instead of what the bible says he is. Paul worshipped a hippie, you worship an nice dude who just happens to be the son of god, etc.

But the real Jesus is the one recorded in the bible, and he says to follow the laws of moses.
Now, that reality isn't pleasant, but that's reality for you.
If you think god is real, you've got to treat him as reality too.
There's no half-assing your way into the kingdom of god. So why am I the only one taking such pains to treat the bible as an essential book of the most important lessons ever written?
There's no point in following your heart or following an imagined peaceful jesus, because that's a one-way ticket to hell.
Don't just melt him down into some golden cow just because that's what you want, or what Paul wanted.

So, then I should not love my neighbour because of a contradiction derived from an interpretation?

No, you love your neighbour unconditionally. (Jesus establishes that anger is a sin equivalent to murder in Matthew 5:21-22.)
But you are required to take him out if he gets unruly.

Think of it like Old Yeller.
If your neighbour gets too sinful, you take him out back and shoot him.
Then you cry a little because you loved your neighbour.

jesus also tells you to be forgiving and to not punish who sin against you because god wont forgive you of your sins if you wont forgive others.

Again, it's the opposite. God won't let you kill unrepentant sinners unless you agree to be killed should you ever become a liability.
Only the most faithful and righteous are allowed to kill, and only those who accept and participate in the killing go to heaven.
There's no contradiction there.

 

[el Chi]

I used to feel agnostic in that I didn't believe in an ascribed deity like Allah or Jesus' birth dad, but I was open to the idea that there might be a higher, transcendant force behind things. In my mind, this would be a lot more forgiving, one that abided by common sense (eg: fornication does not = eternal damnation, etc.).

However over the last year or so I've pretty much abandoned that and would firmly consider myself as an atheist.

This was partly due to my university work: a dissertation involving existential philosophy and the fundamental absurdity of existence coupled with a module specifically on the philosophy of religion. Too many of the "for" arguments were stupid catch-22s, cop-outs, or seemed like grasping at straws.
Also reading stuff here, certain programs on TV and current affairs has just highlighted how religion can be so segregatory, inflammatory, restrictive and I simply cannot fathom why any perfect deity would consider this manner of doing things to be in any way decent, nor can I see how that will enhance my life.

For the most part I'm tolerant of other people's views in that if their faith helps them get through the day then fine. However I don't appreciate it other people telling me that I'm in the wrong for not sharing their beliefs.
Just one of the many things that makes me very angry about religion and makes me more sympathetic to anti-theists.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I include the stipulation that if you choose to follow a religion, you should do it properly.

It's like getting a driver's license. You need to understand the rules of the road and how the car works. Only then can you call yourself a driver.

It's constantly shocking to see so many people who think that they can simply "interpret" their way into heaven.
You can't "interpret" a stoplight, can you?
Why hold god to such lower standards?

It's a nice sentiment to be tolerant of other's beliefs, but that's like being tolerant of my invisible pet unicorn telling me to stab you in the eye with a fork.

There is a point where death cults simply can't be tolerated, especially when they cause real-world harm like banning abortion, legislating against gays and blowing up the WTC (damn reptilians!).

 

[el Chi]

Of course you COULD argue that ALLOWING abortion is causing real-world harm but I'm just playing Devil's advocate.
Well, that and I want to make my fortune doing back-street abortions.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

Literally!

The bible says abortion is, in fact, not murder.
It is against the biblical law to kill a fetus, but the only punishment is that the abortionist has to pay the husband of the woman a small fine.

Actually, the bible goes so far as to say that full-fledged life doesn't begin until the age of around one month.

 

[brink's]

Literally!

The bible says abortion is, in fact, not murder.
It is against the biblical law to kill a fetus, but the only punishment is that the abortionist has to pay the husband of the woman a small fine.

Actually, the bible goes so far as to say that full-fledged life doesn't begin until the age of around one month.

Can you tell me exactly where is says this in the bible?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Sure, it's Exodus 21:22

I'm actually being unfair here. The bible actually contains absolutely no rule against clinical abortion at all.
The passage in Exodus 21 only makes reference to the obviously worse act of causing a pregant woman to miscarriage through negligence.

Since the biblical punishment for all forms of murder is effectively death*, it's pretty clear that abortion isn't murder.

As for the one-month part, that pops up twice in god's orders:

God places value on human life in Leviticus 27. Men are worth 50 shekels, women are 30...

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver." -- Leviticus 27:6

...children under the age of one month have no value at all.

Also, God orders moses to count the children of Levi. Children under the age of one month don't count.

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." -- Numbers 3:15-16


*It's also legal to beat your slave to death, as long as they die from their injuries slowly enough (because they are your property). So slaves and fetuses aren't people.
The more you know!

 

[99.vikram]

Jesus still owes me a beer.

So Barney is Gebus!!!111

I'd say I am a complete atheist, meaning I believe neither in a benevolent/malevolent higher power, nor in some higher power guiding everything. I have never seen evidence to support the existance of any intelligent higher power.

IMO, the fact is, humans want to be accountable to someone stronger and wiser. We seek guidance and help in times of need, and thus we create an imaginary God who loves and helps us, if we did something for him (follow scriptures/ make sacrifices).

Humans need a God, so we build one for ourselves. I have found that even as an atheist I am not immune to this. When I need to get something done desperately, i find myself begging someone for a little luck or strength to see it through. If something goes wrong, I need someone to blame.

The bottom line is, everything that happens to us is a combination of past actions and probability.

 

[kirovman]

Mecha makes me want to be a Christian. All the authorised killings that are available!

His (proper) interpretation sounds much better than pretending to be Ned Flanders.

 

[Geogaddi]

Mecha, I was explaining Matthew 5:17-20 to a Christian friend, and he brought up the fact that killing lambs as the Old Testament describes is no longer necessary, because Jesus is the Lamb of God.

What would you say to that?

 

[Solaris]

Mecha, I was explaining Matthew 5:17-20 to a Christian friend, and he brought up the fact that killing lambs as the Old Testament describes is no longer necessary, because Jesus is the Lamb of God.

What would you say to that?

I imagine Mecha would say something like

'Had Jesus not wanted us to follow the laws after he sacrificed himself, he would not have told us that the law applies forever until the second coming.

cyber terrorism'

 

[ríomhaire]

Yes, but you missed my point what I was trying to say.

You said that the 5th commandment stopped you from killing people, you are wrong. What where you trying to say?

And after stoning them, you'd have to stone yourself to, because you "love your neighbour as yourself." Theoretically deceitful, practically impossible. ven in the times of inquisition, fanatic "good-doing-burning" was a cloak for wrath upon the heretics.

You only have to stone yourself if you broke the laws of God. That is what don't judge lest ye be judged means. You are free to punish people under God's laws only if you accept them and live by them. If you are a true follower of the lord and you break one of his laws you should want to be punished.

And God is the ultimate good. Thus it is sensible to follow the laws of God.

Us arguing this point will go nowhere, fast. I don't know about you but I'm playing devil's advicate and I do think that anyone who follows the Bible competly is mad.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

I'm an atheist and I consider religion to be one of the most retarded and delusional concepts invented by man.

If a theist is intelligent, it is in spite of their religous beliefs.

Religion itself is the MOST important thing & the MOST relevant thing ever invented by man. Humanity would be in shamble's by now without faith. It is just theory about the big bang, not a fact.

There is not proof that GOD doesn't or does exist, but I have faith.

Im a baseball fan & my favorate team is the New York Mets, also their saying is "YA GOTTA BELIEVE BABY!!!" and I for one do.

 

[tehsolace]

Its kind of funny how those who follow the Bible say "well... you don't take it literally!!", and then proceed to quote from it for whatever purpose, as if its a law-book to be taken literally.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Mecha, I was explaining Matthew 5:17-20 to a Christian friend, and he brought up the fact that killing lambs as the Old Testament describes is no longer necessary, because Jesus is the Lamb of God.

What would you say to that?

Your friend is refering to this passage here:

"[Ignore god's passover sacrifice laws]. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:" 1 Corinthians 5:7

That's a clear contradiction with jesus, who says that those passover sacrifices must be followed until the end of time.

This concept of jesus as a sacrificial lamb, whose sacrifice permanently cleanses sin, comes from - you guessed it! - notable fanfiction author Paul of Tarsus, who wrote the first epistle of the corinthians.

He made up this new rule (along with all the other "ignore the old testament" rules) without Jesus's consent, because Jesus was long dead by that point.
Basically, he pulled that fact right out of his ass.

"scholars such as Thomas McElwain consider the belief that Jesus has already paid the whole price for sin as a later belief, one unknown to any of the disciples of the first century. They argue that "the followers of Jesus Christ went on participating in the sacrificial system of the temple in Jerusalem until its destruction in AD 70" and "the apostolic church, for more than a generation after the ascension of Jesus, still offered the Old Testament sacrifices." The Epistle to the Hebrews clearly teaches that Jesus replaces the temple service, its sacrifices and its priests. But they argue that "the historical fact is that such belief came only in connection with the destruction of the temple." The composition of the book of Hebrews has been dated to shortly after the Pauline epistles were collected and began to circulate, circa AD 95 which is after the destruction of the temple."

Note the underlined part. Yep, it's Paul's fault again.
Talk about disinformation!

Did Jesus remove sin?
You betcha.
Just not in the retarded, contradictory way Paul imagined.
Jesus came down to inform people to start following the laws even more diligently than before, or go to hell.
Instead of the act of murder being a capital sin, simply contemplating it counts as crime enough.
(Matthew 5:21-22)

Adulterer, likewise, is a term applied to anyone who looks at another's wife "with lust". Adultery is also punishable by death.
(Matthew 5:27-28)

As jesus said, it's not enough to simply follow the laws.
You have to fill your mind with love and faith too, or you go to hell.

Jesus removed sin by punishing thoughtcrimes.
Any asshole can die, but it takes a messiah to put you on the chair for thinking wrong.

Its kind of funny how those who follow the Bible say "well... you don't take it literally!!", and then proceed to quote from it for whatever purpose, as if its a law-book to be taken literally.

That's because it is a law book.
The reason they "interpret" these laws is that all the police who should be protecting and serving god died out over 1900 years ago.

That's where I come in.
I'm bringing back the bible, baby.

 

[brink's]

Religion itself is the MOST important thing & the MOST relevant thing ever invented by man. Humanity would be in shamble's by now without faith. It is just theory about the big bang, not a fact.

There is not proof that GOD doesn't or does exist, but I have faith.

Im a baseball fan & my favorate team is the New York Mets, also their saying is "YA GOTTA BELIEVE BABY!!!" and I for one do.

You have faith in a lie that man created....

There also isn't any proof against a flying yellow can of moldy tuna created the universe.....but i have faith.

 

[GhostBoi]

When applied to any other subject some of the excuses that people give for their faith sound ridiculous, so why shouldn't they sound ridiculous in the context of God. Take one such example:
"I wouldn't want to live in a world that didn't have a higher power overlooking us all."

Now say you have a neighbor that is convinced that there is a diamond buried in his backyard. Every sunday his family and himself go in the backyard and dig for the diamond, it is a great bonding time for them.

One day you ask your neighbor why he believes their is a diamond buried in his backyard. To which he replies, "I wouldn't want to live in a world that a diamond wasn't buried in my backyard."

Ridiculous, right?

I am not going to take credit for this example, it is the work of Sam Harris. But I agree with him wholeheartedly.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The most fun comes from replacing any reference to "god" with "Zeus".

Edits: Sam Harris is my hero.

Also, his book The End of Faith has a huge advantage over the bible in the obvious fact that Paul of Tarsus will never, ever modify and reinterpret the entire work as a recipe for biscuits.

 

[brink's]

I am not going to take credit for this example, it is the work of Sam Harris. But I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Good Video, it's just ridiculous that he even needs to make those points.

 

[FieryGoose]

My Perspective.

Religion is something that you can never really understand until you actually try to believe, and look at things from a different perspective. Argueing whether it makes sence to believe in such a thing is absurd without haveing the first hand experience of believing something that they would risk their life for, and risk also what lies beyond life on earth. If there is such a person who created life itself wouldn't you think that their level of thinking is far beyond ours? I sure hope so. I think one of the main factors that keeps people from trying out religion and honestly trying to believe in one, is that too many people take life for granted. Just my opinion though...

 

[brink's]

Argueing whether it makes sence to believe in such a thing is absurd without haveing the first hand experience of believing something that they would risk their life for, and risk also what lies beyond life on earth.

So ridding yourself all logic/reasonable explanation is more reasonable then...well....trying to find logic and reasonable explanation in life?

If there is such a person who created life itself wouldn't you think that their level of thinking is far beyond ours?

He might want to stop contradicting himself.

 

[GhostBoi]

Religion is something that you can never really understand until you actually try to believe, and look at things from a different perspective. Argueing whether it makes sence to believe in such a thing is absurd without haveing the first hand experience of believing something that they would risk their life for, and risk also what lies beyond life on earth. If there is such a person who created life itself wouldn't you think that their level of thinking is far beyond ours? I sure hope so. I think one of the main factors that keeps people from trying out religion and honestly trying to believe in one, is that too many people take life for granted. Just my opinion though...

Taking life for granted?! People who believe that there is another life would be much more likely to take life for granted. If you only believe that there is one life then you are going to live it to its fullest most likely.

Unless you meant to say that life is so complicated that it can't be taken for granted that it all just came in to existence by itself, I don't buy that, because it is just a lazy copout.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

You have faith in a lie that man created....

Are you talking about the mets? because if I remember correctly, in 1986' in flushing Queens, Game 6 of the World Series Mookie Wilson hit a slow ground ball towards 1st baseman Bill Buckner which went under his legs..a play that made forever changed history, a play that could've sent bill buckner into the hall of fame if he had made that out. That time was special, it was simply amazin', it was magical, it shall forever be know as "The impossible comeback" with that play the mets win the world series. I for one DO BELIEVE!!! 2007!!! sorry about that I had to let that out.

IF there is NO God explain why miracles happen.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Religion is something that you can never really understand until you actually try to believe, and look at things from a different perspective.

I try to believe all the time, and I have spent a well over five years of my life looking at things from that "different perspective."

Christianity, judaism, scientology, ufos, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, the flying spaghetti monster, near-death experience, alien abduction, furry fandom, fanfiction.
And, obviously, atheism.

After reading and re-reading the bible, plus large amounts of historical documentation from well before the time of its writing, I have recorded my conclusions in this thread:
-Jesus advocated genocide.
-Every christian on Earth in at least 1900 years has failed to achieve the basic standard for entering heaven, as documented in the bible.
-If there is a hell, you are absolutely guaranteed to go there.

I've done some fairly simple math and have effectively proven that the existence of a god of the type you claim is literally the least likely event in the known universe. He's infinitely unlikely.
(Take your number of desired gods and divide it by by number possible gods.)

The rational human mind says you're wrong, and the irrational bible/koran worshipped by half the world say you're wrong.

There is absolutely no precedent for the claims you make, but here you are making them.

Argueing [sic] whether it makes sence [sic] to believe in such a thing is absurd without haveing [sic] the first hand experience of believing something that they would risk their life for, and risk also what lies beyond life on earth.

So, this is the "different perspective"?

This "different perspective" is to base your life on imaging things that you acknowledge are impossible to imagine.
Becuase you're not just asking me to imagine these things.
You're asking me to imagine specific things that I can only theorhetically understand after i die.
That's an exercise in futility.
You're asking humanity to do the impossible.
Not as an exception.
As a rule.

If there is such a person who created life itself wouldn't you think that their level of thinking is far beyond ours?

Now you're asking me to imagine an invisible man who is literally unimaginable.

I think one of the main factors that keeps people from trying out religion and honestly trying to believe in one, is that too many people take life for granted. Just my opinion though...

That's a stupid opinion.

It's taking your life for granted to throw your eternal soul onto a roulette wheel with infinite slots and banking years of effort on hitting lucky number 223238798796666669067687686862429424.20998777743

But it's not only that. When you protest reproductive rights you are banking on the lives of millions of others as well.
When you're a muslim jihadist, you are banking on the lives of billions of people.

The suicide biombers certainly held that different perspective, didn't they?
Those suicide bombers truly valued their lives.

No, that's bullshit.
They valued their afterlives. They valued their souls and their god, beyond all else. Beyond even the most basic human sympathies. Beyond rational thought.

Those killers are so much better at faith than you are.
You suck at faith compared to the man who would set off a pipebomb in a kindergarten.

And I'm wasting my life because I don't respect that "different perspective."

 

[brink's]

No, i was refering to your " Religion is the most important thing INVENTED by man comment"

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

No, i was refering to your " Religion is the most important thing INVENTED by man comment"

Yes, Yes it is. I don't understand the belief in athiesism...Aren't you afraid to die. I for one would like to believe that there is life after death, that this isn't the end. Do you like the idea of rotting in the ground for years to come after you die? I sure don't, Its not comforting imo, then again its mostly athiest-liberals-socialists on this forum who impose & shove their opinions down every ones throat for the most part.

You guys can talk all you want on your theories of how god doesn't exist, but in the end it just boils right down to is just theories that are not proven. Please explain to me why miracles happen when medicines phail?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Oh shit, you were being sincere.

Yes, Yes it is. I don't understand the belief in athiesism [sic]...Aren't you afraid to die. [sic] I for one would like to believe that there is life after death, that this isn't the end.

There is a massive difference between hope and belief.
You can hope all you want. That is the domain of the imaginary. "I hope I win a unicorn in the lottery."

Belief means that you are making a judgement about the nature of reality.
No proper judge bases his judgements on nothing.
"I believe I have won a unicorn in the lottery."

The 'belief' of atheism is based in fact.
In this case, the mathematical probability of god that I've established to be infinitely small.
My procedure is verifiable, and that makes this belief a science.
God can be a science too, if only he were better at proof than I am.

Do you like the idea of rotting in the ground for years to come after you die? I sure don't, Its [sic] not comforting imo, then again its mostly athiest-liberals-socialists [sic] on this forum for the most part.

Dead people aren't conscious. You won't experience rotting. You won't even experience the burial part.
When you fall asleep, that's basically the sensation of death.
You don't dream, you don't experience, you don't remember the past ability to dream and experience.
You are literally afraid of nothing.

I care about life, and I care about the future.
I can sympathize with others, and that human sympathy is the basis of my life.

When I see a child, I want that child to live life unencumbered. I want that child to look at his children that same way. I want sympathy to spread like a wildfire.

And I don't mean that in that backhanded religious way.
I'm talking about a universal standard of morality that applies to everyone, and that standard is found exclusively in the domain of the rational.
You don't murder because it hurts people.
You don't steal because it hurts people.
No sane man requires a god to tell him these things.

This is certainly not a a basic dignity exclusive to the "athiest-liberals-socialists [sic]".

You guys can talk all you want on your theories of how god doesn't exist, but in the end it just boils right down to is just theories that are not proven. Please explain to me why miracles happen when medicines phail [sic]?

Show us a documented miracle.

Just one.

Then remember that all documentation is evidence, which is worthless without the same basic logic that proves we can say - to the highest degree of certainty - that there is no god.


Religion needs rationality to work.
You cannot read the bible if you think the bible is a duck, for example.
You cannot be religious without using logic.
But logic proves that religion is false.

Therefore, religion disproves itself.

 

[brink's]

Y Its not comforting imo,

If it helps you get through the day, then more power to you. That doesn't mean it's not an inevitability.

You guys can talk all you want on your theories of how god doesn't exist, but in the end it just boils right down to is just theories that are not proven. Please explain to me why miracles happen when medicines phail?

It's not so much theories as probability, there are more reasons not to believe in God then to take a leap of faith( pun intended)

That happens a lot less then you're giving it credit for and it's really an inept argumet( since there is probably a realistic unknown reason for such an occurence). You're just resorting to man's default explanation.

 

[tehsolace]

That's because it is a law book.
The reason they "interpret" these laws is that all the police who should be protecting and serving god died out over 1900 years ago.

That's where I come in.
I'm bringing back the bible, baby.

Exactly... but if its a law book, then it should be taken literally. And in its entirity. You shouldn't be able to pick and choose which parts are God's law and which are just to be considered 'old and outdated passages' to be taken metaphorically or ignored...

 

[Geogaddi]

When I see a child, I want that child to live life unencumbered. I want that child to look at his children that same way. I want sympathy to spread like a wildfire.

Very well said, and very...poetic. Sig material even.

Anyways, this Wednesday I plan serve as a holy warrior of Christian atheism. I'm going to go to my youth Bible study and point out all of the violent parts of the Bible that we've been ignoring. I'ma have me a big list of verses and go down the list (Some that I've found on my own, most from Mecha), and shut down anyone that argues to the contrary. I don't think that I'm going to reveal that I've become atheist right away though, I don't want to lose my credibility.

 

[PvtRyan]

You might want to read The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Brilliant book.

Oh, and if you present those violent passages, they'll probably respond with "O, but that's the Old Testament, we decided to ignore that." (eventhough God never said to in any way)

But point out that Jesus said the old laws will hold until the end of time.

Or they'll blame it on translations and human contamination over the ages, which of course, begs the question why they bother with the Bible as the centerpiece of their religion at all, if it's really that unreliable.

Perhaps even the response: "But those were different times!". Yeah, well, apparently God liked those times, it's your job as a Christian then to revert these new times back to the old. God never said to advance on secular ethics.

EDIT: Hehe, I backtracked through the thread and saw Sam Harris had already been recommended.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

that there is no god.

Let explain to you, in history Jesus did exist, he made miracles happen, there is evidence proving it the Noah's Arc' which was found perseved in some mountains in the middle east, explain how millions upon millions of people all over the world seem to have the marks of christ just mysteriously. You don't believe in ghosts? well they DO exist. The bible predicts Hitler (saw that on the History channel). History just points of such & history hoes not lie.

In fact I have been touched by the allmighty himself, the Lord God told me himself in my mind that one of my pets were going to die...3 months have past and my family were getting very worried because I was acting strange. then it happened. I'll say, it was one of the wierdest & most scariest moments of my entire life.



Let me tell ya my friends, my brother's, & my sister's, that over the course of history there had been millions of moments in history that 'man' was looking for guidance, seeking help, there have been such moments where terrible things happen in history & where humans seek help, where extreme form of genocide occurs. The holocaust, WW1, WW2, the reign of terror of the russian csars.

Well guess what athiesists, Your man is not really a man he is phycotic, his nick name is..MAN OF STEEL in russian, or other wise known as Josef Stalin. He was an athiesist. So people like him made it impossible for people to have a religion, they did not have the freedom of religion. They were persecuted.

 

[CptStern]

:O


someone's about to get Mecha-pwned

:O


quick question ...was your post serious? cuz if so ......wow :O


btw just for the heck of it please provide evidence that noah's ark was found ..this should be entertaining