# I vote NO religious debates



## Get-dancing (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm serious.

All they are good for is a sensless beating of the dead horse, and gets everyone hot and bothered.  I for one am very offended when people mock my religion.

This would include:
-No athiests ripping the shit out of Christians.
-No Christians ripping the shit out of Muslims (OMG racist! lol).
-No religions ripping the shit out of other religions in general.
-No Ad hominems about peoples religious beliefs in debates ie "Pfft! You're a religious nut? No wonder you opose gay marriage then."
-No WBC discusions.
-No blatant taking the piss out of peoples gods, prophets, holidays, ect.
-No pseudo-scripture readings.
...

Afterall barely any other forums permit them. Why not discuss _nice_ things? Y'know? Like shoes, shopping, cookies, software, music, comedians, actors, cars, bikes, women, soccor, men, corrupt WW2 leaders, yeah nice things.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

Ha! Your logic fails, I am Buddhist! Therefore it is impossible for me to get "hot and bothered"!

In all seriousness, it's good for a few lulz.


----------



## Monak (Oct 21, 2008)

Religion has no place in the modern world , that is why we do it.  The dark ages set us back a good 800 years in our developement , and to this day religious beliefs are still being forced down our throats , and used against science.


----------



## Skittle (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm a recently converted Christian with some Mormon views (especially when it comes to Heaven) and it annoys me when people rip shit about other people's religions and try to shove them down people's throats. We all believe and hope we have the right religion but the truth is NO ONE KNOWS. So instead of trying to push your god why not just accept their religion incase theirs is the right one? Don't want to piss their god off so you go to a rather nasty place, no? I honestly don't understand why people just can't get along in this world. We all share one thing, we believe in something even if it is nothing at all. It is all beliefs, not written law, not proven fact, not proven science when it comes to religion. I will get angry at people who tell me I am dumb for becoming a Christian and telling me I am wrong. I don't tell you that you are wrong for believing what you do.

I honestly hate people who shove ANY belief system down anyone's throat. It is what you BELIEVE which the defintion of believing is a vague idea in which some confidence is placed. Therefore, it is not proven fact. It is not anything that you can really shove down someone's throat. It really annoys me.


----------



## Azure (Oct 21, 2008)

PredictionCertainty.  This will turn into another standard religion thread, with atheists saying PROVE GOD EXISTS, and the Xtians screaming, PROVE HE DOESN'T.  Which he doesn't, IMO, at least, not the vengeful little shite that is the God of the Bible, or any earthly god.  If there is some sort of deity, in any twisted or roundabout sense, it probably has the common fucking sense to remain unseen and unknown, and is likely apathetic to things like buttsex, or working on the Sabbath, or any of that other shit.


----------



## Blondi (Oct 21, 2008)

Well... I am a roman catholic. Here in my current "home-land" people are mostly finnish lutheran. I dont make such mess about it. I go to church there, because, I BELIEVE IN GOD AND ITS MY WAY HOW AM I GOING TO PRAY! I accept every single religion. I have been in muslim mosques, orthodox monasteries... Everyone has his own choice. I dont judge people by religion, I look always in their hearts. My friends are always telling me that I should more think my head then heart. I dont think like that. I have always trusted my heart, and it never caused me trouble. 

So... To end this. I just want to say one german quote "Frei zu leben!" (Free to live!).


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> PredictionCertainty.  This will turn into another standard religion thread, with atheists saying PROVE GOD EXISTS, and the Xtians screaming, PROVE HE DOESN'T.



I'm counting on it.  G-D isn't good for much, but he can start up a fun little shitstorm sometimes.  The "quality" of said shitstorm is determined by how many posts it takes to get locked.

Also: LOL, G-D is a Christian. <--mocking his religion


----------



## Talvi (Oct 21, 2008)

*scribbes down usernames of people to avoid, under category "delusional"*


----------



## Skittle (Oct 21, 2008)

Talvi said:


> *scribbes down usernames of people to avoid, under category "delusional"*


Why are we delusional? Cause we believe in God or another deity? What about people who believe in ghosts and the like? The Unseen? It's really sad you consider people with a religion to be delusional.


----------



## coffinberry (Oct 21, 2008)

Will you stop with the Nazi threads?


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

I have no problem with Christians as long as they remember to keep church and state separate. They can be giant douchebags sometimes, but occasionally you get one that says, "You know..this is a free country! Other people deserve to be free!"

And then I glomp them and happily accept them into my little circle.


----------



## Azure (Oct 21, 2008)

skittle said:


> Why are we delusional? Cause we believe in God or another deity?


Stop answering your own questions.



Shenzi said:


> I have no problem with Christians as long as they remember to keep church and state separate. They can be giant douchebags sometimes, but occasionally you get one that says, "You know..this is a free country! Other people deserve to be free!"
> 
> And then I glomp them and happily accept them into my little circle.



I've only know one, and he is my very dearest friend.  They are a rare commodity, Christians who don't push or shove their bullshit down the throats of others.


----------



## Frasque (Oct 21, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> I'm serious.
> 
> All they are good for is a sensless beating of the dead horse, and gets everyone hot and bothered. I for one am very offended when people mock my religion.
> 
> ...


 
I notice your list doesn't include "No Christians pushing their batshit arrogant delusions on atheists and agnostics". Typical fundie nutjob, you only get worked up about religious debates when you know you're losing.


----------



## Skittle (Oct 21, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Stop answering your own questions.
> 
> 
> 
> I've only know one, and he is my very dearest friend.  They are a rare commodity, Christians who don't push or shove their bullshit down the throats of others.


I don't shove my beliefs down others throats. Most of my friends are atheist and would probably attack me for becoming Christian. And that is really quite rude, just so ya know. Do you consider that Christian friend delusional because of their beliefs?


----------



## C. Lupus (Oct 21, 2008)

Don't mind Christians, even though I doubt that religion. I was a Christian but turned later into an athiest. But that's because I don't know what to believe in any more. 
So I'l just follow the the yin and yang principles.


----------



## Takun (Oct 21, 2008)

I'd be fine with that if every time a person finds out I'm atheist they wouldn't act like I have the plague or something.


----------



## Wreth (Oct 21, 2008)

Agnostic ftw!


----------



## Gnome (Oct 21, 2008)

i like religions debates, when the debating parties arnt dicks.

i approve debates for understanding of the subject and ones self
i DO NOT approve debated for "im right-er than you are" shit

EDiT:
yeah, so i guess that ruled out all religious debated on the internet lol.


----------



## makmakmob (Oct 21, 2008)

I'd appreciate a decent debate if we could stop flogging the few dead horses we seem to have lying around.

"Religion is primitive"
"prove god exists"
"lol religion sux because they don't like me sexing other men in the butt" 

I mean, maybe that last one is a US thing, but I'm yet to meet an English Christian who has an actual disapproval of homosexuality. If anything, the devout ones are more accepting than the atheists and the less devout round here.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

Fred Phelps, my grandparents, and my state all hate gays. Deep South sucks.


----------



## makmakmob (Oct 21, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Fred Phelps, my grandparents, and my state all hate gays. Deep South sucks.



Wow. Unlucky. And who the crap is Fred Phelps?
Most of the Christians I know are baptists. Dunno if that changes anything.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 21, 2008)

Your religion is not immune to discussion. If it were, there would have been no enlightenment age; indeed, we'd still be enjoying witch burnings and the like.

You are entitled to your belief, to the same extent as others are entitled to their's.

To be honest, religion is considered by too many to be a 'touchy subject' and that's why it gets away with so damn much. If we had more people discussing it and fewer saying 'I don't want to talk about it because it offends little old me' then perhaps woman could make their own choices regarding abortion, people could choose to die with dignity, and homosexuals could be upgraded from second class citizens.

I'm going to enjoy the freedom and open-mindedness of these forums (to whatever extent I can), and I will respect your choices, but I'll be damned (very much so) before I let you take my right to discuss it openly and honestly.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Do I sense butt-hurtness because the last time you tried to argue about religion you had several people show up who knew more about it than you do?

That said, there will be no "No Atheists ripping the shit out of Christians" unless there is also a clause where "No Christians and or other religious groups trying to force their ideals and morals upon other people, either openly, secretly, subtly, and or underhandedly".

It goes both ways.

I am sorry but no matter what people will always debate about religion and there is nothing you can do about it. Oh, and you don't have the right to not be offended, Dancing. So what if you get offended when people mock your religion? I get offended when people claim to be religious and don't know anything about their religion.

I get offended by religious people who arrogantly discard thousands of years of history, in an attempt to legitimize what ever it is they are trying to claim. I get offended by people trying to dress up Creationism or ID in a lab-coat to try to pass it off as science. Do you know what I don't do though? I don't turn around and demand nobody say anything about certain stuff so I "Won't be offended". I know better, and you should too.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

makmakmob said:


> Wow. Unlucky. And who the crap is Fred Phelps?
> Most of the Christians I know are baptists. Dunno if that changes anything.



Go to http://www.godhatesfags.com/ and you will get a feel for what kind of bullshit Fred Phelps and his group are all about. Also you can go to http://www.godhatesamerica.com/, and http://www.godhatessweden.com/ if the sites are still up.

Those are all run by Fred Phelps, and the Westboro Baptist Church.

EDIT: Or for a more direct explanation, Fred Phelps is a man who used to be a heavy alcoholic....and became a pastor and founded his own church called the Westboro Baptist Church. He, his daughter Shirly-Phelps Roper, and his entire family and small church are huge zealots who hate gays, think that the war in Iraq and deaths of soldier are "Gods way of punishing America for being tolerant towards gays and lesbians", and they are known to picket at the funerals of dead soldiers. They also hate America even though they live here and Shirly Phelp's brood are all (or most of them) lawyers.

You can see youtube vidoes of their acts here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKDTCgqYK1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cN2pB3MCE

The third one is a must watch.


----------



## AuraTwilight (Oct 21, 2008)

Get-Dancing only votes this because he always loses, lawl.


----------



## pheonix (Oct 21, 2008)

arguing about religion is just to much fun to throw out the window, were human were supposed to disagree with each other. There's just no way to avoid it, and if you don't like debating about the subject why make a thread like this? You my friend opened up a can of fail and dumped it all over yourself.


----------



## Kangamutt (Oct 21, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Godhatessweden.com



What did the Swedish do? They invented efficiency, and Volvo and vikings, and death metal, and swedish meatballs, and swedish fish, and that Swedish chef on the muppets, and- oh, wait. Abba. THAAATS why God hates sweden.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

God hates you liberal Swedes! 
With all your "charity" and whatnot...hmph.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> What did the Swedish do? They invented efficiency, and Volvo and vikings, and death metal, and swedish meatballs, and swedish fish, and that Swedish chef on the muppets, and- oh, wait. Abba. THAAATS why God hates sweden.



They legalized gay marriage I think...which of coursed pissed off the WBC.
EDIT: I know the first links I gave were not working so I fixed them.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 21, 2008)

Quite frankly. The church can keep the term 'marriage'. Legally, it does belong to them. But they've no right to deny homosexuals the power to join in civil union or defacto partnership. Or maybe they do because they don't want to talk about it.

They're too righteous to talk about it.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Quite frankly. The church can keep the term 'marriage'. Legally, it does belong to them. But they've no right to deny homosexuals the power to join in civil union or defacto partnership. Or maybe they do because they don't want to talk about it.
> 
> They're too righteous to talk about it.



From what I understand the problem with civil unions in the States is that they're not being given the same privileges as marriages.  Could be wrong on that.  Dunno what Australia is like.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 21, 2008)

Well in Australia, homosexuals aren't allowed civil unions or defacto partnerships. So Title first, then rights, says our benevolent prime minister/fuck wit.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Quite frankly. The church can keep the term 'marriage'. Legally, it does belong to them. But they've no right to deny homosexuals the power to join in civil union or defacto partnership. Or maybe they do because they don't want to talk about it.
> 
> They're too righteous to talk about it.



I don't think they should have a right to say "no you cannot marry". Marriage is a concept that is spread out among multiple cultures, countries, and so forth. What right does one monotheistic religion have to capitalize on the use of a word or ideal in a country where there exists many people of many backgrounds, ancestries, and points of reference?

None, I think. That is just arrogant to think otherwise. I don't think you should have to change the name of it because someone of some religion thinks that "Well, my group owns that name!". Technically speaking the kind of marriage that originated in those monotheistic religions who are crying wolf, happen to be a completely different kind of marriage than what exists today. Back then the church married two people, the intent was for gain, or better family ties between families, or to keep property within a certain group. These days....it is supposed to be more about romantic love, and for some the after affect is a family that current studies have shown is just as stable with two men and children being raised, or two women and children being raised.

I can go get married tomorrow in a secular court and it is still called Marriage, if I were to marry a man. But if a man and another man ask for the same thing, the state says no even in the courts? I call it as I see it. It's BS. Oops...I am 
"debating now", so let me stop. It's just my opinion, everyone ignore it.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 21, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> Oops...I am
> "debating now", so let me stop. It's just my opinion, everyone ignore it.



Come now. You say it like it is, and we love you for it.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 21, 2008)

making a thread in an attempt to stop religious debates is only going to make people realize that there were already debates occurring, and you have placed them in a position where they are choosing sides for an arguement. Trolling Trolls only makes more Trolls.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Come now. You say it like it is, and we love you for it.



Aww...well that is sweet of you to say.

But really, I'm not looking to start an argument or debate about gay marriage or so forth. I'm just randomly stating my opinion, which is that, just an opinion.

That and I watched something awesome on Youtube last night. Go look up Pen and Teller's Family Values are bull-shit episode. It was fairly interesting.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 21, 2008)

I self-identify as an agnostic, an atheist, AND a pantheist. They aren't mutually exclusive.
I'm an agnostic because I don't know whether or not there is a God and don't feel like it's a question I can answer right now, what with there being no scientific evidence either way.
I'm an atheist because despite my lack of knowledge I choose not to believe in God because although abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence I need at least SOME evidence to make me believe in something - otherwise I'd believe in fairies, pixies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a science-lover, I believe that the scientific method is the best way of finding truth, and none of it has led me to God so far, so I choose not to believe in him/her/it.
I also consider myself a pantheist. Pantheism, meaning "All-God," is the idea that if we can call anything "divine" at all it has to be the Universe itself and Nature, rather than any invisible supernatural beings. I feel a strong sense of connection to the Cosmos - not in the New Age claptrap sense but in the sense that I know through science that the atoms in my body were made inside stars, for example. This gives me a deep, "spiritual" feeling, and I don't think I need religion or God to give me that sense of the sacred. 

As an atheist, an agnostic and a pantheist, then, I 
a) believe in freedom of thought and religion - we should make our own minds up and not be told what to think. This is why I respect people's right to believe in God if they wish.
b) follow the scientific method. Although spiritual beliefs don't matter much to me, I DO care if people believe in ghosts, UFOs, astrology, creationism etc. because they all go directly against the scientific method. To believe in something in the abscence of evidence is faith. To believe in something in the presence of mountains of evidence against is delusion.
c) sound like a very bad "walk into a bar" joke. 

So in conclusion, I don't believe there's a God, and I think of myself as a rationalist and a free-thinker. But I really don't care what you believe lies beyond the Universe, as long as you can all appreciate the beauty and majesty of the Universe we're living in as revealed to us by Science.


----------



## Mexinus (Oct 21, 2008)

Maybe If we Ignore it - it will go away :3
I sure they said something like that in the Bible '   3'


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 21, 2008)

That's right! A willing suspension of disbelief!

And looks like OP got what he wanted over here in Australia. Apparently there was going to be a religious expose, tonight, on the ABC. But religios complained...

They'd rather not talk about it!

Why? Because when you start talking about it, a niggling doubt is produced in your mind. It's called reason! Reason leads to thought, thought leads to logic, logic leads to rationality!

Rationality is the foe of religion. Therefore, NO DISCUSSION.

Quite frankly, the more you know about religion, the less likely you are to believe in one. I'm a student of theology and an atheist through and through.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> I'd be fine with that if every time a person finds out I'm atheist they wouldn't act like I have the plague or something.



I agree!

Plus, the OP needs to grow some thicker skin, because lack of freedom hurts worse then any religious criticism. =/


----------



## Mexinus (Oct 21, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I agree!
> 
> Plus, the OP needs to grow some thicker skin, because lack of freedom hurts worse then any religious criticism. =/



I dont think we Get That kinda trouble in England x _x
Also I wonder what its like to experience that Religious stuff . _.


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 21, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> That's right! A willing suspension of disbelief!
> 
> And looks like OP got what he wanted over here in Australia. Apparently there was going to be a religious expose, tonight, on the ABC. But religios complained...
> 
> ...



I'm a strong supporter of building your own beliefs from the ground up, not just going for a big, blunt "CHRISTIAN".

And why the hell haven't you added me on MSN yet?


----------



## Skittle (Oct 21, 2008)

Ya all are yelling at the OP for whining and all but really, he is asking something we really all want, unless you are a troll. For everyone to stop shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat.


----------



## Kukilunestar (Oct 21, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> \
> They are a rare commodity, Christians who don't push or shove their bullshit down the throats of others.



I was wondering why my family was so weird...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

skittle said:


> Ya all are yelling at the OP for whining and all but really, he is asking something we really all want, unless you are a troll. For everyone to stop shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat.



No, the OP is asking for everyone to not talk about religion period, making it immune to any sort of questioning, critique, or discussion because he is offended by those who do not side with him.

Yet he (intentionally perhaps) leaves out atheism as being immune to the same thing. I can see where he is going with this, can you?

Meh, if a person brings up religion than it gets talked about. If not, than it doesn't. It's simple as that. If he doesn't want to be offended maybe he should get off the net but then again real life is guaranteed to offend anyway.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

skittle said:


> Ya all are yelling at the OP for whining and all but really, he is asking something we really all want, unless you are a troll. For everyone to stop shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat.



I really, really don't want that. And I'm not a troll. I just believe my freedom of expression is much more precious then someone's feelings getting hurt.


----------



## amtrack88 (Oct 21, 2008)

Political parties can be a religion for many people.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2008)

skittle said:


> Ya all are yelling at the OP for whining and all but really, he is asking something we really all want, unless you are a troll. For everyone to stop shoving their beliefs down everyone's throat.



He's not saying anything new or revolutionary.  He's conveniently omitting a few details.  And other than that he's making a statement of the blindingly obvious when he claims to want the quarrelling to stop - does he think we haven't already said this a hundred times before?  On top of all that, Get-dancing is a Grade A asshat and troll and I take ANYTHING he says not with a grain of salt, but rather a fucking 50 pound sack of it.



amtrack88 said:


> Political parties can be a religion for many people.



And those people need to get a hole put in their head, to let all the stupid out.  My personal opinion.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 21, 2008)

Been thinking lately about another false dichotomy. This time it's between religious nuts and furries, and yes, I mean specifically the ones who think religion is evil/stupid and needs to be abolished.

- You think to have any spiritual beliefs, you have to be delusional. Yet you'll tell yourself anything and everything to justify your maladaptive sexual fetishes and socialization or lack thereof. So you're not free from delusion either.

- You complain about how often censorship happens in  the name of religion. Yet you effectively wish religion could be censored.

- You place the blame for pretty much every war or other human atrocity on religion, failing to realize there's a difference between spirituality and _ideology_, which you have just as much as any believer of any religion. After all, lots of terrible shit has been done by people/groups who were atheist - but all were ideologues.

- You both wear gay looking costumes.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Been thinking lately about another false dichotomy. This time it's between religious nuts and furries, and yes, I mean specifically the ones who think religion is evil/stupid and needs to be abolished.
> 
> - You think to have any spiritual beliefs, you have to be delusional. Yet you'll tell yourself anything and everything to justify your maladaptive sexual fetishes and socialization or lack thereof. So you're not free from delusion either.
> 
> ...



Are you high again?

Fetishes are not related to religion, or spirituality. Nice red herring, but try again.

No one is placing blame of atrocities on spirituality and no one here is mixing up religion and spirituality. What does atheism have to do with this? No one said that Atheists are less likely to commit crimes or violent acts.

Your thing about costumes is a matter of opinion and a red herring.

Who is this "You" you speak of?


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Been thinking lately about another false dichotomy. This time it's between religious nuts and furries, and yes, I mean specifically the ones who think religion is evil/stupid and needs to be abolished.



I'm one who wishes there was no religion, so I'll reply to you =3



Wolf-Bone said:


> - You think to have any spiritual beliefs, you have to be delusional. Yet you'll tell yourself anything and everything to justify your maladaptive sexual fetishes and socialization or lack thereof. So you're not free from delusion either.



No, you have to have a weak mind. Sort of like people who become devastated when you don't sugarcoat everything and end up hurting their feelings. Religion was born of fear.. Fear of the unknown. You're afraid of death, because you don't know what happens. So you tell yourself that you're going to a happy place, offer yourself a "bandaid" of an explanation. You don't know what you should do in life, so you use religion as a guide, same concept. It works in many different instances. People who can accept the unknown or actually try to figure out what's REALLY there don't need religion. 

Also, I don't have strange fetishes, but I can certainly understand them. Humans are largely motivated by sex, and are very creative by nature. You don't need to tell yourself lies to figure that one out =3



Wolf-Bone said:


> - You complain about how often censorship happens in  the name of religion. Yet you effectively wish religion could be censored.



No, I don't want religion to be censored. I just wish people in general were strong enough to live without religion. But since that isn't happening, the last thing I want is either option to be censored. I just wish athiests/agnostics/ignostics/others wouldn't get the short end of the stick in so many instances. Being kind to others is not censorship. Same goes for atheists that go around saying "Lol, stupid christian retard" btw.



Wolf-Bone said:


> - You place the blame for pretty much every war or other human atrocity on religion, failing to realize there's a difference between spirituality and _ideology_, which you have just as much as any believer of any religion. After all, lots of terrible shit has been done by people/groups who were atheist - but all were ideologues.



No no no, those problems are caused by greed, the human's curse. Greed for resources, greed for comfort, and in religion's case, greed for power/control. The reason why native americans were slaughtered mercilessly was because the europeans were greedy, and wanted control. Religion was merely a sidekick, but still played a big roll, seeings as religon=control.



Wolf-Bone said:


> - You both wear gay looking costumes.



=( My tail is cute.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2008)

Monak said:


> *Religion has no place in the modern world* , that is why we do it.  The dark ages set us back a good 800 years in our developement , and to this day religious beliefs are still being forced down our throats , and used against science.



How so?  Who are you to judge what has a right place and what has a wrong place in the "modern world"...?  Humans are still human... people are still people.  We all still share the same basic needs, just as we share the same planet... or should I say, not share.  Which is the main problem, not religion or a person's personal beliefs.




Grand Hatter said:


> Your religion is not immune to discussion. If it were, there would have been no enlightenment age; indeed, we'd still be enjoying witch burnings and the like.
> 
> *You are entitled to your belief, to the same extent as others are entitled to their's.*
> 
> ...



True... very true.




Trpdwarf said:


> Do I sense butt-hurtness because the last time you tried to argue about religion *you had several people show up who knew more about it than you do?*
> 
> That said, there will be no "No Atheists ripping the shit out of Christians" unless there is also a clause where "No Christians and or other religious groups trying to force their ideals and morals upon other people, either openly, secretly, subtly, and or underhandedly".
> 
> ...



Funny thing about religious belief... it's a personal thing.  This means anyone who wishes to claim "religiousness" can do so freely, even if it means discarding a thousand years of history.  In other words, no one knows more about religion than the individual believer of that religion.  Or, in other words, no one is an expert.  After all, I witnessed all the hullaballoo over the Shroud of Turin... all the religious "experts" going on and on about it.  All those tests they did... a pure waste of time and money.  Soon as I saw the Shroud for the first time... plain, ordinary, non-expert little ol' me... I KNEW IT WAS A FAKE!  How?  Well, the Bible made it clear that Jesus had his head wrapped separate from his body, yet the Shroud had a complete figure on it, head and all.  Why didn't the EXPERTS notice this right away, and automatically dismiss it as a FAKE?  I have no clue....



Grand Hatter said:


> Quite frankly. The church can keep the term 'marriage'. Legally, it does belong to them. But they've no right to deny homosexuals the power to join in civil union or defacto partnership. Or maybe they do because they don't want to talk about it.
> 
> *They're too righteous to talk about it.*



Actually, gays have always had the "right" to marry, if they could find a church that would do it... however, what gays want is the legal document, given by the State... a Marriage *License*.  You know, so they could share in all those nice TAX benefits given to married couples.  At least, that's what I've been hearing....




jesusfish2007 said:


> making a thread in an attempt to stop religious debates is only going to make people realize that there were already debates occurring, and you have placed them in a position where they are choosing sides for an arguement. *Trolling Trolls only makes more Trolls.*



And all this time I thought it took a lady troll and a guy troll...




Procyon said:


> I self-identify as an agnostic, an atheist, AND a pantheist. They aren't mutually exclusive.
> I'm an agnostic because I don't know whether or not there is a God and don't feel like it's a question I can answer right now, what with there being no scientific evidence either way.
> I'm an atheist because despite my lack of knowledge I choose not to believe in God because although abscence of evidence isn't evidence of abscence I need at least SOME evidence to make me believe in something - otherwise I'd believe in fairies, pixies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a science-lover, I believe that the scientific method is the best way of finding truth, and none of it has led me to God so far, so I choose not to believe in him/her/it.
> I also consider myself a pantheist. Pantheism, meaning "All-God," is the idea that if we can call anything "divine" at all it has to be the Universe itself and Nature, rather than any invisible supernatural beings. I feel a strong sense of connection to the Cosmos - not in the New Age claptrap sense but in the sense that I know through science that the atoms in my body were made inside stars, for example. This gives me a deep, "spiritual" feeling, and I don't think I need religion or God to give me that sense of the sacred.
> ...



And who, exactly, created Science?  Is Science needed to "appreciate the beauty and majesty of the Universe we're living in"...?  Remember, humanity looked up towards the stars in the sky long before they understood what those points of light were....




Grand Hatter said:


> That's right! A willing suspension of disbelief!
> 
> And looks like OP got what he wanted over here in Australia. Apparently there was going to be a religious expose, tonight, on the ABC. But religios complained...
> 
> ...



Not true... rationality is the EXCUSE given to dismiss all forms of belief.  Religion and rationality are not mutually exclusive.  Belief is not an act of irrationality.




Nargle said:


> I agree!
> 
> Plus, the OP needs to grow some thicker skin, *because lack of freedom hurts worse then any religious criticism*. =/



Oh so very true....




amtrack88 said:


> *Political parties can be a religion for many people.*



Indeed....


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, gays have always had the "right" to marry, if they could find a church that would do it... however, what gays want is the legal document, given by the State... a Marriage *License*.  You know, so they could share in all those nice TAX benefits given to married couples.  At least, that's what I've been hearing....



Curious, but why should gays have to suffer unequal treatment? Tax benefits don't make their reasons to get married automatically false and corrupt. That's what you're making it sound like =/ Who say's straight people aren't getting married for tax benefits? Either way, I think it's discrimination.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

by Roose Hurro





> Funny thing about religious belief... it's a personal thing. This means anyone who wishes to claim "religiousness" can do so freely, even if it means discarding a thousand years of history. In other words, no one knows more about religion than the individual believer of that religion. Or, in other words, no one is an expert. After all, I witnessed all the hullaballoo over the Shroud of Turin... all the religious "experts" going on and on about it. All those tests they did... a pure waste of time and money. Soon as I saw the Shroud for the first time... plain, ordinary, non-expert little ol' me... I KNEW IT WAS A FAKE! How? Well, the Bible made it clear that Jesus had his head wrapped separate from his body, yet the Shroud had a complete figure on it, head and all. Why didn't the EXPERTS notice this right away, and automatically dismiss it as a FAKE? I have no clue....


It is true that no one is truly an expert on religion. It's not too much to ask though that if a person is going to self-identify with some sort of an organized religion, that they at least research it before they go off telling people their religion is the only right one, or try to argue that laws should be based on it, or stuff like that.

I guess that goes into how I feel about religion. I believe that it is up to every individual to choose for themselves what they want to do when it comes to religion. If they feel they need to have some god to look too, they should look into it, research it, and do this until they find a group that works for them. For people who choose to turn their backs on religion as I have, I wish or hope for them to look into it before they turn completely.

I also wish children were kept out of the religious equation so that when they are old enough to understand it, they can choose for themselves where they go with it.

I suppose that is just wishful thinking on my part. Somehow I imagine the world would be better if instead of having people indoctrinated into religion, people went on their own journey into the whole thing, and everyone was given the chance to grow up, research it, and choose on their own.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

A legal document saying that you are willing to share monetary gains with someone is nothing the church should have control over. If you want to have a Christian _WEDDING_ that's different.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 21, 2008)

Part of me wants to legitimately debate you guys, the other part of me wants to tell you to fuck right off since clearly, you don't know there's actually a difference between "lying to yourself" and calling it spirituality/religion and seeing the truth very clearly, complete with fear and uncertainty and _not_ lying  to yourself about any of it, but having faith that you will either overcome the uncertainty in due time or that you may not even need to. You seem to have a very 2D dimensional view of what a belief system is/should be when at its best, it's _trans_dimensional.

Do you know how many people I've known who don't believe in anything even close to religion and barely have an ideology so to speak, and think if their immediate five senses didn't detect it, it may as well have never happened/existed to them? Do you know how dangerous people like that tend to be to their own selves and to others without even realizing it? Do you know how futile it is to try to get those people to wake the fuck up? I've never been like that, even when I considered myself more or less an atheist/agnostic. It was only later that I determined that innate sense of possibility/reality outside of what I can percieve and existense outside of _my own_ existence, something I wish more people who _do_ claim to be religious had was tied to the same sense from which spirituality spawned.

I'm sure fear played a role in the beginning, and it most certainly still does for many, if not most - but there's a hell of a lot more to a human being than fear and the desire to escape from it. I think that was every bit as true of the first religions as of my own spiritual journey.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm Buddhist. That's gotta count for something WB.

It's a spiritual path that involves no gods after all.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 21, 2008)

I'm Rastafarian. It's a spirituality/movement that's branched off in a lot of weird directions from its origin, but at least a handful don't believe in any god while some believe in multiple gods - and the oldschool second-coming monotheists are still there as well.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

by Wolf bone





> think if their immediate five senses didn't detect it, it may as well have never happened/existed to them? Do you know how dangerous people like that tend to be to their own selves and to others without even realizing it?


Want to care to explain to me how trusting ones senses is dangerous?

This reminds me of that part in Mulan, where the grandmother puts her hands over her eyes, and walks across the road to prove the cricket's luckiness. Notice how she got across safely and was thus deluded into thinking the Cricket was lucky, while other people on the road crashed into each other?

Life is no Disney movie, but if you don't wake up some time and pay attention to your senses and own ability of rational and logic every once in a while, you can end up hurting others and yourself. History has shown that over and over again what happens to people who become blinded by their religion.

Now I am not saying that it is dangerous to be simply be religious. So read and comprehend before you or anyone else accuses me of saying such.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 21, 2008)

I think spiritual paths do indeed make people kinder, in the general sense. It's just when your God is something other than basically good or neutral that problems begin to occur.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Part of me wants to legitimately debate you guys, the other part of me wants to tell you to fuck right off since clearly, you don't know there's actually a difference between "lying to yourself" and calling it spirituality/religion and seeing the truth very clearly, complete with fear and uncertainty and _not_ lying to yourself about any of it, but having faith that you will either overcome the uncertainty in due time or that you may not even need to. You seem to have a very 2D dimensional view of what a belief system is/should be when at its best, it's _trans_dimensional.



Please, add some more dimensions to my way of thinking =3 Feel free to PM me if you'd like to discuss.



Wolf-Bone said:


> Do you know how many people I've known who don't believe in anything even close to religion and barely have an ideology so to speak, and think if their immediate five senses didn't detect it, it may as well have never happened/existed to them? Do you know how dangerous people like that tend to be to their own selves and to others without even realizing it? Do you know how futile it is to try to get those people to wake the fuck up? I've never been like that, even when I considered myself more or less an atheist/agnostic. It was only later that I determined that innate sense of possibility/reality outside of what I can percieve and existense outside of _my own_ existence, something I wish more people who _do_ claim to be religious had was tied to the same sense from which spirituality spawned.



I don't see how the ignorance of a few makes all atheists/agnostics bad people. That closed-minded point of view certainly does not come with the package. That's an individual thing. What you're saying is sort of hypocritical, especially after acting like atheists generalize christians so badly.



Wolf-Bone said:


> I'm sure fear played a role in the beginning, and it most certainly still does for many, if not most - but there's a hell of a lot more to a human being than fear and the desire to escape from it. I think that was every bit as true of the first religions as of my own spiritual journey.



Kay, obviously I don't experience the spiritual side like you do. All I see is the obvious fear, and you've admitted it yourself that it's mostly fear. That's what religion is, a bandaid for the unknown. If there is something more, aside from friendly people at you church and feelgood emotions brought on by feeling safe, please enlighten me. I'm very willing to listen. But there has never been a single person I've known in my life to show me that there is something more then fear.



Shenzi said:


> I'm Buddhist. That's gotta count for something WB.
> 
> It's a spiritual path that involves no gods after all.



I've actually been seriously researching that path =3 If I were to classify myself, Buddhism would be what I identify with most closely. But in terms of gods, I'm still ignostic.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

For the discussions sake, I like to refer to my position as "Disassociating with religion."

I grew up engorging myself with every scrap of literature I could get my hands on dealing with mythology, and dragons, and dinosaurs. One of the things I used to wonder is why did these people of the past believe in things that don't exist? After I got a little older I understood why.

People observed certain things. These were things they could not understand. Old fossilized bones, huge footprints in rock, natural phenomena that requires science to understand, and so forth. These things, are what make up the back-bone of mythology and the creatures that people used to so firmly believe existed even though no human has ever seen them due to their not existing. In a way they really existed, and in the same turn they really didn't. In the mind it was real but not in the physical world.

When I turn around and look at religion, I really cannot see there being any difference between religion and mythology. It feels the same to me, even more so once I got into College and began taking an in depth looking at human history.

How is Yahweh any different than Zeus? How is Jesus any different than Hercules? So what if those old figures came from a culture that no longer exists. What makes people choose one religion and then discard a thousand others?

I was not there when the first human beings walked this earth. I was not there when our universe formed. So I am not going to be so pretentious as to believe that I know how we came to be based on nothingness. To me, claiming that your creation story is the right one, it baffles me. Not enough to bash you or any other person.

It's just like....so you have a creation story? What makes it more true than the creation story of the Vikings? Or the Native American one? Or the Hittites version? Or the Egyptian version? Or the Sumerian version?

I cannot comment on whether or not gods are real or not. I will leave that for others to decide on their own. I live in a physical world....I'm more interested in paying attention to that world that some supposed other world that people claim to exist before life and after death.

I have spent over 16 years thinking about all this and looking into things. So no one can say I haven't done my research. When it comes to values, and what I feel I should and shouldn't do, I look back upon the human race and the planet, and ask myself....what I want to do, will it hurt me? Will it hurt others? Will it hurt society if enough people do it? Will it hurt the planet? That to me is a more realistic way to choose right from right. I have found that certain things that many religious perport as wrong, happen to make sense as being wrong because of the consequences.

Yeah, that's my tl;dr about where I stand with religion.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> For the discussions sake, I like to refer to my position as "Disassociating with religion."
> 
> I grew up engorging myself with every scrap of literature I could get my hands on dealing with mythology, and dragons, and dinosaurs. One of the things I used to wonder is why did these people of the past believe in things that don't exist? After I got a little older I understood why.
> 
> ...



That's a very good point of view =3 That's almost exactly how I feel about religion. Though.. minus all the research X3


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Nargle said:


> That's a very good point of view =3 That's almost exactly how I feel about religion. Though.. minus all the research X3



Well, thank you.

If you ever get an itch to look into Creation Myths just for some personal research/reading, a good book to look for is "A Dictionary of Creation Myths" by David Leeming with Margaret Leeming.

It's a $22 book (or was when I got it), but it is really fascinating read that deals with not only different creation myths but the common archetypes found in various creation myths. Unfortunately it's the only book of it's kind I've found in my area. Bestiaries and encyclopedia's of mythology/mythical creatures is much more common to find(although still uncommon if you are looking for people who do their research), versus books dealing with Creation stories from around the world.

EDIT: A good book for mythology is written by Carol Rose: "Giants, Monsters & Dragons An Encyclopedia of Folklore, Legend, and Myth"


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 21, 2008)

... forget it, it's just not worth it. I might as well fess up right now and just say the only reason I'm even still on these forums is because it's gonna be another short while before I see any real money from my job, and I need basically a free time waster between sleep and my shifts.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Curious, but why should gays have to suffer unequal treatment? *Tax benefits don't make their reasons to get married automatically false and corrupt.* That's what you're making it sound like =/ *Who say's straight people aren't getting married for tax benefits? Either way, I think it's discrimination.*



No, gay or not, everyone has their reasons for getting married, just as people have reasons for not getting married.  What I'm saying is, marriage is not a State thing, it is a Religious thing... so, find a religion that allows gays to marry, and get married in it.  If you want simply a piece of paper saying you are LEGALLY bonded, well, that is a POLITICAL issue, so go out and "cast your vote" for gay marriage... or should I say, the gay right to that STATE LICENSE.  Really, it's just a piece of paper, worth maybe five cents....

After all, isn't marriage supposed to be two people, in love, willing to pledge themselves to each other, for life...?  (In other words, Adam and Eve didn't have a license to be married.)




Trpdwarf said:


> It is true that no one is truly an expert on religion. It's not too much to ask though that if a person is going to self-identify with some sort of an organized religion, that they at least research it before they go off telling people their religion is the only right one, or try to argue that laws should be based on it, or stuff like that.
> 
> I guess that goes into how I feel about religion. *I believe that it is up to every individual to choose for themselves what they want to do when it comes to religion.* If they feel they need to have some god to look too, they should look into it, research it, and do this until they find a group that works for them. For people who choose to turn their backs on religion as I have, I wish or hope for them to look into it before they turn completely.
> 
> ...



And this is why it doesn't matter if they study or not, so long as the message of a particular religion touches their heart.  Afterwards, if they wish to study its history, fine.  If not, also fine.  As for the children?  Well, parents have children, and if those parents have a belief, they raise their children in that belief, as is only natural.  Once a child is old enough to understand it... just because they were raised in it doesn't mean they can't decide to reject it, and go their own way.  So, you see, everyone has a choice to go on that journey you mention, irreguardless of how they were raised (indoctrinated, if you want to use that term).




Shenzi said:


> *A legal document saying that you are willing to share monetary gains with someone is nothing the church should have control over.* If you want to have a Christian _WEDDING_ that's different.



The church doesn't, the State does... they are the ones saying gays can't LEGALLY marry.  Which means, yes, a RELIGIOUS wedding is different.  I can get married in the church, without the need for a LEGAL document... I don't need the State to give me LICENSE, in order for me to marry.  Only if I want to "share monetary gains" do I need to get the State involved.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 21, 2008)

The problems usually begin when an organized religion loses its purpose (the spiritual growth, structure, and development of its followers' lives) and becomes a unified object of political power.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, gay or not, everyone has their reasons for getting married, just as people have reasons for not getting married.  What I'm saying is, marriage is not a State thing, it is a Religious thing... so, find a religion that allows gays to marry, and get married in it.  If you want simply a piece of paper saying you are LEGALLY bonded, well, that is a POLITICAL issue, so go out and "cast your vote" for gay marriage... or should I say, the gay right to that STATE LICENSE.  Really, it's just a piece of paper, worth maybe five cents....



If a gay couple wants to LEGALLY get married, they should be able to. CHRISTIAN WEDDINGS have nothing to do with it. If it's a legal matter, the church needs to butt out.

But it's not. Gays still can't get married, all because the CHURCH says it's wrong. If it was all up to the state, we'd all have equal rights, and there wouldn't be all this commotion. 



Wolf-Bone said:


> ... forget it, it's just not worth it. I might as well fess up right now and just say the only reason I'm even still on these forums is because it's gonna be another short while before I see any real money from my job, and I need basically a free time waster between sleep and my shifts.



What's wrong with you? I only asked you to explain your point of view to me. I'm genuinely curious. Why are you acting like we killed your spirit?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 21, 2008)

Roose Hurro 





> And this is why it doesn't matter if they study or not, so long as the message of a particular religion touches their heart. Afterwards, if they wish to study its history, fine. If not, also fine. As for the children? Well, parents have children, and if those parents have a belief, they raise their children in that belief, as is only natural. Once a child is old enough to understand it... just because they were raised in it doesn't mean they can't decide to reject it, and go their own way. So, you see, everyone has a choice to go on that journey you mention, irreguardless of how they were raised (indoctrinated, if you want to use that term).


Children are highly impressionable when they are young. While it is true that they can get older and choose to not accept it, there are other issues attached to including children with religion early on.

I know it is considered natural for parents to want their kids to be the same religion as they but it is that mentality that attributes to later Xenophobia. I've been to different states and have seen similar things. You get people from Elementary on up to High School who are brought up with their parent's religion. Even if you have people who find themselves able to think for themselves and come to some legitimate understanding of why they are for it, or if they are not for it, that still brings up the next problem where you end up with a lot of stress and psychological trauma when a family member realizes that they can no longer support in their heart the religion that their family has.

The idea behind keeping kids out of it, is to get parents to not be so fixated on their religion to the point where they will not freak out when their child makes an individual choice when they grow up. Families are torn apart when people choose different religions or to not follow religion at all and that makes me really sad.

If people choose to disassociate their child from religion until they are able to understand it, than maybe that would reflect a better environment for people to freely choose without fear of being rejected or cut off. That in turn can break down on xenophobia.

There is the other issue of people using children as political and or religious pawns and...that just isn't right.

Take Fred Phelp's daughter Shirley-Phelps Roper, this is the kind of things her brood says and feels because they grew up in a very very overzealous church group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gX-vQ5sMOw

Also you have instances of these kinds of camps(they don't reflect the majority bit it shows what people will do when they get crazy enough): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOaaLN5vvk

This kind of stuff, at least in my opinion, shouldn't happen. Children should not be used like this. I suppose it comes down to wanting children to be protected from this but at the same time....it's not possible. It's frustrating.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 21, 2008)

Maybe some other time in PM. Honestly, these forums are too fucking stupid for any kind of open serious discussion. That's the part that's not worth it - it inevitably spirals downwards into contests to see whose more socially retarded and better at trolling.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Maybe some other time in PM. Honestly, these forums are too fucking stupid for any kind of open serious discussion. That's the part that's not worth it - it inevitably spirals downwards into contests to see whose more socially retarded and better at trolling.



I'll be waiting for your PM =3


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> ... forget it, it's just not worth it. I might as well fess up right now and just say the only reason I'm even still on these forums is because it's gonna be another short while before I see any real money from my job, and I need basically a free time waster between sleep and my shifts.



Oh, OK, that's nice.  No one cares, as long as you keep the lulz coming.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 22, 2008)

Nargle said:


> If a gay couple wants to LEGALLY get married, they should be able to. CHRISTIAN WEDDINGS have nothing to do with it. If it's a legal matter, the church needs to butt out.
> 
> But it's not. *Gays still can't get married, all because the CHURCH says it's wrong. If it was all up to the state, we'd all have equal rights, and there wouldn't be all this commotion.*



Weddings are religious, marriage licenses are a State legal matter.  As I said, find a church that will MARRY gays, then use your power to vote to get the LEGAL LICENSE issue passed.  You're dealing with two entities here, when it comes to gay marriage/license rights.  Two entirely different issues, as well.  However, the Church does have a right to protest to the State, just as the State has the power to say NO to the Church.  I keep hearing gay couples complaining about the marriage angle and the legal angle, as if they were the same issue.  Problem is, majority rules in a republic, and the majority doesn't want gay marriage/licensing/whatever.  Keep up the fight, that's all I can say....




Trpdwarf said:


> Children are highly impressionable when they are young. While it is true that they can get older and choose to not accept it, *there are other issues attached to including children with religion early on*.
> 
> I know it is considered natural for parents to want their kids to be the same religion as they but it is that mentality that attributes to later Xenophobia. I've been to different states and have seen similar things. You get people from Elementary on up to High School who are brought up with their parent's religion. Even if you have people who find themselves able to think for themselves and come to some legitimate understanding of why they are for it, or if they are not for it, that still brings up the next problem where you end up with a lot of stress and psychological trauma when a family member realizes that they can no longer support in their heart the religion that their family has.
> 
> ...



Yes, there are always issues with raising children, religious and otherwise.  Religion provides a moral center, and parents naturally want to raise their children with a moral center (_if_ they were raised with one)... to do otherwise would not be a wise thing to do!  As in anything, there are extremes.  Raising children is neither easy nor a guarantee of results.  Fortunately, the Fred thing is rare... though I also have a problem with how the KKK raise their children, since the KKK is all about hate, without the slightest message of love.  So, religion doesn't have an exclusive on hate and crazy.  When raising a child, with religion or without, *balance* is what a parent needs to strive for.  I got my religious exposure through my grandparents, not through my parents (my stepdad was an atheist)... church every Sunday, Bibles in their home, the whole wad... my grandad even preached, for a time, and my uncle was a Sunday-school teacher, for a time.  But, I had the freedom to choose, without all the issues involved... my grandparents understood Faith could not be Forced.  It could only be offered.  It is human nature for a parent... for Family to want to share with Family.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 22, 2008)

Yeah Tycho, I provide you with lulz, you provide me with frequent reminders to be grateful that I'm mentally and emotionally healthy in spite of whatever RL bullshit I might be going through. I think it's a pretty fair trade.


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 22, 2008)

See? You fucking mention religion and the furs can't help their dumb asses.

Fail thread.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 22, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Yeah Tycho, I provide you with lulz, you provide me with frequent reminders to be grateful that I'm mentally and emotionally healthy in spite of whatever RL bullshit I might be going through.



Great stuff WB, keep it coming!


----------



## GatodeCafe (Oct 22, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Great stuff WB, keep it coming!



Do theee puyalllupppp


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 22, 2008)

*glop glop glop* awghhh, yuh, frappucinno w/ whipped cream baby. Like, whurrs my fawkin Brawndo FAG

well, you did say keep it coming


----------



## Kittiara (Oct 22, 2008)

Man I just walked in this thread to chillax with people who agree everybody needs to stfu and now I'm going to walk right back out again.

Look at you go!

Now walk it out~ walk it out~


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 22, 2008)

Kittiara said:


> Man I just walked in this thread to chillax with people who agree everybody needs to stfu and now I'm going to walk right back out again.
> 
> *Look at you go!*
> 
> Now walk it out~ walk it out~



Look at your avatar go...!


----------



## Kittiara (Oct 22, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Look at your avatar go...!



I lose more hips this way than you can imagine.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 22, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> If we had more people discussing it and fewer saying 'I don't want to talk about it because it offends little old me' then perhaps woman could make their own choices regarding abortion, people could choose to die with dignity, and homosexuals could be upgraded from second class citizens.


^


AuraTwilight said:


> Get-Dancing only votes this because he always loses, lawl.


^


Takumi_L said:


> I'd be fine with that if every time a person finds out I'm atheist they wouldn't act like I have the plague or something.


*^*

Welp, everything that needs to be said has been said, looks like. I'm always the last one across the finish line >..>

Carry on.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 22, 2008)

Kittiara said:


> I lose more hips this way than you can imagine.



Well, I have a very good imagination....


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

This is where religion started in the U.S.:


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2008)

Just an idle question.  How can you practice a religion, not believe in it's God, and still think you experience some sort of spirituality?  Just don't see that working out.  Then, it would just be ethics, becuase you've taken the whole deity factor out of it, and the faith element as well.  What makes this different from an Atheist?


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

Im not Atheist, and I dont believe in any god. I have morals that guide me. These morals were learned through mistakes, obervation, and thought.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 22, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Im not Atheist, and I dont believe in any god. I have morals that guide me. These morals were learned through mistakes, obervation, and thought.


Atheism =/= lack of guiding morals
Atheism = lack of higher being


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

Easog said:


> Atheism =/= lack of guiding morals
> Atheism = lack of higher being


Im somewhat confused by that equation. But I dont like to classify myself under any religion or political party. In my eyes religion = politics, two ways to control the masses. Nothing more nothing less.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Im not Atheist, and I dont believe in any god. I have morals that guide me. These morals were learned through mistakes, obervation, and thought.


Stop scaring the Christians.  Honestly, I truly wonder how many people believe that sort of drivel anymore.  I think there are more than a fair share that think it's a total crock, but enjoy the social benefits of it.  If only they were brave enough to speak their mind about it.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Stop scaring the Christians. Honestly, I truly wonder how many people believe that sort of drivel anymore. I think there are more than a fair share that think it's a total crock, but enjoy the social benefits of it. If only they were brave enough to speak their mind about it.


About what?


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 22, 2008)

Silibus said:


> Im somewhat confused by that equation. But I dont like to classify myself under any religion or political party. In my eyes religion = politics, two ways to control the masses. Nothing more nothing less.


Let me break it down then. If you have no religion, you generally fall under one of these categories:

Deism: There is a higher being or force that created the universe, but takes no interest in it or its inhabitants.
Agnosticism: There may or may not be a higher being or force.
Atheism: There is probably no higher being or force.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 22, 2008)

Wow, the thread against religious debates turns into one 2 posts after the OP.


----------



## Azure (Oct 22, 2008)

Silibus said:


> About what?


About their lack of belief, of faith, in the system they subscribe to.  Many people are afraid of what others would think if they weren't "normal" and didn't share the same beliefs as they do.  Religion is mostly a bully, in the ways many communities use it.  Believe in it, or we'll neglect you, look down upon you, etc, etc.  I live in a town where there are more church pews than people, and f you don't believe in JESUS, well, by golly gosh, you ain't good people.  Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised by the usual ass showing in this thread.  I did call it.  Feels good to be right.


----------



## nachoboy (Oct 22, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Just an idle question.  How can you practice a religion, not believe in it's God, and still think you experience some sort of spirituality?  Just don't see that working out.  Then, it would just be ethics, becuase you've taken the whole deity factor out of it, and the faith element as well.  What makes this different from an Atheist?



yeah, people who say they do this aren't really thinking all that much.

technically, religion is a relationship with a higher being. one dictionary i have defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." the word religion comes from the Latin "religare," meaning "to bind." so what religion is is the binding of oneself to a higher power. anyone who "practices a religion" and doesn't believe in its god is using their words incorrectly.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> About their lack of belief, of faith, in the system they subscribe to. Many people are afraid of what others would think if they weren't "normal" and didn't share the same beliefs as they do. Religion is mostly a bully, in the ways many communities use it. Believe in it, or we'll neglect you, look down upon you, etc, etc. I live in a town where there are more church pews than people, and f you don't believe in JESUS, well, by golly gosh, you ain't good people. Anyway, I can't say I'm surprised by the usual ass showing in this thread. I did call it. Feels good to be right.


Religion. A way to control the masses. Plus I think people who go to church the most are the most guilty. Where I live people will go to church every Sunday and still repeat the sins they have committed. Believing that going into a big building with fancy symbols and nice pop-up books will help them.


----------



## Procyon (Oct 22, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> And who, exactly, created Science?  Is Science needed to "appreciate the beauty and majesty of the Universe we're living in"...?  Remember, humanity looked up towards the stars in the sky long before they understood what those points of light were....



Well Science isn't _needed_ but I'm sure most people would agree that it GREATLY enhances that appreciation.

"
I have a friend whoâ€™s an artist and heâ€™s some times taken a view which I donâ€™t agree with very well. Heâ€™ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and Iâ€™ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think heâ€™s kind of nutty. 
 First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. 
 At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, itâ€™s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structureâ€¦also the processes. 
 The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting â€“ it means that insects can see the color. 
 It adds a question â€“ does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that areâ€¦why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. 
 It only adds. I donâ€™t understand how it subtracts." - Richard P. Feynman


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

Easog said:


> Let me break it down then. If you have no religion, you generally fall under one of these categories:
> 
> Deism: There is a higher being or force that created the universe, but takes no interest in it or its inhabitants.
> Agnosticism: There may or may not be a higher being or force.
> Atheism: There is probably no higher being or force.


All of those are wasted thought. Classifying such is a waste of life. There are more important issues than worrying about.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 22, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Grand Hatter
> If we had more people discussing it and fewer saying 'I don't want to talk about it because it offends little old me' then perhaps woman could make their own choices regarding abortion, people could choose to die with dignity, and homosexuals could be upgraded from second class citizens.



Not relevant.

I'm against abortion and euthinasia, nothing to do with religion. Because I'm sure that only religious people think that scrambeling out a fetuses brain from its head is wrong? I do not disaprove of homosexuality either.

People disagree with things like that usually because of general moral standards, not directly because of religion. Otherwise there wouldn't be pro-choice, pro-dignifying death, pro-gay marriage religious people.

That would be the same as you telling me that you support abortion, and I would then rip the shit out of femminism rather than actually put forward an arguement against abortion.

Plus, not to be a smartass, but all three of those things are (or are well on the way to) becoming legal in all of the western world.



> Do I sense butt-hurtness because the last time you tried to argue about religion you had several people show up who knew more about it than you do?



Nothing I did not know. Islam and Christianity have similar roots, and what?



> Get-Dancing only votes this because he always loses, lawl.



Theres that, and the fact that I'm sick to tears of people who spit in the face of Christianity but suck Islam's dick.



> Originally Posted by Nargle
> I agree!
> 
> Plus, the OP needs to grow some thicker skin, because lack of freedom hurts worse then any religious criticism. =/



Theres no such thing as freedom, every right given to someone is only another right taken away from someone else. Your right to crisise religion is taking away my right to believe what I want unaffected from people showing disrespect towards it.



> I'm Buddhist. That's gotta count for something WB.
> 
> It's a spiritual path that involves no gods after all.



No but it does involve a man who sat underneath a tree for well over 10 years which made him understand every piece of knowledge in the universe but he simply can't explain it. OHHH!!!!



> How is Yahweh any different than Zeus? How is Jesus any different than Hercules? So what if those old figures came from a culture that no longer exists. What makes people choose one religion and then discard a thousand others?



There has never been a definete depiction of how god the son or god the father MUST look. Infact strictly speaking its written in the old-testiment that it's incredibly disrespectful to depict god or any of the prophets. Thats what pissed off all the Muslims over the Dannish cartoons. Thing is the reason Christians or Jews don't blow people up for drawing Jesus or Moses is because we're somewhat more civil.

Anyway to the point, there is no 'rules' set in the Abrahamic religions as to what a god must be like. He is a creator, father, higher power ect. So if any higher power exists in any form, it does not contray with Christianity. 

Yes humans were mentioned in the bible to be created in gods image, so he must look humanoid right? Big guy with a white beard in robes? Wrong. To this day religious leaders are still debating as to what is ment by that. We could have got our sense of creativity from god, our ability to love ect. Hey it probably dosen't have one correct logic, its open to interpertation. Unlike say Sikhism who all agree that god looks like a star and is gender neatreal. Or Hindus who commonly have detailed artifacts of their 15 or so gods, and they all agree that is their true form.



> It's just like....so you have a creation story? What makes it more true than the creation story of the Vikings? Or the Native American one? Or the Hittites version? Or the Egyptian version? Or the Sumerian version?



Or the evolutionist one? You know that we're just here cause, well, just cause?


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Oct 22, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Not relevant.
> 
> 
> No but it does involve a man who sat underneath a tree for well over 10 years which made him understand every piece of knowledge in the universe but he simply can't explain it. OHHH!!!!


OMG you are soo tolerant


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 22, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Theres that, and the fact that I'm sick to tears of people who spit in the face of Christianity but suck Islam's dick.



Sources?



Get-dancing said:


> Theres no such thing as freedom, every right given to someone is only another right taken away from someone else. Your right to crisise religion is taking away my right to believe what I want unaffected from people showing disrespect towards it.



You never had the right to be unaffected by what anyone else thinks or believes.  No man, woman, or child on this earth has the right to be unaffected.  That noted, the only who has any power to render you unaffected is yourself.



Get-dancing said:


> No but it does involve a man who sat underneath a tree for well over 10 years which made him understand every piece of knowledge in the universe but he simply can't explain it. OHHH!!!!



Sources?

My understanding (granted, based only on what little I read) is that the Buddha had the humility to recognize that no one can know it all.


----------



## coffinberry (Oct 22, 2008)

wolfbone if you hate it here so much yet want to kill time, why don't you find new forums? why do you continue to get yourself all worked up over the people who frequent this one?


----------



## Gnome (Oct 22, 2008)

i pretty sure he thinks its fun...


----------



## Nargle (Oct 22, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Weddings are religious, *marriage licenses are a State legal matter.* As I said, find a church that will MARRY gays, then use your power to vote to get the LEGAL LICENSE issue passed. You're dealing with two entities here, when it comes to gay marriage/license rights. Two entirely different issues, as well. However, the Church does have a right to protest to the State, just as the State has the power to say NO to the Church. *I keep hearing gay couples complaining about the marriage angle and the legal angle, as if they were the same issue.* Problem is, majority rules in a republic, and the majority doesn't want gay marriage/licensing/whatever. Keep up the fight, that's all I can say....



**Coughsputter** Kay, what now? You don't know what you're talking about. Gay people want the legal marriage. Christian weddings don't matter. It's not just the wedding that's illegal, but the marriage itself. You can go find yourself an atheist lawyer and have a gay wedding in a park, nothing religious at all, and it's still illegal. 



Get-dancing said:


> Theres no such thing as freedom, every right given to someone is only another right taken away from someone else. Your right to crisise religion is taking away my right to believe what I want unaffected from people showing disrespect towards it.



You gots it all wrong. I can go criticize religion 'till I'm blue in the face, and it will affect you absolutely none. You've got the right to walk away and not listen. I'm an in no way impeding on your life by expressing myself.

But there is DEFINITELY something wrong with taking away right to voice my opinion.


----------



## FrisbeeRolf (Oct 22, 2008)

I agree.  As a christian myself, I can safely say religious debates are pointless, simply because there are people who believe in more than the physical world, and those who don't.  There is no way to make someone who doesn't believe in the human spirit believe.

And quite frankly, I don't want to convert anyone who wants to flame me.  They can go to hell for all I care.


----------



## Enigmaticat (Oct 22, 2008)

I dont believe in religions myself, as I said before. But some people benefit from it, and it can be a good thing. It is the corruption of religion that sickens me.


----------



## Talvi (Oct 22, 2008)

FrisbeeRolf said:


> I agree.  As a christian myself, I can safely say religious debates are pointless, simply because there are people who are stupid (theists) and people who aren't as stupid, or at least not in the same way (atheists).


Improved edit.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 22, 2008)

Nargle said:


> **Coughsputter** *Kay, what now?* You don't know what you're talking about. Gay people want the legal marriage. Christian weddings don't matter. It's not just the wedding that's illegal, but the marriage itself. You can go find yourself an atheist lawyer and have a gay wedding in a park, nothing religious at all, and it's still illegal.



As I said, keep up the fight....




Nargle said:


> You gots it all wrong. I can go criticize religion 'till I'm blue in the face, and it will affect you absolutely none. You've got the right to walk away and not listen. *I'm an in no way impeding on your life by expressing myself.*
> 
> But there is DEFINITELY something wrong with taking away right to voice my opinion.



True, but some people are easily annoyed....


----------



## Nargle (Oct 22, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> As I said, keep up the fight....



So are you saying that you agree with gay marriage?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 22, 2008)

coffinberry said:


> wolfbone if you hate it here so much yet want to kill time, why don't you find new forums? why do you continue to get yourself all worked up over the people who frequent this one?



You use the word hate way too liberally. This forum is unique in that the people here I actually find worth my time have provided me with some of the best discussions online I've had since the days of the oldschool therian communities but also has the added benefit of having all these people wanting to use me as their emotional punching bag - the benefit of that being I'm consistently reminded that someone out there has it worse than I do.


----------



## Takun (Oct 22, 2008)

I want to make a religion where gay marriage is legal.  Then they should have to recognize it or STOP OPPRESSING MAH RELIGION>!!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 22, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> I want to make a religion where gay marriage is legal.  Then they should have to recognize it or STOP OPPRESSING MAH RELIGION>!!



Gaytheism =3


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 22, 2008)

Nargle said:


> So are you saying that you agree with gay marriage?



No, but, if you want gay marriage, fight for it, don't whine.  America became a free nation by fighting for that freedom... gays have to do the same, and accept the consequences of that fight, good or bad.  Win... or loose.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 22, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, but, if you want gay marriage, fight for it, don't whine.  America became a free nation by fighting for that freedom... gays have to do the same, and accept the consequences of that fight, good or bad.  Win... or loose.



What do you want people to do? There aren't any presidential candidates that are pro-gay marriage. There are already marches and protests and shtuff. Are you suggesting violence/revolution?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 23, 2008)

Nargle said:


> What do you want people to do? There aren't any presidential candidates that are pro-gay marriage. There are already marches and protests and shtuff. Are you suggesting violence/revolution?



No, just that you shouldn't expect miracles overnight... and, like I said (using different words), be good sports when you loose, cause next time, your good sportsmanship might give you a win.


----------



## MattDragon (Oct 23, 2008)

As for religion, it is used to have a better understanding of God, at its most basic form.  There are different interpretations and relations but at its base that is what it is and supposed to be. And about science, it (for me atleast) only proves that there is a higher power.  How could atoms, their size so small its rediculous create objects, like the computer your using to see this.  Its fascinating.  You see, its all in moderation and frankly, people need to learn that instead of flying into battle with banners flying high, think some people just want to think that there is nothing there, and no matter how hard you try, they are not going to change.  And honestly, if I may put in my personal opinion: thinks it's sad that people think this is it, there is nothing after life.  Well, we all are gonna find out when we die right?


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 23, 2008)

Grand Hatter said:


> Quite frankly. The church can keep the term 'marriage'. Legally, it does belong to them. But they've no right to deny homosexuals the power to join in civil union or defacto partnership. Or maybe they do because they don't want to talk about it.
> 
> They're too righteous to talk about it.


Marriage is an abomination. Gays need to stop buying into the hetero bullshit, and society needs to butt out of people's sex lives.



Nargle said:


> Gaytheism =3


Where might I sign up?
And is killing stupid people with cheese graters allowed under this religion?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 23, 2008)

MattDragon said:


> As for religion, it is used to have a better understanding of God, at its most basic form.  There are different interpretations and relations but at its base that is what it is and supposed to be. And about science, it (for me atleast) only proves that there is a higher power.  How could atoms, their size so small its rediculous create objects, like the computer your using to see this.  Its fascinating.  You see, its all in moderation and frankly, people need to learn that instead of flying into battle with banners flying high, think some people just want to think that there is nothing there, and no matter how hard you try, they are not going to change.  And honestly, if I may put in my personal opinion: thinks it's sad that people think this is it, there is nothing after life.  Well, we all are gonna find out when we die right?



I'm going to disregard that first statement which is a matter of opinion. In reality science points towards there not needing to be a creator for life, because life can just as easily self-organize, just like matter can. It moves from simple to complex. Simple spawns complex.

That said, I find it sad to see people who spend all their time living for what they imagine will happen after death. That is just me though. I only know one thing for certain, and that I have this life, right now, to live. I"m not going to live it preparing for some so called afterlife. To me, that is a sad way to live. It negates the point of living. 

At the same time I am not going to be so pretentious as to pretend that I know what happens after death. I don't understand all these groups that have all these really detailed explanations of what happens after you die. It's like, how do *you* know? Of course that is just a matter of opinion.

This is one of the things that baffles me about religion, most religions that is. They teach you to prepare for death. Egyptians did it with their religion, as does Christianity, Zarathustra, Islam, Judaism, and so forth.

If there really was some sort of an afterlife you won't know until you die....no one will know until they die. So there is no reason to side with one of over a thousand stories, because in reality they don't know anything because they were written by people who are still alive.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 23, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> If there really was some sort of an afterlife you won't know until you die....no one will know until they die. So there is no reason to side with one of over a thousand stories, because in reality they don't know anything because they were written by people who are still alive.



Pure logical victory.
Trpdwarf, you have just killed a god.
What are you going to do now?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 23, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> Pure logical victory.
> Trpdwarf, you have just killed a god.
> What are you going to do now?



That wasn't logic, that was just opinion.  Oh, and by the way...?  The right line is *"because they were written by people who were alive at the time.*  After two-thousand years plus, I doubt those men who wrote the letters put together to make the Bible "ARE still alive"....


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 23, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> That wasn't logic, that was just opinion.  Oh, and by the way...?  The right line is *"because they were written by people who were alive at the time.*  After two-thousand years plus, I doubt those men who wrote the letters put together to make the Bible "ARE still alive"....


Well, you never know. According to them, stranger things have happened.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 24, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> This is one of the things that baffles me about religion, most religions that is. They teach you to prepare for death. Egyptians did it with their religion, as does Christianity, Zarathustra, Islam, Judaism, and so forth.
> 
> If there really was some sort of an afterlife you won't know until you die....no one will know until they die. So there is no reason to side with one of over a thousand stories, because in reality they don't know anything because they were written by people who are still alive.



Ever heard of Pascal's wager? Look it up, you might find it interesting.


----------



## Skittle (Oct 24, 2008)

Talvi said:


> Improved edit.


Actually fail edit. I have met MANY MANY stupid atheists. Especially in my school I have noticed that a lot of people are in the lower classes proclaim atheism while many of my AP friends proclaim they have a religion. Now I am not saying this applies to everyone. I have met stupid religion people and smart athiests. Making that generalization is just wrong. Honestly, it is things like that that anger me. I do not call anyone stupid for believe what they believe, even if it is nothing. What gives you the right to? Honestly, I do not like religious debates I believe that it is something between you and your personal diety or dieties. 

So please, stop. Things like that are childish and immature.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 24, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Ever heard of Pascal's wager? Look it up, you might find it interesting.



As fair a wager as a game of Three-Card Monte in a dark alley, I'm sad to report.


----------



## Talvi (Oct 24, 2008)

skittle said:


> Actually fail edit. I have met MANY MANY stupid atheists. Especially in my school I have noticed that a lot of people are in the lower classes proclaim atheism while many of my AP friends proclaim they have a religion. Now I am not saying this applies to everyone. I have met stupid religion people and smart athiests. Making that generalization is just wrong. Honestly, it is things like that that anger me. I do not call anyone stupid for believe what they believe, even if it is nothing. What gives you the right to? Honestly, I do not like religious debates I believe that it is something between you and your personal diety or dieties.
> 
> So please, stop. Things like that are childish and immature.


Well, no shit? It really doesn't take much brainpower to be cynical of religion. Atheism is also stupid-people friendly.

However to believe in something completely unproven does, I think, require some or a combination of stupidity/ignorance/brainwashing/delusion (plus other factors, such as fear of death). Christianity sprouted through ignorance and violence at a time where society was much less developed and we didn't know really anything about the universe we live in. We live in 2008 and we know it's full of shit, there's no excuse. Do we take people seriously who believe in pixies? Well, at least they don't have a lifecode about believing in pixies and doing exactly as the pixies say, or else after death they'll arrive in a place of eternal torment and pain. You know, even if I did believe in God, he can go fuck himself. He's an egotistical, narcissistic control-freak. "You have the free will to do exactly as I say or burn in hell, faggots!". People worship that? Unbelieveable.

As for "what gives you the right to [call people stupid]"? Well, what gives you the right to dictate my opinions and actions? "I don't call people stupid", holier-than-thou much? I exist. That's my right to express whatever I want. If you don't like it, I'm not going to kiss your ass or shut up about it.
Who else is going to, God?


----------



## Skittle (Oct 24, 2008)

Talvi said:


> Well, no shit? It really doesn't take much brainpower to be cynical of religion. Atheism is also stupid-people friendly.
> 
> However to believe in something completely unproven does, I think, require some or a combination of stupidity/ignorance/brainwashing/delusion (plus other factors, such as fear of death). Christianity sprouted through ignorance and violence at a time where society was much less developed and we didn't know really anything about the universe we live in. We live in 2008 and we know it's full of shit, there's no excuse. Do we take people seriously who believe in pixies? Well, at least they don't have a lifecode about believing in pixies and doing exactly as the pixies say, or else after death they'll arrive in a place of eternal torment and pain. You know, even if I did believe in God, he can go fuck himself. He's an egotistical, narcissistic control-freak. "You have the free will to do exactly as I say or burn in hell, faggots!". People worship that? Unbelieveable.
> 
> ...


So every single religion is stupid is basically what you are saying. Everyone who believes in something is an idiot. People turn to religion to help them lead their lives, learn morals and even pick themselves up. I'm sorry but I personally believe that you do not have t follow everything the Bible says as the Bible was written by people and not God, thus as people change the Bible would change. People are not perfect. I do not believe I am holier than anyone actually, quite the opposite. I believe I am the scum of the Earth but that is my own opinion and needs not to be elaborated on or discussed. You can believe what you want but expect people to get pissed at you for calling them stupid. It cannot be proven that God exists or that He doesn't so I will believe what I want to believe. People believed a lot of things before they were proven right or wrong. Back in the day when people believed the Earth was flat, they weren't considered to be stupid for it was what was believed and though it was not proven or disproven, was it? The Universe is infinately large which means if God exists he could be anywhere in the mass expanse of it. Also, he could be in an alternate reality or universe. It is not proven or disproven. Evolution is still just a theory. Theories have evidence behind them but are not entirely proven. I honestly believe in evolution but, where did that first single cell come from? I believe God planted it here and has helped people evolve into what they are today. I do not believe dinosaurs never existed or that their bones were placed here to test our faith in God. I believe, in my opinion, that is just silly. However, I am not going to call that person an idiot for it. Just like people still believe the Earth is flat. They believe the photos of the Earth are all fake. I believe that is just stupid and silly but I have no room to say they are stupid. There are some extremely smart people, scientists who believe that. No one has any room to call anyone an idiot really when it comes to beliefs because beliefs are opinons. So now if you want to continue to fight with me and call me an idiot, go ahead. I am done with childish game. I have stated my OPINION which to you can either be right or wrong but to me is right. I keep my beliefs to myself and do no try to ram them down anyone's throats. By calling them stupid you are saying they are wrong and that they should believe what you believe.

Sorry but I believe in God and if you want to call me an idiot for it and call everyone else who believes in something an idiot. Go right ahead but it may just be a reflection of what you think about yourself and your own insecurities.

(Sorry about typos and all. I am on a computer that refuses to use spell check.)


----------



## Azure (Oct 24, 2008)

I keep seeing the words MY OPINION!!!  Well guess what, it doesn't matter.  Science matters, burden of proof matters.  I have never met a "smart" religious person either.  Belief in a God is flat out stupid, I'm sorry to say.  It's pretty much lying to yourself, ignoring the heaping mountain of evidence that speaks to the contrary by countering with "I HAVE FAITH!!!".  In what?  That there is an invisible, improbable, infallible, impartial man in the sky who says he loves you, but at the same time damns you by giving you free will and cognitive thought with which to disprove him?  Sounds like a real asshole to me.  I won't be tossing a buck in the collection plate.


----------



## Skittle (Oct 24, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I keep seeing the words MY OPINION!!!  Well guess what, it doesn't matter.  Science matters, burden of proof matters.  I have never met a "smart" religious person either.  Belief in a God is flat out stupid, I'm sorry to say.  It's pretty much lying to yourself, ignoring the heaping mountain of evidence that speaks to the contrary by countering with "I HAVE FAITH!!!".  In what?  That there is an invisible, improbable, infallible, impartial man in the sky who says he loves you, but at the same time damns you by giving you free will and cognitive thought with which to disprove him?  Sounds like a real asshole to me.  I won't be tossing a buck in the collection plate.


Science doesn't disprove God. It may disprove stories in the Bible, such as Adam and Eve which I do not believe but I have yet to see anything that can truly and fully disprove God. Evolution doesn't count if you look at my previous post.


----------



## Talvi (Oct 24, 2008)

For the love of nonexistant God, paragraph please!  I'll break it down. 



skittle said:


> So every single religion is stupid is basically what you are saying. Everyone who believes in something is an idiot.


In short, yes. It requires abandoning reason.


> People turn to religion to help them lead their lives, learn morals and even pick themselves up.


Why can't they find the strength to in themselves, or in others? Religion has some good intentions and _some_ good messages. Lets keep these positives and get rid of the burdening bullshit that it's stuck in.



> I'm sorry but I personally believe that you do not have t follow everything the Bible says as the Bible was written by people and not God, thus as people change the Bible would change.


Why not just ignore all of the Bible then instead of just some of it? Once you start picking and choosing what to accept and what to ignore, it kind of defeats the validity and purpose of the Bible, in my opinion.



> People are not perfect. I do not believe I am holier than anyone actually, quite the opposite. I believe I am the scum of the Earth but that is my own opinion and needs not to be elaborated on or discussed.


Becuse you don't live up to God's standards? You shouldn't let an imaginary character get you down. You're probably not that bad. If you are, it doesn't really make a difference to me either way.



> You can believe what you want but expect people to get pissed at you for calling them stupid.


I do expect that. People are easily offended. You should expect people to get pissed at you for supporting something which has filled history with bloodshed and promoted intolerance that still exists in society today. Jesus loves us all? I'm sure that'd be a lot of comfort whilst rotting in hell. 


> It cannot be proven that God exists or that He doesn't


Yes but atheism isnt a belief. It's lack of belief. Generally, if we can't prove something, we are cautious in our viewpoint. We can't prove that pixies exist, but do million of people around the world believe they do? No. We almost unanimously do not believe in that. The obvious judgement is to be conservative in such a situation until new evidence comes to light.


> ...so I will believe what I want to believe. People believed a lot of things before they were proven right or wrong. Back in the day when people believed the Earth was flat, they weren't considered to be stupid for it was what was believed and though it was not proven or disproven, was it? The Universe is infinately large which means if God exists he could be anywhere in the mass expanse of it. Also, he could be in an alternate reality or universe. It is not proven or disproven.


Please see previous note. The default stance isn't to believe in something that isn't proven, especially if it breaks the laws of all we can prove to be true and has no real evidence! I don't KNOW that there isn't a god, no-one can, but there's no reason to believe there is?


> Evolution is still just a theory. Theories have evidence behind them but are not entirely proven.


Yes, it is a theory. It is also a fact. In science, a hypothesis is an unproven, untested idea. A _theory_ is a hypothesis that has been well-tested and confirmed repeatedly, whilst surviving scientifical scrutiny. It's the highest level of factual possibility that science gives. Ergo, as far as we could possibly know, it's fact. That should answer the rest of that little bit, so I'll just omit it from the next quote. Oh, except:



> I honestly believe in evolution but, where did that first single cell come from?


We don't know that, however, there's a field of study called Abiogenesis and suffice to say, it's proven that organic matter can come from inorganic materials. Of course, you have the right to believe that God initiated that to created the first cells of life, but there's no evidence to say that that happened. It's just your hypothesis. Feel free to believe that, but understand that there's nothing to back that and therefore no reason TO believe it.



> They believe the photos of the Earth are all fake. I believe that is just stupid and silly but I have no room to say they are stupid. There are some extremely smart people, scientists who believe that. No one has any room to call anyone an idiot really when it comes to beliefs because beliefs are opinons.


So you believe it's stupid and that's fine, but if you SAY IT, then it's not ok? Right.  What difference does that make??!  "No one has any room to call anyone an idiot really when it comes to beliefs because beliefs are opinons". So you're saying, it's okay to state your opinion. Well, my opinion is that those people are stupid. I'm totally open about who I am and what I think, and if more people were like that, we'd all know where we stand. You might prefer an "everythings happy" fantasy. This isn't heaven, it's earth and it's full of conflict and unhappiness.


> So now if you want to continue to fight with me and call me an idiot, go ahead. I am done with childish game. I have stated my OPINION which to you can either be right or wrong but to me is right. I keep my beliefs to myself and do no try to ram them down anyone's throats. By calling them stupid you are saying they are wrong and that they should believe what you believe.


Well, that's just a difference in mentality eh. I don't feel the need to cover myself up and present what I think is a "socially acceptable" opinion instead of my own. I don't have a grudge against you. I enjoy the debate and having my own views challenged. Unfortunately, in a religious debate, it's a bit like picking on a retard because it's an unwinnable argument from the religious side. Oh well.


> Sorry but I believe in God and if you want to call me an idiot for it and call everyone else who believes in something an idiot. Go right ahead but it may just be a reflection of what you think about yourself and your own insecurities.


I'm insecure about sex. And my teeth a little, I need to get a tooth removed probably. That's about all I can think of.


> (Sorry about typos and all. I am on a computer that refuses to use spell check.)


Pay more attention to what you're typing then?  Well, I touch-type, it makes it really easy to, I don't know if you do.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 24, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> I keep seeing the words MY OPINION!!!  Well guess what, it doesn't matter.  Science matters, burden of proof matters.  I have never met a "smart" religious person either.  Belief in a God is flat out stupid, I'm sorry to say.  It's pretty much lying to yourself, ignoring the heaping mountain of evidence that speaks to the contrary by countering with "I HAVE FAITH!!!".  In what?  That there is an invisible, improbable, infallible, impartial man in the sky who says he loves you, but at the same time damns you by giving you free will and cognitive thought with which to disprove him?  Sounds like a real asshole to me.  I won't be tossing a buck in the collection plate.


Very nicely put.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDHJ4ztnldQ
Who was it who first said this, by the way...?
"If you can make people believe that a force they cannot see, hear, touch, or perceive in any way controls their lives, you can make them believe anything." Something like that.


----------



## Azure (Oct 24, 2008)

skittle said:


> Science doesn't disprove God. It may disprove stories in the Bible, such as Adam and Eve which I do not believe but I have yet to see anything that can truly and fully disprove God. Evolution doesn't count if you look at my previous post.


What is your God, without his silly little book?  Isn't that where the belief comes from?  Isn't that the words of God to man, passed down and written to propagate such?  Isn't God infallible, all knowing, all seeing?  And yet, science, created by man, disproves it?  Righto.  I'll leave you with the classic Epicurean Riddle, see if you can answer it...

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
				     Then he is not omnipotent.
				Is he able, but not willing?
				     Then he is malevolent.
				Is he both able and willing?
				     Then whence cometh evil?
				Is he neither able nor willing?
				     Then why call him God?[/SIZE][/FONT]


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 24, 2008)

Why he hell is every Christian butthurt about Evolution? I have to learn theories that are well-accepted in Biology, and no one complains about them!
For example:
Cell Theory
Organism Theory
Genetic Theory

Seriously. Theories are science. There are theories about the very basis of life, yet no one's butthurt about them...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 24, 2008)

because evolution is the one that says God didn't make us, as in the human race just appear out of thin air, and that we have more in common with "lesser" species than simply being made of genes and cells.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 24, 2008)

True. 

SCIENCE


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 24, 2008)

Talvi said:


> Well, no shit? *It really doesn't take much brainpower to be cynical of religion.* Atheism is also stupid-people friendly.
> 
> However to believe in something completely unproven does, I think, require some or a combination of stupidity/ignorance/brainwashing/delusion (plus other factors, such as fear of death). Christianity sprouted through ignorance and violence at a time where society was much less developed and we didn't know really anything about the universe we live in. We live in 2008 and we know it's full of shit, there's no excuse. Do we take people seriously who believe in pixies? Well, at least they don't have a lifecode about believing in pixies and doing exactly as the pixies say, or else after death they'll arrive in a place of eternal torment and pain. You know, even if I did believe in God, he can go fuck himself. He's an egotistical, narcissistic control-freak. "You have the free will to do exactly as I say or burn in hell, faggots!". People worship that? Unbelieveable.
> 
> ...



Ummm... did you just call yourself stupid?

If you haven't thought of this before, perhaps you should study how what we now know as science used to be considered fantasy.  You know, many things are unproven, but that doesn't mean a person is an idiot for thinking "something completely unproven" should be properly considered... this is how discoveries... this is how revolutionary theories get their testing.  It's how totally new, unknown facts get discovered.  I can believe in something unproven, without being stupid/ignorant/brainwashed/delusional.  This is the core of Science as well as Belief.  Had curious people not fought against convention, much of science, as we know it, wouldn't exist.  Of course, with Science, proof of theory comes from outside... with Faith, proof comes from the inside.  That is the core difference between the two.




Talvi said:


> *In short, yes. It requires abandoning reason.*



So _you_ say... however, you are not God, so your opinion has no bearing on reality.




Talvi said:


> *Why can't they find the strength to in themselves, or in others?* Religion has some good intentions and _some_ good messages. Lets keep these positives and get rid of the burdening bullshit that it's stuck in.



Religion is an internal thing, so... yes... the strength comes from within the believer.  And, from other believers who share their faith.




Talvi said:


> Why not just ignore all of the Bible then instead of just some of it? *Once you start picking and choosing what to accept and what to ignore, it kind of defeats the validity and purpose of the Bible, in my opinion.*



Correct... it is All or Nothing.




Talvi said:


> *Becuse you don't live up to God's standards?* You shouldn't let an imaginary character get you down. *You're probably not that bad.* If you are, it doesn't really make a difference to me either way.



No... because we are all sinners, every last one of us.  However, if we belong to God, he forgives us all our sins.  We just have to ask for that forgiveness.




Talvi said:


> I do expect that. People are easily offended. *You should expect people to get pissed at you for supporting something which has filled history with bloodshed and promoted intolerance that still exists in society today.* Jesus loves us all? I'm sure that'd be a lot of comfort whilst rotting in hell.



All that bloodshed and intolerance is man-made, not God-made.  Yes, Jesus loves us all... but if you reject him, he has no choice but to reject you.  God does not force his will on anyone.




Talvi said:


> Yes but *atheism isnt a belief*. It's lack of belief. Generally, if we can't prove something, we are cautious in our viewpoint. We can't prove that pixies exist, but do million of people around the world believe they do? No. We almost unanimously do not believe in that. The obvious judgement is to be conservative in such a situation until new evidence comes to light.



Atheism is a belief... it is a belief in the non-existence of God.  A belief that all of creation and all life came from nothing.




Talvi said:


> Please see previous note. The default stance isn't to believe in something that isn't proven, especially if it breaks the laws of *all we can prove* to be true and has no real evidence! I don't KNOW that there isn't a god, no-one can, but there's no reason to believe there is?



Not only from this passage, but from everything else you've spouted, I see you don't get the concept, so I'll explain:  If God exists, it is understood that He created the universe and everything in it... including all the scientific principles we've discovered.  And all the ones we haven't proven yet.  All the known and unknown laws and rules upon with all of reality functions.  So, no, science is not man-made... it is God-made.  Humanity has simply explored and discovered what was already put there in the first place.




Talvi said:


> Yes, it is a theory. It is also a fact. In science, a hypothesis is an unproven, untested idea. A _theory_ is a hypothesis that has been well-tested and confirmed repeatedly, whilst surviving scientifical scrutiny. *It's the highest level of factual possibility that science gives.* Ergo, as far as we could possibly know, it's fact. That should answer the rest of that little bit, so I'll just omit it from the next quote.



Tell me something:  How can something be both a fact and a possibility?  Far as I know, logically, it has to be one or the other.




Talvi said:


> We don't know that, *however, there's a field of study called Abiogenesis and suffice to say, it's proven that organic matter can come from inorganic materials.* Of course, you have the right to believe that God initiated that to created the first cells of life, but there's no evidence to say that that happened. It's just your hypothesis. Feel free to believe that, but understand that there's nothing to back that and therefore no reason TO believe it.



And yet, for some reason, the concept of Abiotic Oil is dismissed by science, and we continue to use the term "fossil fuels"....




Talvi said:


> So you believe it's stupid and that's fine, but if you SAY IT, then it's not ok? Right.  What difference does that make??!  "No one has any room to call anyone an idiot really when it comes to beliefs because beliefs are opinons". So you're saying, it's okay to state your opinion. Well, my opinion is that those people are stupid. I'm totally open about who I am and what I think, and if more people were like that, we'd all know where we stand. You might prefer an "everythings happy" fantasy. This isn't heaven, *it's earth and it's full of conflict and unhappiness*.



And all that conflict and unhappiness rests solely on the shoulders of humanity.




Talvi said:


> Well, that's just a difference in mentality eh. I don't feel the need to cover myself up and present what I think is a "socially acceptable" opinion instead of my own. I don't have a grudge against you. I enjoy the debate and having my own views challenged. *Unfortunately, in a religious debate, it's a bit like picking on a retard because it's an unwinnable argument from the religious side.* Oh well.



Yes, it is unwinnable... science has outside support, faith is all on the inside, which makes it difficult when the person you debate with has a heart of stone.




AzurePhoenix said:


> *What is your God, without his silly little book?*  Isn't that where the belief comes from?  Isn't that the words of God to man, passed down and written to propagate such?  Isn't God infallible, all knowing, all seeing?  *And yet, science, created by man, disproves it?*  Righto.  I'll leave you with the classic Epicurean Riddle, see if you can answer it...
> 
> [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> ...



No, belief comes from the inside, not from a book...

... and, as I have stated above, science was not created by man, but by God.  Science neither proves nor disproves God's existance... because God wants people to Believe by faith, not by facts.

As for your little passage:  God will not force himself on those who do not accept him or believe in him... therefore, he allows them their free-will, allows them to follow their human nature, which is Sin.  This is why Evil is loose on the Earth.  And since God cannot have Evil in his presence, all those who reject his forgiveness will be separated from Him, in the end.  This is the torment of Hell, for all those who reject His Gift and His Forgiveness... eternal separation from God.


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 24, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... did you just call yourself stupid?
> 
> If you haven't thought of this before, perhaps you should study how what we now know as science used to be considered fantasy.  You know, many things are unproven, but that doesn't mean a person is an idiot for thinking "something completely unproven" should be properly considered... this is how discoveries... this is how revolutionary theories get their testing.  It's how totally new, unknown facts get discovered.  I can believe in something unproven, without being stupid/ignorant/brainwashed/delusional.  This is the core of Science as well as Belief.  Had curious people not fought against convention, much of science, as we know it, wouldn't exist.  Of course, with Science, proof of theory comes from outside... with Faith, proof comes from the inside.  That is the core difference between the two.
> 
> ...



Ah, Roose... I've missed your post-dissections. And de-railings.

WHICH FUCKER LET HIM INTO A DEBATE? HMM?


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, belief comes from the inside, not from a book...
> 
> ... and, as I have stated above, science was not created by man, but by God.  Science neither proves nor disproves God's existance... because God wants people to Believe by faith, not by facts.
> 
> As for your little passage:  God will not force himself on those who do not accept him or believe in him... therefore, he allows them their free-will, allows them to follow their human nature, which is Sin.  This is why Evil is loose on the Earth.  And since God cannot have Evil in his presence, all those who reject his forgiveness will be separated from Him, in the end.  This is the torment of Hell, for all those who reject His Gift and His Forgiveness... eternal separation from God.


This is like, straight outta the phamplet bro. Chicktract.com anyone?  How can something all powerful not force you to do something?  You are technically, powerless against it.  And even if not so, how can something not have evil in it's presence, if it created it?  The only way to possess omnipitence is to be present in every particle, every thought, so would it not be present and driving evil simply by existing?  Science doesn't disprove God, yet...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> Ah, Roose... I've missed your post-dissections. *And de-railings.*
> 
> WHICH FUCKER LET HIM INTO A DEBATE? HMM?



Sorry, but we must be on different trains....

Either debate my points or add your own for others to debate, please.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 25, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> because evolution is the one that says God didn't make us, as in the human race just appear out of thin air, and that we have more in common with "lesser" species than simply being made of genes and cells.



... which leads to there being no "Garden of Eden" and no "Original Sin", therefore if there was no Fall then there was nothing to be saved from by Jesus - which renders the core of Christianity redundant. 

THAT'S the real reason why fundies devote so much time to trying to "disprove" evolution, 'cause it chops their "biblically inerrant" faith off at the knees.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> This is like, straight outta the phamplet bro. Chicktract.com anyone?  *How can something all powerful not force you to do something?*  You are technically, powerless against it.  And even if not so, how can something not have evil in it's presence, if it created it?  The only way to possess omnipitence is to be present in every particle, every thought, so would it not be present and driving evil simply by existing?  Science doesn't disprove God, yet...



Simple... because He created man with Free Will.  God chose NOT to force himself on humanity, but to allow every individual person the choice.  Also, God did not create evil... evil was created when men (and angels, Lucifer first of all) chose to reject God as their Creator.  Oh, and the right word is "omnipresent"... and, yes, God is everywhere, except in the hearts of those who have rejected him.  That is where Evil lies.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Well, thank Dawkins he's not in my heart.  And omnipresence implies omnipotence, and the two are mutually exclusive.  And no, he does force himself, because that, by definition, we are god.  And he'd be doing our thing, instead of us.  I remembered why I never debate religion online anymore just now.

/time wasted


----------



## Talvi (Oct 25, 2008)

Oh this looney is back? Yeah I'm not going to even waste my time, his answers are silly and people can read that for themselves without I or another explaining them.


----------



## Jonnaius (Oct 25, 2008)

Have any of you heard about whats happening in London?

There are posters up on buses saying religious slogans and advertising religion. So, a group of atheists are creating posters (led, inevitably, by Richard Dawkins) that say there is no god. I love this idea, its hilarious.


----------



## Talvi (Oct 25, 2008)

Jonnaius said:


> Have any of you heard about whats happening in London?
> 
> There are posters up on buses saying religious slogans and advertising religion. So, a group of atheists are creating posters (led, inevitably, by Richard Dawkins) that say there is no god. I love this idea, its hilarious.


Yes I have. I was unhappily surprised in the first place that religion was being advertised at all. Just shows how desperate they are, eh?

There've also been Christians preaching in our town and putting up posters saying "JESUS LOVES YOU" and all that crap.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 25, 2008)

Talvi said:


> There've also been Christians preaching in our town and putting up posters saying "JESUS LOVES YOU" and all that crap.


Funny thing with that...
If a person's straight, for example, and have no doubts whatsoever about that, he doesn't have to go around bragging about how much pussy he gets, right?
Same principle for religious faith, or the value thereof. If it was really worth a damn, they wouldn't need to recruit.



Mayfurr said:


> ... which leads to there being no "Garden of Eden" and no "Original Sin", therefore if there was no Fall then there was nothing to be saved from by Jesus - which renders the core of Christianity redundant.
> 
> THAT'S the real reason why fundies devote so much time to trying to "disprove" evolution, 'cause it chops their "biblically inerrant" faith off at the knees.


That and, you know, they live to be indignant. They're like pretty much any other looney-lobby: All they really want is to be cut down, trampled, and left lying in the dust of reality, throughly crushed. They don't know how to prove they live outside of the concept "I hurt, therefore I exist".
I'd pity them, but they have too much worldy power to justify it.



Roose Hurro said:


> Correct... it is All or Nothing.


You believe in all the gospels, then?
Chew on this:
According to Matthew, Jesus was 28 generations descended from Solomon. According to Luke, he was 43 generations down Nathan's line. Both lineage accounts were traced through Joseph, who--_according to the Bible_--was not even the father of Jesus.
They cannot both be true.

Here, educate yourself:
http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9449.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Christianity/bible_contra_101.html
http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelc...Gospels_are_Full_of_Contradictions_Errors.htm
...though your Bible is rather disdainful of knowledge, even judging from the Creation and Fall accounts in Genesis.



> This is the torment of Hell, for all those who reject His Gift and His Forgiveness...


Hearing militant sheep bleating frantically, standing atop an overrated Roman smutbook? ...eh, I've lived through worse.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Very adept there, Adrinoma.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Well, thank Dawkins he's not in my heart.  And omnipresence implies omnipotence, *and the two are mutually exclusive.*  And no, he does force himself, because that, by definition, we are god.  And he'd be doing our thing, instead of us.  I remembered why I never debate religion online anymore just now.
> 
> /time wasted



Huh...?  Would you mind explaining that?  You know, exactly how omnipresence and omnipotence are mutually exclusive?  Without explaination or any corroborative "proof", you have no arguement.




Talvi said:


> *Oh this looney is back?* Yeah I'm not going to even waste my time, his answers are silly and people can read that for themselves without I or another explaining them.



Yes, I can see you're back...

... and you still haven't argued my points, so I guess you have nothing to say.  Shame, that....




AdriNoMa said:


> You believe in all the gospels, then?
> Chew on this:
> According to Matthew, Jesus was 28 generations descended from Solomon. According to Luke, he was 43 generations down Nathan's line. Both lineage accounts were traced through Joseph, who--_according to the Bible_--was not even the father of Jesus.
> *They cannot both be true.*



But Joseph was the husband of Jesus' mother, which made him the father of Jesus IN NAME.  And in lineage....




AdriNoMa said:


> Here, educate yourself:
> 
> http://www.evilbible.com/contradictions.htm - Yes, a site called "Evil Bible.com", hosting a reprint form an article entitled "The Church of Theists Suck" is a totally unbiased source...
> 
> ...



Thank you for the links... though I have provided my first-impression comments within your quote, what you have provided deserves further study, when I have the time.  So, thank you... at least you didn't do like Talvi, by just making insults and running.




AdriNoMa said:


> Hearing militant sheep bleating frantically, standing atop an overrated Roman smutbook? ...eh, I've lived through worse.



Don't see the point of this comment, but you're free to bleat whatever you want.  Hopefully, the grass is green and tasty, on your side of the fence....


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Neither do you Roose, except for a bunch of insubstantial doublespeak about how God didn't do this or did do that.  Never mind the fact that the Bible creates an unrealistic time frame for the evolution of man.  Tell me, how do you possess omnipotence without omnipresence?  To be in the past, the future, the present, in every probability and possibility, every irrational thing that could or would or might happen?  Tell me that God doesn't drive evil.  And tell me with science, not with silly metaphors.  I've got more of those than I'll ever need.


----------



## bluewulf1 (Oct 25, 2008)

i am not an athiest,but i must ask what truely is religion. It could be an attempt to find one's self or to find meaning in this short life.Not saying religion is a bad thing. it can be the thing that gives people something to hold on to when there is nothing else.When all our money, power, and status is gone, what is left?


----------



## Tycho (Oct 25, 2008)

bluewulf1 said:


> i am not an athiest,but i must ask what truely is religion. It could be an attempt to find one's self or to find meaning in this short life.Not saying religion is a bad thing. it can be the thing that gives people something to hold on to when there is nothing else.When all our money, power, and status is gone, what is left?



Spirituality is the personal feeling of being watched over by a higher power and/or being a part of a grand design wrought by a higher power, and/or the belief that this higher power flows through you and is connected to you at a very deep level.

Religion is a method of enslaving, brainwashing and coercing people by appealing to and then taking advantage of their spirituality, in an organized, calculated and controlling fashion.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 25, 2008)

I wonder why this thread is still going on... it's sorta making me sick... it's like watching a drunken father throwing beer bottles at his wife... I don't feel so good after just reading just this last page... Please, guys... just stop... for you Christians and Theists... there really is no use in talking here, because the only spectators are predetermined to laugh at what you type. And... you... Atheists... will you stop stroking eachother's egos... if you're through not believing a word we say even after Roose Hurro has fought through flat out mudslinging... then just disbelieve amongst yourselves.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> I wonder why this thread is still going on... it's sorta making me sick... it's like watching a drunken father throwing beer bottles at his wife... I don't feel so good after just reading just this last page... Please, guys... just stop... for you Christians and Theists... there really is no use in talking here, because the only spectators are predetermined to laugh at what you type. And... you... Atheists... will you stop stroking eachother's egos... if you're through not believing a word we say even after Roose Hurro has fought through flat out mudslinging... then just disbelieve amongst yourselves.


You don't understand the history we have with the religious debates here.  This is the same thread, all over again, with the same crap, all over again, with the same outcome, all over again, and I'm prepared to have it happen again and again and again.  Stick around, this shit usually starts to get REALLY good around post 5-600.


----------



## pheonix (Oct 25, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Stick around, this shit usually starts to get REALLY good around post 5-600.



I can't wait.


----------



## Takun (Oct 25, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4

Great Poem

Hey There, how, howâ€™s it going?
Long time no see.
I know I havenâ€™t been around much lately 
Butâ€¦it didnâ€™t seem like you wanted me to be
The last time I sent down a message you nailed it to the cross
So I figured Iâ€™d just leave you to it, let you be your own boss

But Iâ€™ve been keeping an eye on you, I have, and itâ€™s amazing how youâ€™ve grown.
With your technological advances and the problems youâ€™ve overthrown,
And all the beautiful art youâ€™ve created with such grace and such finesse,
But I admit there are a few things Iâ€™m afraid have impressed me less.

So Iâ€™m writing to apologize for all the horrors committed in my name,
Although that was never what I intended, I feel I should take my share of the blame.
All the good I tried to do was corrupted when all the religion got into full swing,
What I thought were quite clear messages were taken to unusual extremes.
My teachings taken out of context to meet the agendas of others,
Interpretations taken to many different ways and hidden meanings discovered

Religion became a tool, for the weak to control the strong
With all these new morals and ethics, survival of the fittest was gone
No longer could the biggest man simply take whatever he needed
â€˜cause damnation was the price if certain rules were not heeded

Some of the deeds committed in my name just made me wonder were I went wrong.
Back at the start when I created this, the foundation seemed so strong.
See all the elements were already here, long before I began, I just kind of put it all together
I didnâ€™t really think out a long-term plan.

I made the sun an appropriate distance and laid the stars across the sky
So you could navigate the globe or simply watch the sun rise
I covered the earth with plants and fruits, 
Some for sustenance and some for beauty
I made the sun shine and the clouds rain so their maintenance wasnâ€™t your duty
I tried to give each creature its own attributes without making them enveloped
I gave you all you all your own space to grow and in your own way space to develop

I didnâ€™t know such development would cause rifts and jealousy
Cause you to war against each other and leave marks on this planet indelibly 
You see, I wasnâ€™t really the creater, I was just the curator of nature
I want to get something straight with homosexuals right now: I donâ€™t hate ya
I was a simple being that happened to be the first to wield such powers
I just laid the ground, it was You that built the towers

It was You that invented bombs, and the fear that comes with them
And it was You that invented money, and the corrupt economic systems
You invented terms like just-war and terms like friendly fire
And it was You that didnâ€™t know when to stop digging deeper, when to stop building higher
It was You that exhausted the resources I carefully laid out on this earth,
And it was You that even saw these problems coming but accredited them little worth
It was You that used my teachings for your own personal gain
And it was You that committed such tragedies, even though they were in my name

So I apologize for any mistakes I made, and when my words misconstrued
But this apologyâ€™s to mother nature, cause I created you


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Neither do you Roose, except for a bunch of insubstantial doublespeak about how God didn't do this or did do that.  Never mind the fact that the Bible creates an unrealistic time frame for the evolution of man.  Tell me, how do you possess omnipotence without omnipresence?  To be in the past, the future, the present, in every probability and possibility, every irrational thing that could or would or might happen?  Tell me that God doesn't drive evil.  *And tell me with science, not with silly metaphors.*  I've got more of those than I'll ever need.



Tell me, Azure... how big is the universe?




Korro-Sama said:


> I wonder why this thread is still going on... it's sorta making me sick... it's like watching a drunken father throwing beer bottles at his wife... I don't feel so good after just reading just this last page... Please, guys... just stop... for you Christians and Theists... there really is no use in talking here, because the only spectators are predetermined to laugh at what you type. And... you... Atheists... will you stop stroking eachother's egos... *if you're through not believing a word we say even after Roose Hurro has fought through flat out mudslinging... then just disbelieve amongst yourselves*.



Yes, disbelieve amongst yourselves... but, if you want to debate religion, then you have to debate it from your side, without letting your prejudice cloud your ability to handle the topic from the other point of view... with respect.  You don't hear me calling atheists delusional, and all that other crap.  I present a view for debate, not to be name-called and/or ignored....


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 25, 2008)

> By Roose Hurro
> Atheism is a belief... it is a belief in the non-existence of God. A belief that all of creation and all life came from nothing.


This.....give me a moment while I spend close to an hour laughing at this statement.

Ha, ha, ha, very funny.

;done laughing; Wow, that is really rich. So if a person does not hold to belief in gods, they automatically believe that all that exists came from nothing? What fractual logic there....but wait isn't that what most theists believe anyway? World came from god. God came from nothing. God created himself....somehow. Wait, is god asexual now? Or he just a straight up herm?

Roose, let me explain something to you.

Atheism/=/Science
Atheism/=/Story of creation
Atheism/=/how the universe came to be.

Atheism does not make a claim neither a stance towards how our world came to be or how we came to be it. All it says is that a person lacks a belief in gods. Lack, meaning, the belief does not exist. That is it. It deals with nothing else.

But wow....thank you for making me laugh today.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Tell me, Azure... how big is the universe?



Not infinite, I know that much.


----------



## Takun (Oct 25, 2008)

The universe is constantly expanding until one day it either repeats the big bang and starts over or ceases to exist.  As far as I can remember from Astronomy. 


My textbook is in my dorm room or I'd go look it up.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 25, 2008)

I don't GET what the Hell the size of the universe is supposed to have to do with anything. It's GOD that's supposed to be infinite/eternal, not necessarily space and time.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> This.....give me a moment while I spend close to an hour laughing at this statement.
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, very funny.
> 
> ...



Good... I thought that little verse would help break the tension.




AzurePhoenix said:


> Not infinite, I know that much.



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/universe_too_large.html

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/universe.shtml

There, Azure... two from the scientific perspective, two from the religious perspective.  Hopefully, you can answer the question now....




Wolf-Bone said:


> I don't GET what the Hell the size of the universe is supposed to have to do with anything. *It's GOD that's supposed to be infinite/eternal, not necessarily space and time.*



Funny, but you just answered your own question....


----------



## Takun (Oct 25, 2008)

From what I read, there is an edge of the universe so to speak.  Space stretches, but planets don't move...it's weird.  I know I'm not explaining it right though >.>


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> There, Azure... two from the scientific perspective, two from the religious perspective.  Hopefully, you can answer the question now....


I fail to see what were discussing has to do with the fact that the God of the bible is a shill?  Or that he has basically written himself into an unrealistic timeline corner with all his ham handed bullshit?  Or the fact that, if there were a God of sorts, I doubt he'd even be concerned about any of that shit that is in the bible, or any other religious text?  As I said, science doesn't disprove God yet, and I think he does  a pretty spiffy job of disproving himself to man with all this faith and belief bullshit.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 26, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> From what I read, there is an edge of the universe so to speak.  *Space stretches, but planets don't move*...it's weird.  I know I'm not explaining it right though >.>



Strange how reality works, ain't it...?




AzurePhoenix said:


> I fail to see what were discussing has to do with the fact that the God of the bible is a shill?  Or that he has basically written himself into an unrealistic timeline corner with all his ham handed bullshit?  Or the fact that, if there were a God of sorts, I doubt he'd even be concerned about any of that shit that is in the bible, or any other religious text?  As I said, science doesn't disprove God yet, and I think he does  a pretty spiffy job of disproving himself to man with all this *faith and belief* bullshit.



And this is exactly why faith and belief is the only way you'll ever be able to find God....

Now, for what we were discussing, now that you know how big the universe is, understand that all of that is just a speck on the end of God's "finger"... He's everywhere around us, just so infinite and eternal, you can't see him with your eyes, any more than you can see beyond the universe's end.  Humanity simply wasn't given the ability to comprehend God in any way other than by faith... it's "believing without seeing".  Or, more to the point, "seeing with the heart, not with the eyes".  That is the basis of true faith and belief.  God is, at the same time, within and yet beyond His Creation.  *A sparrow is worth two farthings, but if a sparrow falls, God knows of it....*


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 26, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Funny, but you just answered your own question....



I don't really _have_ a question as pertains to God opting not to make HIM creation infinite like HIM. What I don't understand is why someone who doesn't believe in an eternal/infinitely powerful creator would assume a universe that is not infinite in power and scope is suitable evidence that one or more do not exist.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

Nope, like everything controverscial in the world it need to be put to discussion. 

I do however like how you cleverly baited a discussion about religion by saying it shouldn't be discussed. =) you know people can't resist discussing anything with religion in it.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 26, 2008)

Shouldn't this thread be moved to "Rants and Raves" now?


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 26, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Why he hell is every Christian butthurt about Evolution? I have to learn theories that are well-accepted in Biology, and no one complains about them!
> For example:
> Cell Theory
> Organism Theory
> ...



The truth hurts, yes? People will get offended when science starts questioning what they stand for. Example; Some scientists now think that homosexuality is caused by a severe hormonal imbalance, there is evidence for it. Not only that but now there is evidence pointing in the direction that homosexuality can be changed. 

Now whether or not that might upset gay people who think that being gay is healthy and as much of a simple preference to liking your coffee white or black is irelvant, because science teachs us how the world really works based on no ethnics, morals or consideration of the human factor.

One of many reasons why I think that science should not be left to explain everything for us.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

I believe what you speaking of is the levels of hormones because of genetics, not an imbalance. 

As for reversing it with hormones. Yeah sure if you took hormone replacements or suppressors you could potentially change the arousal, but not the attraction to the same sex. 

Science does have ethical codes of conduct. However it does not censor its findings based on possible use. There is a difference between having no ethics, and ceonsoring against possible unethical use.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 26, 2008)

Ironic, no? That this itself has turned into a religious debate, having said that, what did I fucking think was gonna' happen eh?

Also, why has it always got to be athiests V Christians? Why not athiests V Jews or Muslims or Hindus for once? Afterall Christians are not stiring shit up any near as much as other religions now.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 26, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Strange how reality works, ain't it...?



And this is why it saddens me that there are so many people contend to accept "God did it" as an answer to all questions this wonderful universe creates.



Get-dancing said:


> Also, why has it always got to be athiests V Christians? Why not athiests V Jews or Muslims or Hindus for once? Afterall Christians are not stiring shit up any near as much as other religions now.



Perhaps not on a world-wide scale, but on the (English) internet and in the Western* world they are.


*: Whatever your definition of Western is.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 26, 2008)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> And this is why it saddens me that there are so many people contend to accept "God did it" as an answer to all questions this wonderful universe creates.



It also saddens me that people accept the idea that the whole universe is made of stone-cast explanations of chemicals, forces, organisms of unpredictible chance and happening for the sake of happening rather than look to the evidence of a higher power, a plan, a creator, a purpose to the universe and being alive.

Still, trying to explain a god to a human is like trying to describe a colour to someone who has been blind all their life.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 26, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> It also saddens me that people accept the idea that the whole universe is made of stone-cast explanations of chemicals, forces, organisms of unpredictible chance and happening for the sake of happening rather than look to the evidence of a higher power, a plan, a creator, a purpose to the universe and being alive.



You know, to me that sounds like nothing less than someone throwing a hissy fit about wanting to be special. Someone unable to deal with reality.
Purpose is something to be made, not found.



Get-dancing said:


> Still, trying to explain a god to a human is like trying to describe a colour to someone who has been blind all their life.



And that, as far as I'm concerned, is nothing more than a lazy cop-out.
Oh and one _can_ explain colour to a blind person, albeit in a rather clinical fashion.


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2008)

As if the whole religious debate is going to get solved on a furry forum. 

I honestly just came over here looking for a little religious ranting because of some self righteous prick in another forum. He demanded that the words "Holy crap" get removed from a thread title because it offended his religious beliefs, didn't take long for that thread to get derailed. Of course when people started telling him it wasn't a big deal he/they started demanding respect and ban warnings to anyone who posts anything offensive to their religion.



> This is not the internet, this is a privately owned webite and flaming or personal insults are against the TOS. It is right to censor someones post if it contains words that will offend a group of people. I'm tired of seeing topics called Holy **** and topics containing the words Jesus F'ing Christ here on system wars. You kids need to learn some respect for other people's beliefs, you don't go around offending black people by using racist words so don't offend me as a Christian because you think you're cool. It's time the mods started banning people who think it's ok to insult million of Christians by posting blasmephous posts. You don't do it to Muslims because you're afraid to so show some respect to other people.
> 
> We're talking about video games, don't bring your hatred of religion into topics here.



From a thread titled "HOLY CRAP, LittleBigPlanet is the best thing since sliced bread FUN FUN"

I swear if there wasn't religious debates for me to vent about this crap I'd explode; and not in a good way.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 26, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Ironic, no? That this itself has turned into a religious debate, having said that, what did I fucking think was gonna' happen eh?
> 
> Also, why has it always got to be athiests V Christians? Why not athiests V Jews or Muslims or Hindus for once? Afterall Christians are not stiring shit up any near as much as other religions now.



It's not about anything versus anything. It just so happens to be that the Christianity is one of the three most popular religions today. 

Also, the Jewish don't do anything to people to earn being be watched. They don't try to underhandedly change laws to support doctrine. They don't have loud members lobbying in America to limit freedoms and rights. They don't have people picketing at dead people's funerals, or telling people they will go to hell for being different.

The same applies for Hinduism....they are a peaceful and peacable people. So of course they are not going to be a target. They don't pull shit that Christianity and other religions like it such as Islam, have tried to pull for century after century.

If you ask me though you should really grow up, and learn to have a thicker skin.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 26, 2008)

Trpdwarf said:


> It's not about anything versus anything. It just so happens to be that the Christianity is one of the three most popular religions today.
> 
> Also, the Jewish don't do anything to people to earn being be watched. They don't try to underhandedly change laws to support doctrine. They don't have loud members lobbying in America to limit freedoms and rights. They don't have people picketing at dead people's funerals, or telling people they will go to hell for being different.
> 
> ...



Jews circumsise from birth, thats a violation of reporductive rights, you ought to know about that. They also think that women should not be allowed to touch the holy books, and that anal sex is wrong, eh the list goes on and on. Makes you wonder why a democrat would dream of standing up for them.



> Also, the Jewish don't do anything to people to earn being be watched. They don't try to underhandedly change laws to support doctrine. They don't have loud members lobbying in America to limit freedoms and rights. They don't have people picketing at dead people's funerals, or telling people they will go to hell for being different.



No, they just invaded and killed Palastine using 'worse has happened to US' as justification.



> The same applies for Hinduism....they are a peaceful and peacable people. So of course they are not going to be a target. They don't pull shit that Christianity and other religions like it such as Islam, have tried to pull for century after century.



http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/01/19/hindu-extremism-being-ignored.htm

Not forgeting the countless all Hindu racist streetgangs thriving around Britain.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 26, 2008)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Very adept there, Adrinoma.


Why thank you.



Roose Hurro said:


> Would you expect someone who promotes the Koran to accept the Bible, too?


Yes, because I know more about Islam than you know about it--or Christianity for that matter. Read something besides your precious Scriptures: the Muslims who actually think about these things consider the Bible as containing valid teachings that were corrupted over time by mistranslation, human error, etc. etc.

Then again, given Islam's recent trend of membership increase, I imagine those'll be about as common as Fundies who think in very little time.



> But Joseph was the husband of Jesus' mother, which made him the father of Jesus IN NAME.  And in lineage....


Excuse me. She was called the Virgin Mary, yes? Joseph could not have been Jesus' sire. The name does not matter to the story or its meaning--and, as the Bible _specifically_ states, he was not, at any time prior to Jesus' birth, fornicating her.

Slightly off-topic, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how people get AIDS sometime, because I imagine it's pretty much the same thing: "babies just appear because God says 'Let this woman bear this man's young, even though he has yet to consummate their wedlock'" is about as sensible an argument "God said 'Give this sodomite AIDS, because I don't like him, even though he hasn't had sex yet and has had no contact with the HIV virus.'"



> Thank you for the links... though I have provided my first-impression comments within your quote, what you have provided deserves further study, when I have the time.  So, thank you... at least you didn't do like Talvi, by just making insults and running.


Don't really know the guy, but I've found insults much more effective when continually applied.



> Don't see the point of this comment, but you're free to bleat whatever you want.  Hopefully, the grass is green and tasty, on your side of the fence....


Forgive me. I thought you had an understanding of even basic subtlety. (Then again, you take the Bible literally...)
Since it clearly went over your head, I'll translate:
"See you in hell, godfag."

(Oh, and for the record, I used to be Christian. I recovered from that mental illness when I realized that most of them were hypocritical sandbreathers like you.)


----------



## Hazard-Fox (Oct 26, 2008)

Eh, keep religion and internet separate, thats all i say.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Oct 26, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Jews circumsise from birth, thats a violation of reporductive rights, you ought to know about that. They also think that women should not be allowed to touch the holy books, and that anal sex is wrong, eh the list goes on and on. Makes you wonder why a democrat would dream of standing up for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not all Jewish do that to their children....the effects on sexual pleasure of circumsizing children is not conclusive. Also, at least in America, Jewish women are allowed to touch "Scared text." Want to play the game of using a some to stereotype all?

You have Christian denominations that will not allow women to be priests. Stop acting like you or your religion is better than others due to a few cases here and there. You keep poking other groups as if your group's feces don't stink.

So every once in a while a group of Hindus go a bit nuts, or some Jewish group go a bit crazy. It's not an every day happening. Unlike the sexual abuse that once went rampant on the catholic pulpit. It took forever for the pope to address the issue.

Don't start talking to me about what other groups do because I"ll turn you  green with sickness with what major groups such as Christianity does and deals with today. Then again, forget about it. Why bother with someone who has shown a remarkable ability to ignore what anyone has to say for the sake of "Not getting his feelings hurt".

Christianity along with Islam, happen to be the group with the biggest amount of active trouble makers. Sorry but due to that, it only makes sense why both are targeted. Now stop bawwing.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 26, 2008)

Thing is, I'm no catholic.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 26, 2008)

False Advertisement.
-points to topic name-


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Ironic, no? That this itself has turned into a religious debate, having said that, what did I fucking think was gonna' happen eh?
> 
> Also, why has it always got to be athiests V Christians? Why not athiests V Jews or Muslims or Hindus for once? Afterall Christians are not stiring shit up any near as much as other religions now.



Why is it athiests V Christians? Because christians are stirring the shit pile up the most here in the good ole USA.
For the record I'm not an atheist, I'm a rationalist.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 26, 2008)

Might want to add Christians disprove of anal sex (omg sodomy) and circumcision can actually make sex more pleasurable as well as making the penis easier to clean.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Okay... I'll probably have to suffer a shitstorm from you guys for standing up here, but I thought It worth a short break to explain exactly what Catholics are not allowed to believein or practice, and still be called Catholics.

1. Abortion. The Papacy has been rather clear on this. It is not a Catholic belief.

2. Homosexuality. It is not Catholic belief that practiced Homosexuality is allowed BECAUSE sex is SACRED to us. It is SPECIFICALLY practiced by Catholics as a way to consummate the decision of couples to be willing to raise more children in the path to God.

3. On a less important note, CATHOLICS specifically do not allow Female priests, but DO allow female practicing clergy-members. 

4. Catholicism (this is the most important part, actually) is NOT a buffet religion. You do NOT pick and choose what you will and will not believe of the Catholic system. Sure... nobody will stop you from doing this, but you are NOT a Catholic if you took Catholicism and picked and chose your beliefs.

That is all I feel up to saying now.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Might want to add Christians disprove of anal sex (omg sodomy) and circumcision can actually make sex more pleasurable as well as making the penis easier to clean.



It's funny that you say the disaprove of anal sex. In texas anti-sodomy laws where legislated in the 80's to try an oust homosexual sex. It was later taken off of legislation because of equality under the law. Politicians found out, "Well shit heterosexual are doing it to...we can't have them being put in jail for what they do in the bedroom.." So the laws were dropped after heterosexuals complained about the law. Cause everybody likes their dick sucked. 

Circumsicion actually removes quite a bit of nerve endings, so it decreased the pleasure. If you can't clean you child, or clean yourself you should suffer the infections as a consequence.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 26, 2008)

Sinister South Paw said:


> If you can't clean you child, or clean yourself you should suffer the infections as a consequence.


I agree with this 200%.

I like cut more. Easier to suck.

Ignore me.


----------



## Azure (Oct 26, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I agree with this 200%.
> 
> I like cut more. Easier to suck.
> 
> Ignore me.


LOL.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 26, 2008)

I apologize to Kimmerset.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 26, 2008)

Catholicism is an all or nothing deal, huh? Yeah, sure. It was born of an incestuous relationship between the already corrupt original Christian leaders and the Romans and their political system and paganism. At least Satanists are HONEST with themselves and the rest of the world about who and what they worship.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Catholicism is an all or nothing deal, huh? Yeah, sure. It was born of an incestuous relationship between the already corrupt original Christian leaders and the Romans and their political system and paganism. At least Satanists are HONEST with themselves and the rest of the world about who and what they worship.



The roamans lead to the original christianity, or at leasts it wide spreads teaching. 

Satanism in it's most wide spread form does not worship anything. Instead it goes against the dogmatic christian believes, and "worships" free thought and intellectual advancement. 

Not saying I support it, its more a shock tactic, and agruemenative just to attempt to be as anti-religion as they can. Kinda a bizzaro christianity really.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 26, 2008)

Read about Satanism before you post about it. Please.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Catholicism is an all or nothing deal, huh? Yeah, sure. It was born of an incestuous relationship between the already corrupt original Christian leaders and the Romans and their political system and paganism. At least Satanists are HONEST with themselves and the rest of the world about who and what they worship.



You stink of ignorant troll. Take a shower please.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 26, 2008)

Sinister South Paw said:


> The roamans lead to the original christianity, or at leasts it wide spreads teaching.



Yes, but the Romans didn't become Christians, the Christians became Romans and basically stopped being Christians, and Catholicism was born. After centuries of persecution, they gained a bit of power, turned around and decided to become the fucking thing they had resisted all those centuries. If I'm not mistaken, Rome is more or less equated with Satan in the bible. And to this day, evil conquers whatever good is to be had in Christianity. Basically they damned themselves for eternity by aligning themselves with evil, because they played themselves and thought it'd only be temporary or that they'd be forgiven for converting as many people (by force, no less) as they were able to with Rome's/Satan's power.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Yes, but the Romans didn't become Christians, the Christians became Romans and basically stopped being Christians, and Catholicism was born. After centuries of persecution, they gained a bit of power, turned around and decided to become the fucking thing they had resisted all those centuries. If I'm not mistaken, Rome is more or less equated with Satan in the bible. And to this day, evil conquers whatever good is to be had in Christianity. Basically they damned themselves for eternity by aligning themselves with evil, because they played themselves and thought it'd only be temporary or that they'd be forgiven for converting as many people (by force, no less) as they were able to with Rome's/Satan's power.



Wot in hell? 1st of all... after having studied the Church from both a secular and Catholic documented point of view all the way through high-school... you are full of doctored shit. Before you rant histories like those, GET SOME FUCKING QUOTES! And take that shower already.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 26, 2008)

Uhmmm...Christianity became wide spread when a Roman Cezar converted to christianity. He spread the teachings...yes by force in some cases. 

Christianity went down hill when it stopped being about love, acceptance, and forgiveness. It took on the narrowed point of view of some religious leaders, betraying the original message to more fit the biased of some of its supporters. Don't ask me exactly when that happend....I doubt anyone can pinpoint when it went wrong.


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2008)

Any sexual act that isn't for procreation as a Catholic is sinful.

LOL, fuck that.

Catholicism holds us in the past, favoring old traditions to current knowledge.  It's good to know that condoms are still sinful, even while protecting people from aids.


/fag


You can't choose your beliefs?  They aren't your beliefs then.  They are beliefs force fed to you.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 26, 2008)

AIDS IN AFRICA IS BAD, BUT CONDOM USE IN AFRICA IS WORSE!

Also, bishop tells catholic school district not to give Gardasil vaccine to girls...Because cervical cancer is bad, but premarital sex is worse.


Priorities, people.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

It didn't all go wrong at one point in time. The ancient Church crumbled in stages all throughout the dark ages and continued to rampage in a very Un-Christian fassion until the Reformation. While the first distinct alternate Christian denomination sprung from this, the Church itself did a complete restructuring, and became what it is today. Catholicism has suffered greatly EVEN TO THIS DAY because of its own time of corruption, but the modern Church cannot be honestly accused of any continuing corruption. 

I have to say, though, the Church has NEVER been about acceptance. It has ALWAYS been about forgiveness, since Christ's Ultimate Sacrifice was the only thing that made Christianity complete. Without Christ's Forgiveness, we could not have ever come to overcome the Fall of Man. Love is God Himself. There would be no Good if not for his benevolence. The modern Church is all about Love, and Forgiveness. It's really that simple.


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> It didn't all go wrong at one point in time. The ancient Church crumbled in stages all throughout the dark ages and continued to rampage in a very Un-Christian fassion until the Reformation. While the first distinct alternate Christian denomination sprung from this, the Church itself did a complete restructuring, and became what it is today. Catholicism has suffered greatly EVEN TO THIS DAY because of its own time of corruption, but the modern Church cannot be honestly accused of any continuing corruption.
> 
> I have to say, though, the Church has NEVER been about acceptance. It has ALWAYS been about forgiveness, since Christ's Ultimate Sacrifice was the only thing that made Christianity complete. Without Christ's Forgiveness, we could not have ever come to overcome the Fall of Man. Love is God Himself. There would be no Good if not for his benevolence. The modern Church is all about Love, and Forgiveness. It's really that simple.




"I'm sorry you're gay, enjoy hell."


Also, I'm Atheist and one of the nicest people you will meet in real life.  All without "God."

Pretty amazing...




God is love, but he flooded the whole world and started it again?  That's a lot of dead people and trust me, I bet the world now is in way worse shape then back then.

brb, building an Ark.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 26, 2008)

I personally love the papal infallibility thing.

Like with Limbo:


Unbaptized babies are going to the lip of HELL!

Later, after uncounted parents have suffered emotional anguish at losing a child without baptizing them, the church was like


"woopsie"



And now they get to be infallible all over again


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> You can't choose your beliefs?  They aren't your beliefs then.  They are beliefs force fed to you.



Hey, YOU. Yeah. the flaming dumbass. I CHOSE my beliefs. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Is it somehow a sin in your whore-house to agree with someone completely? Or is TRUST something you have issues with.

I didn't start out as a Catholic. No... I chose it after I realized how right it was.... so swing that wooden sword somewhere else.


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Hey, YOU. Yeah. the flaming dumbass. I CHOSE my beliefs. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Is it somehow a sin in your whore-house to agree with someone completely? Or is TRUST something you have issues with.
> 
> I didn't start out as a Catholic. No... I chose it after I realized how right it was.... so swing that wooden sword somewhere else.




Soooooo back to Easog's point, you believed that unbaptized babies went to limbo but then when the Catholic church changed its beliefs to them being infallible your belief magically changed as well?  Some coincidence.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 26, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Hey, YOU. Yeah. the flaming dumbass. I CHOSE my beliefs. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Is it somehow a sin in your whore-house to agree with someone completely? Or is TRUST something you have issues with.
> 
> I didn't start out as a Catholic. No... I chose it after I realized how right it was.... so swing that wooden sword somewhere else.



I'm going to go vomit my heathen guts out over there in that corner.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Soooooo back to Easog's point, you believed that unbaptized babies went to limbo but then when the Catholic church changed its beliefs to them being infallible your belief magically changed as well?  Some coincidence.



Ummm... actually that's what is called bullshit. Limbo is not Catholic, torch.


----------



## bluewulf1 (Oct 26, 2008)

Everyone wants something to believe in. some try to believe in themselves. Others who can't try to believe in a higher power.Some try to believe in the power of humanity. the rest of us found we have nothing to believe in.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 26, 2008)

Yes, yes it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Ummm... actually that's what is called bullshit. Limbo is not Catholic, torch.



"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic Church never      "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants      is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological      "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally      means "fringe." This came about because God has not chosen to reveal      what happens to deceased unbaptized infants. We know that baptism is absolutely      necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because God revealed this. We also know      that something called "baptism of desire" is possible. Since unbaptized      infants seem incapable of any "desire" or act of their will, theologians      have speculated throughout the ages about their destiny in this context St.      Augustine thought that it would be an offense against God's justice to suppose      He would allow such creatures to suffer any pain, but that rather God places      such infants in a state of "natural," but not supernatural happiness      for eternity. This he called "limbo." Other theologians say that      God's "universal salvific will" (1 Timothy 2:4) includes unbaptized      people who do not have the use of reason when they die and that they enjoy      supernatural happiness by some means we do not now know. Catholics are free      to believe or disbelieve in limbo. What happens to unbaptized people who do      not have the use of reason and who die in that state is an open question.      Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1261."



LOL WE WERE WRONG, BUT WE WON'T ADMIT IT SO IT WAS GUESS.

Bullshit.


Here is a news story on it.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/129...-unbaptised-babies-suspended-forever-in-limbo


So either you didn't believe in it and therefor  weren't a good, devout Catholic or you don't hold all the same beliefs as the church and shouldn't.

BE CAREFUL D:
[/FONT]


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 26, 2008)

is there a religion that solely worships the subject of astrobiology itself?... I'm a bit stupid when it comes to religion ^_^


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Easog said:


> Yes, yes it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo





> Limbo is not an official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or any other.



Did you read that fucking page before posting it? I found this in the first paragraph. 

Also a nifty fact about the Infallibility of the Pope... It is not some default status. It is one of his abilities, and it is called speaking Ex Cathedra. There have only been two occasions that the Pope has actually come out to speak Infallibly. Once in saying that Mary was born without Original sin (The Immaculate Conception of Mary) and once again ins saying she was assumed into Heaven (The Assumption of Mary)

I beg just ONE of you who argues against the Catholic Church specifically to DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH!!!!!!!


----------



## Takun (Oct 26, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Did you read that fucking page before posting it? I found this in the first paragraph.
> 
> Also a nifty fact about the Infallibility of the Pope... It is not some default status. It is one of his abilities, and it is called speaking Ex Cathedra. There have only been two occasions that the Pope has actually come out to speak Infallibly. Once in saying that Mary was born without Original sin (The Immaculate Conception of Mary) and once again ins saying she was assumed into Heaven (The Assumption of Mary)
> 
> I beg just ONE of you who argues against the Catholic Church specifically to DO SOME FUCKING RESEARCH!!!!!!!




If it wasn't official, why did the pope have to overturn it?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Oct 26, 2008)

Look... I don't have the time to pop back on here every other post to defend Catholicism, so I'll end by posting this. This IS WHAT I BELIEVE. Just read it and know.



> We believe in one God,
> the Father, the Almighty,
> maker of heaven and earth,
> of all that is, seen and unseen.
> ...


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 26, 2008)

Delicious copypasta

Also, lolTakun


----------



## theLight (Oct 26, 2008)

Edit for personal security.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 27, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> You stink of ignorant troll. Take a shower please.



And you stink of oversensitive and fundie.
To think you were doing so well in your first post, aside from the typical "I bet you're all going to flame me" thing.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> *Yes, because I know more about Islam than you know about it--or Christianity for that matter.* Read something besides your precious Scriptures: the Muslims who actually think about these things consider the Bible as containing valid teachings that were corrupted over time by mistranslation, human error, etc. etc.
> 
> Then again, given Islam's recent trend of membership increase, I imagine those'll be about as common as Fundies who think in very little time.



Sorry, but your knowledge has no bearing on faith or belief.  Even a child who has no "knowledge" can accept God's Gift, and know everything they need to know.  Your "education" has no importance.





AdriNoMa said:


> *Excuse me. She was called the Virgin Mary, yes? Joseph could not have been Jesus' sire. The name does not matter to the story or its meaning--and, as the Bible specifically states, he was not, at any time prior to Jesus' birth, fornicating her.*
> 
> Slightly off-topic, I'd like to hear your thoughts on how people get AIDS sometime, because I imagine it's pretty much the same thing: "babies just appear because God says 'Let this woman bear this man's young, even though he has yet to consummate their wedlock'" is about as sensible an argument "God said 'Give this sodomite AIDS, because I don't like him, even though he hasn't had sex yet and has had no contact with the HIV virus.'"



Indeed not... but you are misunderstanding.  It doesn't matter that Joseph didn't contribute to Jesus' genetic parentage, simply that he was Mary's husband... and, therefore, "father" to Jesus when it came to the lineage of David (hmmm... been a while, but I may very well have heard something related on his mother's side, as well).  "Adopted son", if you will, but a son to Joseph nonetheless.  Jesus' earthly father, not his Heavenly Father.  But, since God sent his Son to Earth... had him born from Mary, wife of Joseph... this made Joseph's earthly lineage part of Jesus' earthly inheritance, even though Joseph was not genetically responsible for fathering the Son of God.  This make it any easier to understand?

As for your off-topic bit?  People get AIDS the same way they get any transmissible disease... by exposure to the required vectors for that particular disease.




AdriNoMa said:


> Don't really know the guy, but I've found insults much more effective when continually applied.



And I've found insults of no importance, no matter how many times they're repeated.




AdriNoMa said:


> Forgive me. I thought you had an understanding of even basic subtlety. (Then again, you take the Bible literally...)
> Since it clearly went over your head, I'll translate:
> *"See you in hell, godfag."*
> 
> (Oh, and for the record, I used to be Christian. I recovered from that mental illness when I realized that most of them were hypocritical sandbreathers like you.)



*Test failed...*




Takumi_L said:


> "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Catholic Church never      "believed" in limbo. The existence of limbo for unbaptized infants is not part of divine revelation, but rather was and is an educated theological      "guess." The term was coined by St. Augustine of Hippo and literally      means "fringe." This came about because *God has not chosen to reveal      what happens to deceased unbaptized infants*. We know that baptism is absolutely      necessary for salvation (John 3:5) because God revealed this. We also know      that something called "baptism of desire" is possible. Since unbaptized      infants seem incapable of any "desire" or act of their will, theologians      have speculated throughout the ages about their destiny in this context St.      Augustine thought that it would be an offense against God's justice to suppose      He would allow such creatures to suffer any pain, but that rather God places      such infants in a state of "natural," but not supernatural happiness      for eternity. This he called "limbo." Other theologians say that      God's "universal salvific will" (1 Timothy 2:4) includes unbaptized      people who do not have the use of reason when they die and that they enjoy      supernatural happiness by some means we do not now know. Catholics are free      to believe or disbelieve in limbo. What happens to unbaptized people who do      not have the use of reason and who die in that state is an open question.      Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, number 1261."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, God has made it clear that there is an "Age of Innocence"... and that babies/children who die, whether before or after birth, are with Him in Heaven.  Furthermore, you haven't properly understood John 3:5, and you have ignored other passages that support baptism as an outward sign of an inward change... we are called to baptism because we are called to follow Jesus, and Jesus went to be baptized.  The water Jesus mentions is the water all humans are suspended in, in the womb.  So, of course, one must first be born, before the Spirit can bring salvation through a "Second Birth".


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Actually, God has made it clear that there is an "Age of Innocence"... and that babies/children who die, whether before or after birth, are with Him in Heaven.  Furthermore, you haven't properly understood John 3:5, and you have ignored other passages that support baptism as an outward sign of an inward change... we are called to baptism because we are called to follow Jesus, and Jesus went to be baptized.  The water Jesus mentions is the water all humans are suspended in, in the womb.  So, of course, one must first be born, before the Spirit can bring salvation through a "Second Birth".



That's what I was pointing out.  There was a common Catholic belief in limbo (whether they want to admit it, the Pope had to outright overturn the belief as false) and that babies that didn't have a chance to be baptized went there.  I quoted a part from where they overturned that old belief.  I find the quotes around believed hilarious in that link.  They refuse to admit it was a once held position and rather get into semantics about it.  Ah well.

I was Baptized, don't remember it.  I know those who have gotten it again.  Yes there is a change.  It's not from the water, but rather the symbolism.  The person does it themselves, the ritual just aids them along psychologically.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2008)

Yes, public baptism is a form of witness.  And, it must be done in front of witnesses!


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 27, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:
			
		

> "See you in hell, godfag."


 please, does anyone have a meme of this?... I dunno if there's any out there, but the thought of it makes me laugh beyond belief! xD


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> please, does anyone have a meme of this?... I dunno if there's any out there, but the thought of it makes me laugh beyond belief! xD



Of which?

xxxxfag is anything that can be labeled. 

See you in hell is just a basic term.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Of which?
> 
> xxxxfag is anything that can be labeled.
> 
> See you in hell is just a basic term.



see, I'm imagining god pointing at me with wide eyes and saying "see you in hell godfag" x3


----------



## nachoboy (Oct 27, 2008)

wow, this thread is sounding very angry nowadays.

anyways, i think of myself as a Catholic, and i have very strong beliefs, but i guess i don't necessarily believe everything in the Catholic doctrine.

i think religion is more about the relationship than the rules. the word religion actually comes from the latin "religare," meaning "to bind." it's not about obeying all the things we're told and following all the little rules. it's about binding yourself to God, working on getting closer to him. if following the rules to get closer to Him is the best way for you to do it, then that's awesome. and maybe having a better relationship with God will lead you to follow all of those rules, i don't know.

and i'm under the impression that if someone doesn't believe in God but is still a "good person" they can get into heaven. it's all about love. that's the main point of it all. religion isn't supposed to be about forcing your views on others, it's not supposed to be about controlling anyone, it's not supposed to be about money. it's supposed to be about love, and helping people, and happiness.

and that's why i see religion as a good thing, but not a necessary thing. if used correctly, religion [or just love. in some cases i interchange the words] can make people happier, it can give people a reason to live, it can bring people together, it can cause peace, and it can do much more.

basically, i'm a big fan of religion and God.

also, maybe this is just the tiger in me, but has anyone here read Life of Pi by Yann Martel? that has some great points about religion.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2008)

nachoboy said:


> wow, this thread is sounding very angry nowadays.
> 
> anyways, i think of myself as a Catholic, and i have very strong beliefs, but i guess i don't necessarily believe everything in the Catholic doctrine.
> 
> ...



Exactly...


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> Exactly...




Which is really why I look down on large scale religion(mainly Catholicism) =/

You start focusing more on rules, rituals, and figure heads.

If I was religious at all, it'd be Quaker.  Those guys had a lot of things right in my eyes.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Which is really why I look down on large scale religion(mainly Catholicism) =/
> 
> You start focusing more on rules, rituals, and figure heads.
> 
> If I was religious at all, it'd be Quaker.  Those guys had a lot of things right in my eyes.



damn my history class... weren't they slave free? like, they'd befriend the slaves... *tries to remember history class*


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> damn my history class... weren't they slave free? like, they'd befriend the slaves... *tries to remember history class*



They came from all over and had a bunch of equality.  They were on good terms with Native Americans and even named children after Native Americans out of respect.  They believed that at birth children are inherently good.  They focused on community and mysticism rather than fear and hate.  

All around good, hardworking people.


----------



## evilteddybear (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> If I was religious at all, it'd be Quaker. Those guys had a lot of things right in my eyes.


Like Oats


----------



## NekoFox08 (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> They came from all over and had a bunch of equality.  They were on good terms with Native Americans and even named children after Native Americans out of respect.  They believed that at birth children are inherently good.  They focused on community and mysticism rather than fear and hate.
> 
> All around good, hardworking people.



may I join the religion of the quakers?


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

evilteddybear said:


> Like Oats



We have a huge Quaker Oats factory in Cedar Rapids D:  It always smells funny...



NekoFox08 said:


> may I join the religion of the quakers?



Yeah, why not?

I like their mindset, it's similar to my own.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 27, 2008)

Dude, plain oatmeal is pretty damn good


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Oct 27, 2008)

BURN THE WITCH! <3


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 27, 2008)

*summons oatmeal demon*


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Dude, plain oatmeal is pretty damn good



It's even better in a pancake...


----------



## Rot-Fuchs (Oct 27, 2008)

Easog said:


> BURN THE WITCH! <3


no no, lich not witch... you know, undead, much meaner, pagan, and we don't weigh less than a duck...


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 27, 2008)

Sinister South Paw said:


> Why is it athiests V Christians? Because christians are stirring the shit pile up the most here in the good ole USA.
> For the record I'm not an atheist, I'm a rationalist.



Oh yes. Stagging inappropreate protests, maybe even the odd murder or two at worst.

Why, all what any of the other religions do is only mass-murder 3,000 innocent Americans in one attack  .


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 27, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Hey, YOU. Yeah. the flaming dumbass. *I CHOSE my beliefs.* EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. Is it somehow a sin in your whore-house to agree with someone completely? Or is TRUST something you have issues with.
> 
> I didn't start out as a Catholic. No... I chose it after I realized how right it was.... so swing that wooden sword somewhere else.


Korro-Sama: "More of a slave than a master", indeed.



Roose Hurro said:


> Sorry, but your knowledge has no bearing on faith or belief.  Even a child who has no "knowledge" can accept God's Gift, and know everything they need to know.  Your "education" has no importance.


Translation: "I don't need to know anything, because I believe what I want to believe, and that's better than actually knowing anything."

Have I been debating a half-baked five-year-old grammar savant this whole time?

Okay, Reverend, argue against this: God does not give his creations useless gifts, or natural abilites that we are not meant to use. He gave us our senses and a thinking, reasoning mind so that we could draw our own conclusions as to His nature; and, since He loves all of us, does not begrudge us any conclusion we reach, even if it is that He does not exist at all. He instead judges our actions in life, rather than our thoughts, because thinking something cannot be prevented; acting on it, however, can be, and it is actions that hurt others, not private thoughts.


----------



## Seizure Puppy (Oct 27, 2008)

Do not waste your time with these other religions, quaint as they may be. Instead focus your time on worshiping a god that truly cares about you. Me.

All other religions are illogical. Only mine is TRUTH. I look forward to your worship.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> Any sexual act that isn't for procreation as a Catholic is sinful.
> 
> Catholicism holds us in the past, favoring old traditions to current knowledge.  It's good to know that condoms are still sinful, even while protecting people from aids.



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&feature=related

Having said that Catholics are allowed to use non-artifical methods such as using natural rhythym of a womans ovulation and what not.


----------



## Azure (Oct 27, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&feature=related
> 
> Having said that Catholics are allowed to use non-artifical methods such as using natural rhythym of a womans ovulation and what not.


So I take it you've earned you Red Wings eh?  Another reason I don't sex the ladies regularly.  If it bleeds for a week and doesn't die, don't do it.


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&feature=related
> 
> Having said that Catholics are allowed to use non-artifical methods such as using natural rhythym of a womans ovulation and what not.



But they have to pretend it's for procreation, does not make sense.

"Hey babe, lets try to have a baby while you are least likely to get pregnant!"

"LOLK"


----------



## Thatch (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> But they have to pretend it's for procreation, does not make sense.



LOL, that is idiotic. What's the difference between not having a baby with or without a condom?


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 27, 2008)

It's to do with the fact that if you use a condom or a pill or whatever, then in a Catholics eyes, you are using man-made tools to reject the blessing of procreation beyond that what god has provided for you. But if you rely on natural methods such as avoiding sex during ovulation then you are not using anything artifical and relying on the method god gave you to plan parenthood.

There is also the fact that the pope said that, and to Catholics what the pope says goes.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 27, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> We have a huge Quaker Oats factory in Cedar Rapids D:  It always smells funny...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Quakers actually made communism work.  Small-scale communism.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Oct 27, 2008)

Seizure Puppy said:


> Do not waste your time with these other religions, quaint as they may be. Instead focus your time on worshiping a god that truly cares about you. Me.
> 
> All other religions are illogical. Only mine is TRUTH. I look forward to your worship.



Dude, have you ever played a game called Siren? There's this fucked up Japanese cult that worships a god that turns out to be a transdimensional, winged, giant insect-like alien whose idea of forgiveness for having been killed by the villagers is damning them to repeat history eternally - as zombies who nonetheless decide to try to build a nest for it to be reborn so it can do it all over again.

What I'm trying to say is I think a poorly rated and even poorer selling Japanese PS2 disc is more likely to be the true bible and its end boss the true god than you or anything you have to say.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 27, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> It's to do with the fact that if you use a condom or a pill or whatever, then in a Catholics eyes, you are using man-made tools to reject the blessing of procreation beyond that what god has provided for you. But if you rely on natural methods such as avoiding sex during ovulation then you are not using anything artifical and relying on the method god gave you to plan parenthood.
> 
> There is also the fact that the pope said that, and to Catholics what the pope says goes.



Call me a man tool then.

And what the pope says can go. Sure. FOR CATHOLICS!

The pope is just another corporate shill anyway, as  big a sell-out as any other. He's no right to assert ANY kind of religious influence or dogma on my life. Or indeed anyone's life. 

After all, it was kind-hearted jehova who gave us gems of wisdom like the following

 Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or his mother even when they punish him, his father and mother must take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, â€œThis son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkardâ€. All the men of the town must then stone him to death. You must banish this evil from among you.
Leviticus 15: 19-30
Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will remain in a state of menstrual pollution for seven days. Anyone who touches her will be unclean until evening. Anyone who touches anything she sat on must wash clothing and body, and will be unclean until evening. If a man goes as to have intercourse with her, he will contract her menstrual pollution and will be unclean for seven days. Any bed he lies on will be unclean. When she becomes clean of her discharge, she shall count off seven days. After that she will be clean. On the eight day, she will take two doves or two young pigeons to the priest. The priest will offer one of them as a sacrifice for sin and the other as a burnt sacrifice. In this way, he makes atonement for her before Yahweh for her unclean discharge.
Leviticus 18 : 22 and Leviticus 20: 13
Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination. If a man has sex with a man in the same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death. Their blood is on their own heads.
Deuteronomy: 13: 13-17
If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot. That town is to be ruin for all time and never rebuilt.
Deuteronomy: 22: 23-29
If, while in a town, a man happens to meet a woman who is engaged to be married and he has sex with her, take them both to the gate of the town and stone them to death: the girl, for not having cried for help in town; the man, for having violated another manâ€™s wife. You must banish the evil from among you. But if, while out in the country, a man happens to meet a girl engaged to be married and seizes her and rapes her, the rapist alone must die. You must do nothing to the girl. She has not committed a sin worthy of death, for she may have called out for help without anyone coming to her rescue. If a man happens to meet a virgin woman who is not engaged to be married and he seizes her and rapes her but is caught in the act, the rapist must pay the girlâ€™s father fifty silver shekels. She must marry the rapist, because he has violated her. And so long as he lives, he may not divorce her.


----------



## An Sionnach Rua (Oct 27, 2008)

Prescribing to any ideology is a fool's errand?


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 27, 2008)

An Sionnach Rua said:


> Prescribing to any ideology is a fool's errand?


 
Come on. That's not entirely true. It depends on what the person takes out of it. They may enlist creative muse from their ideology, the kind that makes for glorious art and poetry. They may take comfort or solace in the prospect of celestial reward.

Religion isn't a stupid prospect. It's just practised poorly.


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 27, 2008)

Well to be fair, the only things in the bible believed to have came directly from god are the ten commandments and the one commandment from Christ. Everything else are morals and beliefs from the time. Hence why alot of odd things made it into the print such as forbiding planting two different crops side by side.

Not forgeting that much of the old testement was reprised in the new one, such as teachings on retaliation and not eating pork we're written to be abolished because of changes in society since the 3000 year time gap torrah when was written and Christs perspective of the world.

Above all a religion is to take guidance and advice from certain aspects of a holy text to help get by in life and become a better person. Only a tiny minority of religions believe that every last word of their holy book should be taken 100% seriously. 

Anyway, one of many reasons I am not a Catholic is because I think I should be left to think for myself, and not have the appeal to authority win me over from a man who is only held as gods representitive on EVERYTHING because he was just voted into it.


----------



## Grand Hatter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm still going to hell for existing though aren't I? Because I'm gay. Whoopsy.


----------



## Takun (Oct 27, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> The Quakers actually made communism work.  Small-scale communism.



Yes and no...I can see what you mean though.  People who had a bunch of land and money were expected to give it to those who did not have it so that they could also seek there calling unencumbered.  The Quakers were amazing capitalists as were the Puritans.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 27, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Oh yes. Stagging inappropreate protests, maybe even the odd murder or two at worst.
> 
> Why, all what any of the other religions do is only mass-murder 3,000 innocent Americans in one attack  .



Since when did murder become the only reason a religion is wrong? I think social oppression is just as bad. So is trying to deny rights, and turn the US into a theocracy is also wrong. 

Just like using 9/11 for political ammo is just a scare tactic. Iraq anyone. Ever wonder how many innocent iraqies have died because of the american war, hundreds of thousands.


----------



## Sinister South Paw (Oct 27, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8&feature=related
> 
> Having said that Catholics are allowed to use non-artifical methods such as using natural rhythym of a womans ovulation and what not.



yeah and that works so well. Do they also advertise the pull out method cause that's about what it amounts to.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 27, 2008)

AdriNoMa said:


> *Translation: "I don't need to know anything, because I believe what I want to believe, and that's better than actually knowing anything."*
> 
> Have I been debating a half-baked five-year-old grammar savant this whole time?
> 
> Okay, Reverend, argue against this: God does not give his creations useless gifts, or natural abilites that we are not meant to use. He gave us our senses and a thinking, reasoning mind so that we could draw our own conclusions as to His nature; and, since He loves all of us, does not begrudge us any conclusion we reach, even if it is that He does not exist at all. He instead judges our actions in life, rather than our thoughts, because thinking something cannot be prevented; acting on it, however, can be, and it is actions that hurt others, not private thoughts.



No, I'm afraid your translation is in error... you do not dictate the degree of knowledge another person must have to know Faith and to Believe.  You could be fluently knowledgeable in every religion on Earth, but you will never be able to say another person must know all or even part of the details of their chosen Faith.  All one must know is The Way to Salvation.  Once a person has set themselves on that Path, if they died a moment later, knowing nothing else, they would still be Saved.  This is all that matters.  Knowledge comes from Faith... Faith does not come from knowledge.

No, but I do note you have avoided responding to my points made in previous posts... a mature response on your part would involve you debating those points, not plucking one section out, and ignoring the others.  Unless, of course, you can't argue for your side on those points you avoided.

No, God does not begrudge us our conclusions... however, if we do not accept His existance... if we reject Him, and take not His Gift, as offered... then we will pay the price for our choice:  Eternal Separation.  Nothing else matters... no matter how much "good" we do, it is not our works that save us, but our asking for His Forgiveness, and Believing in Him.  Accepting His Gift.  And, no, God judges us by both our thoughts *and* our actions.  However, you are right in one thing... temptation isn't a sin, only falling into tempation, and doing what we know is wrong in God's eyes.  Our actions, you see, may be able to hurt others, but our thoughts hurt us.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 28, 2008)

Roose Hurro said:


> No, I'm afraid your translation is in error... you do not dictate the degree of knowledge another person must have to know Faith and to Believe.


You're not getting it. It doesn't matter what you believe in matters that can be _factually proven._ Whether or not other religions accept this or that book can be _proven_ or _disproven._ You used a very common logical fallacy in your arguments against my sources. I am quite certain you've heard of it: Ad Hominem*.


> You could be fluently knowledgeable in every religion on Earth, but you will never be able to say another person must know all or even part of the details of their chosen Faith.  All one must know is The Way to Salvation.  Once a person has set themselves on that Path, if they died a moment later, knowing nothing else, they would still be Saved.  This is all that matters.  Knowledge comes from Faith... Faith does not come from knowledge.


Okay, let me ask you this: If you never knew Christianity existed, would you be a Christian? If you never heard of the Gospels, would you have been able to "accept" Jesus?
You cannot believe what you have never thought about. True "faith" can only come from the knowledge of what you're putting your faith in. "Believing" in something--devoting your life and your soul to it--without taking the time to first learn exactly what group it is you're planning to cast your lot in with is not faith. It is foolishness. It is rejecting the very ability to reason that was God's greatest gift to man. It is Devotion Lite.



> No, but I do note you have avoided responding to my points made in previous posts... a mature response on your part would involve you debating those points, not plucking one section out, and ignoring the others.  Unless, of course, you can't argue for your side on those points you avoided.


Before you would point out the mote in my eye...



> No, God does not begrudge us our conclusions... however, if we do not accept His existance... if we reject Him, and take not His Gift, as offered... then we will pay the price for our choice:  Eternal Separation.  Nothing else matters... no matter how much "good" we do, it is not our works that save us, but our asking for His Forgiveness, and Believing in Him.  Accepting His Gift.  And, no, God judges us by both our thoughts *and* our actions.  However, you are right in one thing... temptation isn't a sin, only falling into tempation, and doing what we know is wrong in God's eyes.  Our actions, you see, may be able to hurt others, but our thoughts hurt us.


Okay, so, you do believe God gave us reason so that we wouldn't use it? That He gave us the capacity to decide he doesn't exist just so he could punish us for using it?

* From the Nikzor Project:


> *Fallacy: Ad Hominem *
> 
> Description of Ad Hominem
> 
> ...


----------



## Wait Wait (Oct 28, 2008)

> if we reject Him, and take not His Gift, as offered... then we will pay the price for our choice: Eternal Separation.



god has never offered me a gift personally

i would go so far as to assume that he has not personally given a gift to anyone


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 28, 2008)

Sinister South Paw said:


> Since when did murder become the only reason a religion is wrong? I think social oppression is just as bad. So is trying to deny rights, and turn the US into a theocracy is also wrong.
> 
> Just like using 9/11 for political ammo is just a scare tactic. Iraq anyone. Ever wonder how many innocent iraqies have died because of the american war, hundreds of thousands.



Well you were using prejudice, generalisations and stereotypes to attack Christians and defend the other religions. Wheras I used factual evidence against the other religions causing trouble in the States. Deny rights? What rights? Christians are amounst the only ones sticking up for so many rights now. 

9/11 was the straw that broke the camels back for invading Iraq. Iraqis are savages either way, Bush needed a reason to go over and make them into a decent country, partly because Iraq surronds alot of the Americas allies. America did a good job 60 years ago of putting the corrupt goverment of Japan in their place right?



> yeah and that works so well. Do they also advertise the pull out method cause that's about what it amounts to.



Well I'm no Catholic, so don't complain to me. I'm just educating you on what other religions think.


----------



## Adrimor (Oct 28, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Well you were using prejudice, generalisations and stereotypes





Get-dancing said:


> Iraqis are savages either way


So, prejudice, generalization, and stereotyping are only okay when done by a Christian?
Well, like I said, I used to be Christian. Thus, I can get away with saying this: You people need to die. All of you. Jesus has suffered enough because of your self-righteous autoretardation, and the human race can't afford to keep feeding your fat sister-fucking asses or paying your welfare checks so you can keep popping out mini-yokels to pollute the world further.


----------



## Amadeus_Raphiel (Oct 28, 2008)

Get-dancing said:


> Iraqis are savages either way


 
Labeling other cultures as "savages" is so eighteenth century.


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 28, 2008)

If you're anything but a Britfag you're savage.

That's just how the Brits are right? Enjoy your dogfighting and bearbaiting!


----------



## Get-dancing (Oct 28, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> If you're anything but a Britfag you're savage.
> 
> That's just how the Brits are right? Enjoy your dogfighting and bearbaiting!



No actually, we do nothing of the sort! Our oldest running sport is chasing a fox through the woods with horses until theyre too weak to run anymore then getting hounds to tear them apart, great exercise!


----------

