# Did God Create Adam With A Penis, But Have No Intention of Creating Eve?



## artwithapulse (Nov 7, 2008)

So God had no intention on creating Eve, but realised Adam needed a 'suitable mate' 
And they weren't married yet they still procreated.
Then people say God has no gender, yet if he created 'us' in 'his' image, doesn't that mean god has a penis and balls too?
Did the animals have genders, yet Adam was the only a-sexual in the garden? 

Wutwut?
o_o


----------



## Earfolds (Nov 7, 2008)

Eve saw a snake who told her to take a bite out of God's apple.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Earfolds said:


> Eve saw a snake who told her to take a bite out of God's apple.



LOL...


Also LOL, religion and sense. They are antonyms.


----------



## Nickk (Nov 7, 2008)

www.catholic.com would be the place to go for biblical and Christian questions.


----------



## artwithapulse (Nov 7, 2008)

I'm looking for a satirical conversation. The first click on that link rose my blood pressure.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Since when has faith ever had anything to do with reason? If it made sense and seemed true it wouldn't need faith to follow it would it now?

Faith doesn't want inconvenient questions, the Bible says it so it must be true; religious peoples line of thought need not go past that.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Oh look, another thread where furries make fun of religious people... surely using the worst examples of that particular group represents them as a whole. After all, its not that doesnt happen to anyone else. Especially not furries.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Oh look, another thread where furries make fun of religious people... surely using the worst examples of that particular group represents them as a whole. After all, its not that doesnt happen to anyone else. Especially not furries.




You're right. Everyone always judges everything fairly and in a neutral light. Bias and slant are just fairy tales, and sweeping generalizations are a thing of the past.


----------



## artwithapulse (Nov 7, 2008)

Making fun of religious people?
Not at all.
A question is a question, no? Satirical or not, I'm not hating on anyone.
Still, I can't make fun of furries, gotta poke fun at someone.


----------



## eternal_flare (Nov 7, 2008)

*This is from my opinion*

I think God creates "it" as well, since "it" is one of the function that distinct male from female, but if my understanding is right, lust or the urge to reproduce, haven't been there until they ate the forbidden fruit. So, to sum it up, it's there for the sake of completeness.


----------



## artwithapulse (Nov 7, 2008)

*accidental double post* oops


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Oh look, another thread where furries make fun of religious people... surely using the worst examples of that particular group represents them as a whole. After all, its not that doesnt happen to anyone else. Especially not furries.



I don't see any mention of extremists in this thread; nor association of your typical religious person with them. But does not your common religious person claims to know of a God without evidence? Faith in the words of their Bible despite the questionable content?

If it makes any difference, I was criticising religion long before I was a furry


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> You're right. Everyone always judges everything fairly and in a neutral light. Bias and slant are just fairy tales, and sweeping generalizations are a thing of the past.



Oh sweet irony, how delicious you are



> Satirical or not, I'm not hating on anyone.



The purpose of satire is to mock



> I don't see any mention of extremists in this thread



Youre the one that posted the link, which is an example of extremism



> nor association of your typical religious person with them





> Since when has faith ever had anything to do with reason?



This seems to suggest anyone with faith is incapable of reason, regardless of whether they are extremist or not



> But does not your common religious person claims to know of a God without evidence? Faith in the words of their Bible despite the questionable content?



Does not your average person without faith claim the non existence of god without evidence?



> If it makes any difference, I was criticising religion long before I was a furry



No, it doesnt really make a difference, since you are a furry now.


----------



## mottled.kitten (Nov 7, 2008)

imho, this is how I thought of it:

Technically, in the bible, when it says that God took a "rib" from Adam, it's not really a rib, just a part of his body. From this information, I suspect that God is both male and female, and Adam was a hermaphrodite. God took the Female from Adam to create Eve. Ta-daaaaa.


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Oh sweet irony, how delicious you are



I hear it tastes like liquorish.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> I hear it tastes like liquorish.



Red or black? This is important! D=


----------



## Xipoid (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Red or black? This is important! D=




Black of course, like Jaegermeister.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Xipoid said:


> Black of course, like Jaegermeister.



Irony, you whore, you have betrayed me yet again!


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

LOL, Emil, instead of being butthurt believe in something that isn't so ridiculously inconsistent, if people pointing that out irritate you.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

Mm, licorice. 

Also God was just horny and whatnot


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> LOL, Emil, instead of being butthurt believe in something that isn't so ridiculously inconsistent, if people pointing that out irritate you.



Your argument is both profound and sound, good sir. I am shaken to the uttermost depths of my core. I hereby concede the point to you and your truely great understanding and wisdom. [/sarcasm]

Religion is what you make it, and you can believe anything you want. And the whole argument of the OP depends on that creating something on ones image depends on its physical appearance or physical characteristics. Which it doesnt.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Your argument is both profound and sound, good sir. I am shaken to the uttermost depths of my core. I hereby concede the point to you and your truely great understanding and wisdom. [/sarcasm]
> 
> *<How moved I am by such subtle sarcasm. True mastery of the art>*
> 
> Religion is what you make it, and you can believe anything you want. And the whole argument of the OP depends on that creating something on ones image depends on its physical appearance or physical characteristics. Which it doesnt.



Still, why did he make Adam male, if there were no females in plan initially? Even if he would, why not leave them sexless (as the bible says that they were not aware of their sexuality only after eating the apple)? Furthere more, why make the animals sexual, if they were not procreating either?

It all doesn't add up, at least not in the way the bible says. Even if a god created it all, there was no biblical Eden, so there also no original sin, and you can conclude yourself what that means further.

I won't even touch the sin-topic itself, as that is more than just fucked up.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Still, why did he make Adam male, if there were no females in plan initially? Even if he would, why not leave them sexless (as the bible says that they were not aware of their sexuality only after eating the apple)? Furthere more, why make the animals sexual, if they were not procreating either?
> 
> It all doesn't add up, at least not in the way the bible says. Even if a god created it all, there was no biblical Eden, so there also no original sin, and you can conclude yourself what that means further.
> 
> I won't even touch the sin-topic itself, as that is more than just fucked up.



Maybe god created Eve for the purpose of company and not to procreate? As for the purpose of gender, Eden was supposed to be a place of wonder and happiness and whatnot, maybe sex wasnt to procreate, but just supposed to be a fun thing to do? It seems to be what people nowadays consider it >> The thing about theology is you can believe whatever you want, there really is no wrong answer. Just because its there doesnt mean there has to be a point to it, at least not originally.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

Or maybe we evolved from monkeys. *shot*


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Or maybe we evolved from monkeys. *shot*



One could argue god made us evolve from monkeys. I have yet to state what I myself actually believe in this thread, Im just arguing cause I think its fun.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Or maybe we evolved from monkeys. *shot*



Evolution is a lie, the Devil set it up to divert us from God!



Emil said:


> Maybe god created Eve for the purpose of company and not to procreate? As for the purpose of gender, Eden was supposed to be a place of wonder and happiness and whatnot, maybe sex wasnt to procreate, but just supposed to be a fun thing to do? It seems to be what people nowadays consider it >> The thing about theology is you can believe whatever you want, there really is no wrong answer. Just because its there doesnt mean there has to be a point to it, at least not originally.



As I said, until the original sin, they were unaware of sexuality.
And that's why teology is even more pointless than phisolophy. The latter actually talks about uorselves, not a sky-daddy.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> Evolution is a lie, the Devil set it up to divert us from God!


You're wrong, science has ALL THE ANSWERS


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> You're wrong, science has ALL THE ANSWERS



WHAT IS THE TOP VELOCITY OF AN UNLOADED SWALLOW!


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> WHAT IS THE TOP VELOCITY OF AN UNLOADED SWALLOW!


SWALLOWS ARE NOT MY SPECIALTY

Ask David. T.T


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Ask David. T.T



I'm apprehensive about asking David of such things...


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> You're wrong, science has ALL THE ANSWERS


Actually one of the main differences between religion and science; is science will actually say "We don't know". Of course that is then followed by attempts to study that unknown in order to explain it, only religion claims to know everything with "God did it" tending to be the explanation.



Emil said:


> One could argue god made us evolve from monkeys.



The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life and how we came to be without divine assistance, throwing God into the mix after we already explained it without him/her/it is a cop out. It is just one more rationalization by religion to justify their existence in a world were commonly accepted scientific knowledge contradicts their faith.

Regardless of that religion is faith, faith does not need facts. Religion shouldn't be poking through science books and looking for ways to fit scripture into them, they should have the balls to stand by what they "believe" in without looking for a factual foundation.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> Actually one of the main differences between religion and science; is science will actually say "We don't know". Of course that is then followed by attempts to study that unknown in order to explain it, only religion claims to know everything with "God did it" tending to be the explanation.


I was being sarcastic. Science does not know everything, but it is the process of learning in order to know.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> WHAT IS THE TOP VELOCITY OF AN UNLOADED SWALLOW!



Nothing.  The swallow has to be loaded before it can be fired.
*knocked unconscious by a high-velocity swallow*


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> I was being sarcastic. Science does not know everything, but it is the process of learning in order to know.



The caps pretty much spelled out it was sarcasm, but despite Emil's attempts to make them not sound serious; they obviously are. I just wanted it aired somewhere before they/someone attempted to call hypocrite.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

ArielMT said:


> Nothing.  The swallow has to be loaded before it can be fired.
> *knocked unconscious by a high-velocity swallow*



I love you.


----------



## VGJustice (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life and how we came to be without divine assistance, throwing God into the mix after we already explained it without him/her/it is a cop out.


So tell me. How did various animals develop traits to help them survive better in environments outside their normal one?



szopaw said:


> (as the bible says that they were not aware of their sexuality only after eating the apple)


Actually, it says they were not aware of their nakedness. Eating the apple (called the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil) gave them a greater awareness of themselves and caused them to discover they were naked.

On the subject of Genesis, that part of the bible is pretty hard to follow for the most part and about 90% of it doesn't follow logic as we understand it. Honestly, I wouldn't look at that part and say "well this is obviously 100% true!". It's more of an introduction of ideas than anything else.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

VGJustice said:


> Actually, it says they were not aware of their nakedness. Eating the apple (called the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil) gave them a greater awareness of themselves and caused them to discover they were naked.



Yes, and they got embarrassed of it. That's pretty much the same thing (Though the 'pretty much' leaves some room for divagations) But that still doesn't aswer the question what would they need reproductive organs for in the first place, so we can assume that it means the same (aka, they didn't know about sex).


----------



## VGJustice (Nov 7, 2008)

Hardly. Being aware and having sex aren't necessarily related.


----------



## Frasque (Nov 7, 2008)

Oh please, everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti monster created Adam with a penis because penises are awesome.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

VGJustice said:


> Hardly. Being aware and having sex aren't necessarily related.



Still doesn't answer why they had sexual characteristics in the first place.


----------



## Teco (Nov 7, 2008)

Pfft. Silly people and their fake religion... Buddhism is where its at. *strucken by lightning*


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

VGJustice said:


> So tell me. How did various animals develop traits to help them survive better in environments outside their normal one?



How many Christians have actually read the Bible they believe so much in? I am not some expert on evolution, there is a tad bit more to read on that subject than just the Bibles chapters on creation. I don't need to have memorised evolution theory to know it is true however, it would be ignorant to compare accepting religious belief to the trails scientific information has to pass through before it is accepted.

If you want an answer to that question there are plenty of places to ask about it, but I would hardly draw conclusions on the reliability of scientific data from what a random fur on a forum knows about it.


----------



## mottled.kitten (Nov 7, 2008)

Frasque said:


> Oh please, everyone knows the Flying Spaghetti monster created Adam with a penis because penises are awesome.



Flying Spaghetti Monster wins.


----------



## VGJustice (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> If you want an answer to that question there are plenty of places to ask about it, but I would hardly draw conclusions on the reliability of scientific data from what a random fur on a forum knows about it.


Eh, you've got me there ADF. And what you've said above is true as well, I don't think many people have read the bible, Genesis or otherwise. Not that that's limited to Christians, I've met a few too many people that are "Anti-Christianity" and argue against the book itself, yet have obviously never read it based on the arguments they make.

I do believe in evolution, though. And just because I know it's going to piss people off, I believe in Intelligent Design. Evolution with a guiding hand, so to speak. *puts on the asbestos coat*


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

szopaw said:


> As I said, until the original sin, they were unaware of sexuality.



Just because youre unaware that youre doing something doesnt mean that you still cant do it.



> The caps pretty much spelled out it was sarcasm, but despite Emil's attempts to make them not sound serious; they obviously are.



Huh? I was trying to do what now? Make a comment that wasnt meant to be serious, seem not to be serious, despite the fact it really is? Huh?



> Actually one of the main differences between religion and science; is science will actually say "We don't know". Of course that is then followed by attempts to study that unknown in order to explain it, only religion claims to know everything with "God did it" tending to be the explanation.



You do realize that the foundations of modern science was layed by people who were using science as a way to better understand god? In essence, "we dont know, god did it, but that doesnt mean we cant find out."


----------



## yak (Nov 7, 2008)

A question like this could only appear on a furry forum such as this.
The likelyhood of that happening anywhere else is very minimal. Then again, I would rofl my pants of if someone would actually use that as an argument arguing with hardcore christian friends or even officials.


----------



## Teco (Nov 7, 2008)

mottled.kitten said:


> Flying Spaghetti Monster wins.



I lol'd


----------



## Jelly (Nov 7, 2008)

Nickk said:


> www.catholic.com would be the place to go for biblical and Christian questions.





			
				Best Forums Evar: said:
			
		

> In Japan a man has collected 1000 signatures to petition the government to allow marriage between humans and cartoon characters.
> 
> No, really: http://www.news.com.au/technology/st...014239,00.html
> 
> ...



Awesome.
I found a new forum.


----------



## Thatch (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Just because youre unaware that youre doing something doesnt mean that you still cant do it.



I already admitted that it's not entirely the same. Though in this case it's rather near, as we are not speaking about children who will know once they develop enough (and if they do it, they do out of curiosity, which Adam and Eve mostly lacked), we are talking about supposidely grown up people.
And even if they would have sex while not knowing what are they doing, there still is the question of the sexual characteristics very existance. They did not serve procreation in Eden, so why were they designed in the first place? More so, if Adam was originaly the only human.
It would probably mean that god planned the exile from the beggining (assuming that it is 'god' in the judeochristian meaning, omnipotent and all powerful, not a fake who can make stupid mistakes)


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> You do realize that the foundations of modern science was layed by people who were using science as a way to better understand god? In essence, "we dont know, god did it, but that doesnt mean we cant find out."


Was that before or after they burned the first chemists and doctors for witchcraft? Accuse it of being evil in the beginning, utilise it for your own advantage later, how noble of them.

Which God are you referring to by the way? Because it was the Romans who created the foundation in scientific knowledge before the 'one true Christian god' arrived and they had many gods. Much of their scientific knowledge was lost in the collapse of Rome; but the Arab Empire helped keep it alive during our little dark ages if I recall correctly.

There was a time when people were killed for not believing in a particular God, would you admit to none belief at that time? There are many closet Agnostics/Atheists out there, they don't admit it either out of fear or because of the social stigma attached. It is understandable then that the vast majority of people in history are religious, that was the environment they were brought up in. Whether they truly did believe in their particular brand of religious teachings on the other hand is anyone's guess. 

I'm not suggesting religious people cannot be interested in scientific knowledge, there are plenty of religious scientists today who learned to set aside their beliefs when performing the scientific method. But you are suggesting that the first post dark age scientists being religious at a time when everyone 'had' to be; somehow credits religion in the scientific category.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

> Which God are you referring to by the way? Because it was the Romans who created the foundation in scientific knowledge before the 'one true Christian god' arrived and they had many gods. Much of their scientific knowledge was lost in the collapse of Rome; but the Arab Empire helped keep it alive during our little dark ages if I recall correctly.



According to you, any religion is without reason, so what does it matter what god of which I speak? If any group with any relgion can set the base for scientific knowledge, than it shows that religion is not without reason.



> There was a time when people were killed for not believing in a particular God, would you admit to none belief at that time? There are many closet Agnostics/Atheists out there, they don't admit it either out of fear or because of the social stigma attached. It is understandable then that the vast majority of people in history are religious, that was the environment they were brought up in. Whether they truly did believe in their particular brand of religious teachings on the other hand is anyone's guess.



Religious persecution isnt related to the topic at hand.



> I'm not suggesting religious people cannot be interested in scientific knowledge, there are plenty of religious scientists today who learned to set aside their beliefs when performing the scientific method. But you are suggesting that the first post dark age scientists being religious at a time when everyone 'had' to be; somehow credits religion in the scientific category.



No, but it still shows that religion isnt without reason, since many of those first doctors and chemists were church officials, who were both willing to practice science, *and* their religion despite stigmas against them.



> I already admitted that it's not entirely the same. Though in this case it's rather near, as we are not speaking about children who will know once they develop enough (and if they do it, they do out of curiosity, which Adam and Eve mostly lacked), we are talking about supposidely grown up people.
> And even if they would have sex while not knowing what are they doing, there still is the question of the sexual characteristics very existance. They did not serve procreation in Eden, so why were they designed in the first place? More so, if Adam was originaly the only human.
> It would probably mean that god planned the exile from the beggining (assuming that it is 'god' in the judeochristian meaning, omnipotent and all powerful, not a fake who can make stupid mistakes)



Well, a penis generally helps a man urinate, maybe the sexual aspect of it came about later?


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Adam was really gay, and after god saw him rebel and go for steve, not eve, that's how he formed a grudge for all the gay people in the world... there's your answer to.... a question that has nothing to do with this topic =D


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> According to you, any religion is without reason, so what does it matter what god of which I speak? If any group with any relgion can set the base for scientific knowledge, than it shows that religion is not without reason.


It has to do with the way you referred to it, you made it sound like a culture with a single God (likely the Christian God) founded science. Seeing how the foundations were placed by a culture with many gods, it almost sounded like you thought the first scientific study appeared post Rome. 



Emil said:


> Religious persecution isnt related to the topic at hand.


Neither was your first couple of posts in this thread when you decided to take offence. It is a religious thread, like politics they rarely stay on topic.



Emil said:


> No, but it still shows that religion isnt without reason, since many of those first doctors and chemists were church officials, who were both willing to practice science, *and* their religion despite stigmas against them.



The church outlawed many scientific practices, medical students had to go onto battlefields during the night to steal bodies; because the church made it illegal to open bodies up to study organs. Yet again you seem to be suggesting that it is their religion that allowed them to be scientific, not their personal choices. Must I remind you that it was the Bible that justified the dark ages? That justified book burning? That still does justify book burning? Yet most religious people are moderate, despite following the same book that justified all this, the exact same religion.

A book about Gods and demons is not reasonable, people are; and they bring that reason into their religion even if it goes against scripture. 

It is the virtue of people that religion has been parasitically benefiting from all these centuries to justify its continued existence. A religious person is good and people think it is because of their faith, an agnostic/atheist is good and suddenly inconvenient questions start to arise. That is why the church hates us, that is why we are labelled as immoral without evidence, we are proof you can lead a good life without dogmatic threats and the church is scared of that. As long as people continue to contribute their good deeds to their religion the negative impact of scripture will forever be tolerated to maintain the religion.

So whenever a bill is passed the church was highly opposed to like hybrid stem cell research I laugh, it is evidence of the churches diminishing authority; and in turn the diminishing of religious authority holding us back.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> Neither was your first couple of posts in this thread when you decided to take offence. It is a religious thread, like politics they rarely stay on topic.







> The church outlawed many scientific practices, medical students had to go onto battlefields during the night to steal bodies; because the church made it illegal to open bodies up to study organs.



Sounds to me like a problem with the church, not the religion. Also, christians arnt the only religion. I do believe the Muslims were perfectly ok with dissecting bodies in the same time period that youre referring to. Also chemistry and certainly the medical field in general.



> Yet again you seem to be suggesting that it is their religion that allowed them to be scientific, not their personal choices.



Dont put words in my mouth. I only pointed out that many of the great scientists of the enlightenment studied to bring themselves a greater understanding of "gods world" Also, I believe youre confusing the Romans with the Greeks.



> Must I remind you that it was the Bible that justified the dark ages?  Yet most religious people are moderate, despite following the same book that justified all this, the exact same religion.



And how exactly did the bible do that? I thought the reason why nothing happened in the dark ages was because people were too busy trying to survive with the complete colapse of their government due to barbarian invasion, trying to farm just barely enough to survive due to the horrible weather patterns of the period, and hiding from the vikings. 



> That justified book burning? That still does justify book burning?



Many peoples have justified book burning without using the bible. Please find me someplace in the bible where it says "Burn everything except this book" 



> A book about Gods and demons is not reasonable, people are; and they bring that reason into their religion even if it goes against scripture.
> 
> It is the virtue of people that religion has been parasitically benefiting from all these centuries to justify its continued existence.



Ok, so you just admitted that the fault doesnt lie with the religion, but the people who manipulate it. And yet, it is still some how the religions fault, because people chose to believe in it? o...k...



> A religious person is good and people think it is because of their faith, an agnostic/atheist is good and suddenly inconvenient questions start to arise.



No, because ultimately atheism *is* a religion, in which you place you faith in yourself or humanity. And since agnostics dont deny that there is a god, then they really are just waiting for something to tell them what to think.



> That is why the church hates us, that is why we are labelled as immoral without evidence, we are proof you can lead a good life without dogmatic threats and the church is scared of that.



The church isnt synonymous with the religion it represents. And religious people dont hate you because youre immoral, they tend to hate you cause youre just as hateful toward them =) Its all just one big clusterfuck of hate now, isnt it?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Youre the one that posted the link, which is an example of extremism



This one was just fun to read. Nothing extreme about redirecting people to a more knowledgeable authority, Emil. When people post faith-mocking threads like this, the most effective method is to direct them to someone knowledgeable.

Unless the point of these is to call Christians out so they may kiss your feet and call themselves dumbasses.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> This one was just fun to read. Nothing extreme about redirecting people to a more knowledgeable authority, Emil. When people post faith-mocking threads like this, the most effective method is to direct them to someone knowledgeable.



I was speaking of the link ADF posted, not the one to catholic.org or whatever it was. A link to a bumpersticker that basically says "because god said so" is hardly a more knowledgeable authority. I wasnt saying his action was extreme, but the thing it pointed to was an example of extremism.



> Unless the point of these is to call Christians out so they may kiss your feet and call themselves dumbasses.



Huh?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> I was speaking of the link ADF posted, not the one to catholic.org or whatever it was. A link to a bumpersticker that basically says "because god said so" is hardly a more knowledgeable authority. I wasnt saying his action was extreme, but the thing it pointed to was an example of extremism.



WHoa... seems I fumbled.  I didn't see that ADF link before.

Oh, and that ending line was just me being severely pissed off at a select number of people I've run into in the Fandom who would love to see us admit that there is absolutely no reasoning behind a choice to follow God, as if he were somehow the most heinous defiance of logic ever.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> No, because ultimately atheism *is* a religion


Don't even go there, seriously I do not have the days to spare that this thread will go on for if you attempt to call Atheism a religion. Suggesting lack of faith is in itself a faith is idiotic, suggesting trusting in science is in any way similar to trusting scripture even more idiotic. I do not have the time nor desire to humour such a ridicules statement like no religion is a religion.

Sorry but I am going to have to pull myself out before the above statement causes me to say something I will regret, too much to say and not in the right mind to say it.


----------



## pheonix (Nov 7, 2008)

Another religious debate for me to watch and enjoy.*opens bag of popcorn*


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Atheism

Agnosticism

Religion

No wikipedia here guys. This is dictionary definition.
Atheism is a religion by definition.
Agnosticism is not.

If you are an Atheist, you have religion.
If you are Agnostic, you don't.

Re-term yourself if you must, but if you don't have the time to "go there" then just don't. Your choice.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> Don't even go there, seriously I do not have the days to spare that this thread will go on for if you attempt to call Atheism a religion. Suggesting lack of faith is in itself a faith is idiotic, suggesting trusting in science is in any way similar to trusting scripture even more idiotic. I do not have the time nor desire to humour such a ridicules statement like no religion is a religion.
> 
> Sorry but I am going to have to pull myself out before the above statement causes me to say something I will regret, too much to say and not in the right mind to say it.



But it isnt lack of faith. There is faith, just faith in something other than a god. A faith that isnt set, though it certainly does have its own scriptures. Not that one needs scriptures to actually have faith anyway. Things such as physics are often followed unquestioningly by most until someone else comes along to disprove it, or offer a different theory. The current understanding of scientific knowledge is like the main recognized ideas of the church. Scientists who come up with theories to challenge and disprove the current understanding are like reformers. Schism and separation occurs when people cant agree and there is no clear answer. This mostly occurs in social sciences, such as sociology and economics, where one thing is emphasized over another. Scientists are ridiculed and outcast in the same way from their community as the church often excommunicates its members. An example of this is Jonas Salk, whos ideas about Polio cause him to be ridiculed and couldnt get funding until another more receptacle source welcomed him and felt like listening. This is like the different denominations of a religion. Until, of course, its in the communities best interest to welcome them back in,(or they just give in) same as religion. And you have your saints too. Einstein, Newton, and many many others who you cite with their greater incite or wisdom, and it causes great controversy whenever anyone questions them. 

I think you just dont want to see that they really arnt that different after all. The only thing that really separates science from religion, is that old scientific beliefs die out when they dont have a leg to stand on, and religions tend to carry on.

Of course, this only works if applied to Christianity too... but sadly, I dont know enough about any other religions to compare it to them =(



> Another religious debate for me to watch and enjoy.*opens bag of popcorn*



Oh no, the debate is over if ADF actually stays away. But when you leave like that, you dont get the luxury of the last word =)


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

pheonix said:


> Another religious debate for me to watch and enjoy.*opens bag of popcorn*


may I join you?


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 7, 2008)

What the hell is going on here!!?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> may I join you?



*surprised* wow. Didn't see that one coming. I think you're a little late, though.


----------



## pheonix (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> may I join you?



Why of course, I'd love that.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> *surprised* wow. Didn't see that one coming. I think you're a little late, though.


honestly, I just like to stare at pheonix... lol *flirtatious* x3


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> honestly, I just like to stare at pheonix... lol *flirtatious* x3



XD. Okay. Then enjoy your popcorn. *leaves room and closes door*


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 7, 2008)

damn...the main argument ish gone...guess I'll watch the small embers.


----------



## pheonix (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> honestly, I just like to stare at pheonix... lol *flirtatious* x3



Aww that makes me feel so loved.^_^*hugs*


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

pheonix said:


> Aww that makes me feel so loved.^_^*hugs*



Really? Cause, I generally consider someone who follows me around and stares at *me* a creeper ;>>

No offense meant Neko


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Really? Cause, I generally consider someone who follows me around and stares at *me* a creeper ;>>
> 
> No offense meant Neko



I was mostly joking. I don't do online flirting, unless it's meant as a joke n_n


----------



## pheonix (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> Really? Cause, I generally consider someone who follows me around and stares at *me* a creeper ;>>
> 
> No offense meant Neko



kill joy.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2008)

What part of "I better quit before I rage" do people not understand? I have written and then deleted several paragraphs that would have probably gotten me banned, at least provoke a several day long argument that would lead to a lock. I am attempting to avoid that, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> What part of "I better quit before I rage" do people not understand? I have written and then deleted several paragraphs that would have probably gotten me banned, at least provoke a several day long argument that would lead to a lock. I am attempting to avoid that, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.



Peh. The argument can't last more than a few hours. You've already lost. If you haven't realized it yet, just take some pain-reliever and go to sleep. This is too much for you.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

ADF said:


> What part of "I better quit before I rage" do people not understand? I have written and then deleted several paragraphs that would have probably gotten me banned, at least provoke a several day long argument that would lead to a lock. I am attempting to avoid that, so let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.



As you wish.


----------



## Toto (Nov 7, 2008)

They call me Troll
Gnawer of the Moon,
Giant of the Gale-blasts,
Curse of the rain-hall,Companion of the Sibyl
Nightroaming hag,
Swallower of the loaf of heaven.
What is a Troll but that?


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> They call me Troll
> Gnawer of the Moon,
> Giant of the Gale-blasts,
> Curse of the rain-hall,Companion of the Sibyl
> ...



hey, nice first impression


----------



## Tycho (Nov 7, 2008)

...

Your avatar STILL makes me grind my teeth, Neko.

Completely unrelated, but since this thread sucked anyhow...


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...
> 
> Your avatar STILL makes me grind my teeth, Neko.
> 
> Completely unrelated, but since this thread sucked anyhow...



oh well, everyone else pretty much likes it


----------



## Toto (Nov 7, 2008)

The inability for Korro and Emil to accept that anyone else might be right is also entertaining.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> oh well, everyone else pretty much likes it



meh... I just don't see it, really.  Another quasi-religion-inspired goof-off thread about the inanity of the whole Adam and Eve thing, and about the rest of the Bible's "logic".  And predictable butthurt from the pious bunch.

Here's something to think about (if you haven't already): Eve was supposedly created by taking one of Adam's ribs.  Adam then fucked Eve.  Technically, wasn't he fucking himself?


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Here's something to think about (if you haven't already): Eve was supposedly created by taking one of Adam's ribs.  Adam then fucked Eve.  Technically, wasn't he fucking himself?



lol too true. I wont argue that xP



> meh... I just don't see it, really. Another quasi-religion-inspired goof-off thread about the inanity of the whole Adam and Eve thing, and about the rest of the Bible's "logic". And predictable butthurt from the pious bunch.



While my original post was quite angry, it wasnt so much about religion as it was the hypocrisy of this fandom, which considers itself accepting. The thread pretty much went downhill when people decided to challenge me on religion, instead of what my comment had been about, and I very stupidly decided to pursue what I would have normally ignored. So Ill pretty much take the blame for this mess =\



> The inability for Korro and Emil to accept that anyone else might be right is also entertaining.



Im of the opinion that there is no right or wrong. It just depends on what you chose to believe. I actually dont believe in a literal Adam and Eve XD I just like playing devils advocate (ie, pissing everyone off) Whether or not you believe me is your choice


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> The inability for Korro and Emil to accept that anyone else might be right is also entertaining.



Hmmm.... I really don't understand why you guys want to challenge the Dictionary... I'm talking real definition. It's not like I ran out with the Bible.


----------



## Toto (Nov 7, 2008)

Its not about the definition of the word but about the god.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> Its not about the definition of the word but about the god.


so, what do you believe is right?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> Its not about the definition of the word but about the god.



Actually... the challenge issued was not as to whether God existed or not, but as to whether Atheism is a religion. Clearly defined, it is. The only non-religious world-view I've been able to find is agnosticism.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> Its not about the definition of the word but about the god.



People will believe what they want. Im not about to shove my beliefs down anyone elses throat. But they asked for an explanation, so I gave them one. Even if its not one I personally believe to be true.


----------



## Toto (Nov 7, 2008)

I dont worship any god or deity, but if one were to descend from the skies and offer me a contract for my worship i would have to consider it. (After proofreeding it of course)


----------



## Toto (Nov 7, 2008)

Do you or do you not accept the possibility that you might be wrong?


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Toto said:


> I dont worship any god or deity, but if one were to descend from the skies and offer me a contract for my worship i would have to consider it. (After proofreeding it of course)



^= Agnostic

That's my point.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 7, 2008)

...you know, I can't honestly say I have any valid objection to other people having religious beliefs.

But religion is awesome comedy material.  As is the fandom, and so many other things.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> ...you know, I can't honestly say I have any valid objection to other people having religious beliefs.
> 
> But religion is awesome comedy material.  As is the fandom, and so many other things.



I hate to admit it... it be true, but only for the... well, they should have a name for those crazy insane religious people


----------



## Mr Fox (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I hate to admit it... it be true, but only for the... well, they should have a name for those crazy insane religious people


 
EDIT: Wait a minute, they ain't called that what was i thinking.

EDIT EDIT: Well actually they may be called that... i really don't know now.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Mr Fox said:


> Extremists?


ah, didn't know that... extremists then


----------



## Tycho (Nov 7, 2008)

NekoFox08 said:


> I hate to admit it... it be true, but only for the... well, they should have a name for those crazy insane religious people



Rapture-Right.  Though that connotes a political affiliation as well.

Or simply fuckin' NUTS.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Rapture-Right.  Though that connotes a political affiliation as well.
> 
> Or simply fuckin' NUTS.



The religious assimilation into the Republican party is why I cant stand them. The party used to be about a smaller central government and preserving civil liberties? Now what is it? They dont stand for what they used to. The party has been shit since Lincoln.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

Teco said:


> Pfft. Silly people and their fake religion... Buddhism is where its at. *strucken by lightning*


Hello fellow Buddhist! *is also struck down*


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> Hello fellow Buddhist! *is also struck down*



Who's killing off all the Buddhists? Gosh, and they were such good company too...


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Who's killing off all the Buddhists? Gosh, and they were such good company too...


That was my body double.

Really? You're one of the only Christian I know who can tolerate our peaceful ways. :V

Well, so far.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

I consider myself a Quaker... lol, thnx to a certain furry on this site x3

at heart, I'm atheist though


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> That was my body double.
> 
> Really? You're one of the only Christian I know who can tolerate our peaceful ways. :V
> 
> Well, so far.



Dude, I tolerate everybody but flamers, though I tend to be rough with everyone. There are more like me. Believe it.

Anyways, you gotta teach me that body-double thing. That would come in handy.


----------



## Emil (Nov 7, 2008)

Shenzi said:


> That was my body double.
> 
> Really? You're one of the only Christian I know who can tolerate our peaceful ways. :V
> 
> Well, so far.



I think Buddha is a pretty cool guy. He practices pacifism and doesnt afraid anything.

But seriously, I have a great respect for Buddhists. Its similar to the teachings of Jesus, only the majority of its people seem to actually take it seriously.


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> I think Buddha is a pretty cool guy. He practices pacifism and doesnt afraid anything.
> 
> But seriously, I have a great respect for Buddhists. Its similar to the teachings of Jesus, only the majority of its people seem to actually take it seriously.



I love anything to do with pacifism... it's probably the ultimate step to a positive evolution n_n


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 7, 2008)

Emil said:


> But seriously, I have a great respect for Buddhists. Its similar to the teachings of Jesus, only the majority of its people seem to actually take it seriously.



That is so sad but true.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

In Buddhism a lot of peacefulness is attributed to one's own reactions.

Wisdom, Morality, and Meditation are our major studies with that comes the eightfold path.
Right View
Right Thought
Right Speech
Right Action
Right Livelihood
Right Effort 
Right Mindfulness
Right Contemplation

It can be a bitch to follow, especially when you *want* to be pissed off or moody.


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 7, 2008)

God, when will you people LEARN?
I propose auto-lockage of discussions like these. Or something along those lines.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 7, 2008)

I'm surprised anyone cares about Buddhism in this thread. :V


----------



## NekoFox08 (Nov 7, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> God, when will you people LEARN?
> I propose auto-lockage of discussions like these. Or something along those lines.


aside from pure entertainment... he's right. religion does NOT mix well with this site


----------



## Takun (Nov 7, 2008)

If God didn't want man sucking cock, he wouldn't have made autofellatio possible.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 7, 2008)

artwithapulse said:


> So God had no intention on creating Eve, but realised Adam needed a 'suitable mate'
> And they weren't married yet they still procreated.
> Then people say God has no gender, yet if he created 'us' in 'his' image, doesn't that mean god has a penis and balls too?
> Did the animals have genders, yet Adam was the only a-sexual in the garden?
> ...



What I find interesting is... God created the Heavens and the Earth... created angels, even though He knew His greatest creation, Lucifer, would rebel... created Man, even though He knew Man would sin.

As for this topic...?  God did intend to create Eve.  And _God_ gave Eve to Adam, and served as Witness and Minister in their union... so, yes, Adam and Eve were married (one to the other, together in marriage) by God, Himself.  God is a Spiritual being, "male" only in spirit, since He has no physical form... no physical image.  God created male and female when he created Life, so animals did indeed have gender, and Adam was fully male.




szopaw said:


> *Still, why did he make Adam male, if there were no females in plan initially?* Even if he would, why not leave them sexless (as the bible says that they were not aware of their sexuality only after eating the apple)? Furthere more, why make the animals sexual, if they were not procreating either?
> 
> *It all doesn't add up*, at least not in the way the bible says. Even if a god created it all, there was no biblical Eden, so there also no original sin, and you can conclude yourself what that means further.
> 
> I won't even touch the sin-topic itself, as that is more than just fucked up.



As mentioned above, Eve was in the plan.

And it does add up... as the Bible makes clear, God created male and female _before_ He created Adam... and Eve.




ADF said:


> *The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life and how we came to be without divine assistance, throwing God into the mix after we already explained it without him/her/it is a cop out.* It is just one more rationalization by religion to justify their existence in a world were *commonly accepted scientific knowledge contradicts their faith*.
> 
> Regardless of that religion is faith, *faith does not need facts*. Religion shouldn't be poking through science books and looking for ways to fit scripture into them, they should have the balls to stand by what they "believe" in without looking for a factual foundation.



No, it is not a cop-out... God created the scientific principles on which the Universe opperates, and Man simply discovered these principles, using his God-given intelligence.  So, no, Science does not contradict Faith.  As for that last bolded line, you obviously don't understand Faith.




VGJustice said:


> *Actually, it says they were not aware of their nakedness.* Eating the apple (called the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil) gave them a greater awareness of themselves and caused them to discover they were naked.



In the same way animals are not aware of their nakedness... only Man partook of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Which made us aware of our "naked" state, and separated us from the rest of Creation.  Until that point, Man was an innocent creature... afterwards, the Knowledge of Good and Evil made Man responsible for his actions... laid bare everything... and made Man ashamed and afraid of what he'd done... and of his evil thoughts.




szopaw said:


> Yes, and they got embarrassed of it. That's pretty much the same thing (Though the 'pretty much' leaves some room for divagations) *But that still doesn't aswer the question what would they need reproductive organs for in the first place, so we can assume that it means the same (aka, they didn't know about sex)*.



As mentioned before, God created male and female before He created Adam and Eve, so Adam was male and Eve was female... and God knew full well what he was doing, knew full well his creation, animal and man, would procreate.  That was the whole point of creating reproduction in the first place.  Just like animals, Adam and Eve knew about sex in the same way animals know about sex, when you consider they didn't yet have the Knowledge of Good and Evil.




szopaw said:


> Still doesn't answer why they had sexual characteristics in the first place.



I know this is redundant, but I repeat... God created male and female before he created Adam and Eve.




Emil said:


> You do realize that *the foundations of modern science was layed by people who were using science as a way to better understand god*? In essence, "we dont know, god did it, but that doesnt mean we cant find out."



Indeed, quite a few early scientist were monks/priests/ministers... men of the cloth, curious to know more about God's Creation




szopaw said:


> I already admitted that it's not entirely the same. Though in this case it's rather near, as we are not speaking about children who will know once they develop enough (*and if they do it, they do out of curiosity, which Adam and Eve mostly lacked*), we are talking about supposidely grown up people.
> 
> And even if they would have sex while not knowing what are they doing, there still is the question of the sexual characteristics very existance. They did not serve procreation in Eden, so why were they designed in the first place? More so, if Adam was originaly the only human.
> 
> It would probably mean that god planned the exile from the beggining (assuming that it is 'god' in the judeochristian meaning, omnipotent and all powerful, not a fake who can make stupid mistakes)



I'd be interested to know where you got the tidbit about Adam and Eve lacking curiousity... were you there in the Garden of Eden?

As for your other points?  If Adam and Eve had sex in the garden (the Bible never says they did, it only says they did after the Fall), they certainly knew what they were doing.  And... well, need I repeat the male/female specifics mentioned before?  God knew Man would be kicked out of the Garden, so, even if you don't consider God's male/female design pattern... well, there's your reason.  With Adam and Eve cursed to die, for Man to survive, they would need to procreate.  So, that point was taken care of long before the fact.  Long before it would be needed.

And no... God did not "plan" the exile.  He simply knew what would happen, before he created anything... Heaven, Earth... Angels, Men... and yet, he still Created everything.  And yet, He did plan Man's Salvation, based on that omniscient knowledge of what was to come.




ADF said:


> I'm not suggesting religious people cannot be interested in scientific knowledge, *there are plenty of religious scientists today who learned to set aside their beliefs when performing the scientific method*. But you are suggesting that the first post dark age scientists being religious at a time when everyone 'had' to be; somehow credits religion in the scientific category.



All I see here is a misunderstanding of how Faith works.  No, religious scientists don't set aside their Beliefs when performing the Scientific Method.  They have no need to do so.  Science does not exclude religion, nor does religion exclude science.  Please, stop suggesting otherwise, and recognize the fact many scientist were indeed genuine men of God.  Not just atheists/agnostics hiding in a false belief.




ADF said:


> The church outlawed many scientific practices, medical students had to go onto battlefields during the night to steal bodies; because the church made it illegal to open bodies up to study organs. Yet again you seem to be suggesting that it is their religion that allowed them to be scientific, not their personal choices. Must I remind you that it was the Bible that justified the dark ages? That justified book burning? That still does justify book burning? *Yet most religious people are moderate, despite following the same book that justified all this, the exact same religion.*
> 
> A book about Gods and demons is not reasonable, people are; and they bring that reason into their religion even if it goes against scripture.
> 
> ...



You're talking about Catholicism... the era of The Crusades, and afterwards.  Not about the Bible.  Not about true Christianity....

Also, second bolded point:  Good Deeds don't save a person's soul.  Any religion that says salvation comes through the works of men is false.  The Scriptures of the Christian church (the Bible) make this clear.  So, good deeds without Faith in God... without the acceptance of His Gift... are worthless.  Salvation brings good deeds.  Good deeds do not bring Salvation.




ADF said:


> Don't even go there, seriously I do not have the days to spare that this thread will go on for if you attempt to call Atheism a religion. Suggesting *lack of faith is in itself a faith* is idiotic, suggesting trusting in science is in any way similar to trusting scripture even more idiotic. I do not have the time nor desire to humour such a ridicules statement like no religion is a religion.
> 
> Sorry but I am going to have to pull myself out before the above statement causes me to say something I will regret, too much to say and not in the right mind to say it.



Everyone has to have faith in something, be it God, Science or another human being.  Even agnostics have to trust in _something_.


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 7, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Atheism
> 
> Agnosticism
> 
> ...



God I fucking lol'd. It's a religious view, yes, but you don't "have religion".
Very, very different.


----------



## artwithapulse (Nov 7, 2008)

*chin scratch*


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 8, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> God I fucking lol'd. It's a religious view, yes, but you don't "have religion".
> Very, very different.



Atheism is a religion.
And you have it.
Therefore, Atheists have religion. 
Very same.
If you don't like it, then English really isn't the language for you. Stop pretending to speak it if you are just going to keep on manipulating definitions to make your points magically appear.


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Atheism is a religion.
> And you have it.
> Therefore, Atheists have religion.
> Very same.
> If you don't like it, then English really isn't the language for you. Stop pretending to speak it if you are just going to keep on manipulating definitions to make your points magically appear.


*MASS EDIT*
Wait. No. Fucking no.
You've just stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "NAH NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

A religious view is not a religon. A political view is not a politics.
You need to get out more.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 8, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> English is a language
> You speak English
> Thus you speak language.
> 
> That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.



Actually I do. The only way I wouldn't is if I didn't speak at all.

Oh... Analogy time.
Whether you speak English, Russian, or Cantonese, you speak a language.
In our world, people naturally seem to speak something. Sure, people don't NEED to speak a language. It is just a bunch of combined noises that people use consistently.

The same goes for Religions. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Scientologist, Wikken, or anything else EXCEPT for TRUE Agnostic, you are partaking in a Religion. Just like Language, you can't tie them down as truth with science or anything absolute, but people seem to MOSTLY believe something.  A true Agnostic has come to the realization that any Truth is absolutely unproveable, therefore is not to be dealt with. Atheists, have decided that ther Truth is that there is no deity in any form. Not only is any god or godlike power unproveable, it cannot exist. That is their rough stance.

This phrase "haveing religion" can have no other meaning than "to believe a religion", based on the definition of the words.



Xaerun said:


> *MASS EDIT*
> Wait. No. Fucking no.
> You've just stuck your fingers in your ears and gone "NAH NAH NAH CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU"
> 
> ...



No. Just because I haven't changed stances on you doesn't mean I'm not listening. And actually, that definition there is not for "Religious view" it is for Religion. It is true, I would probably find two different definitions for "Political View" and "Politics", but you cannot, "Have Politics". Politics is a practice, Political views are views that Politics are based on. Religion and Politics aren't the same, or even similar. I'm surprised you're kicking and screaming at nothing more than someone trying to use proper English.


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> The same goes for Religions. Whether you are Christian, Buddhist, Atheist, Scientologist, Wikken, or anything else EXCEPT for TRUE Agnostic, you are partaking in a Religion. Just like *Language*, *you can't tie them down as truth with science or anything absolute*, but people seem to MOSTLY believe something.  A true Agnostic has come to the realization that any Truth is absolutely unproveable, therefore is not to be dealt with. Atheists, have decided that *ther* Truth is that there is no deity in any form. Not only is any god or godlike power unproveable, it cannot exist. That is their rough stance.


Hahaha, proper English. Love it.
I'm not sure what you mean with the bold bit. The underlined bit is redundant.

LET'S PLAY THE ONLINE DICTIONARY GAME


			
				http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=religion said:
			
		

> S: (n) *religion*, faith, religious belief (a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny) _"he lost his faith but not his morality"_
> S: (n) *religion*, faith, organized religion (an institution to express belief in a divine power) _"he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"_




(I swear someone else tried this trick and it fucked itself every which way from Sunday)



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> The term _atheism_ originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.



Fuck, I gotta go, I'll finish this later. Anyway, I think you've confused 'atheism' with 'nontheism'



Korro-Sama said:


> This phrase "*haveing* religion" can have no other meaning than "to believe a religion", based on the definition of the words.


You're so fucking wrong there I'm not sure if its worth addressing. Plus your proper English seems retarded.
"Haveing religion" seems like something a fundamentalist would say. And what definition of 'have' do you use there?




Korro-Sama said:


> No. Just because I haven't changed stances on you doesn't mean I'm not listening. And actually, that definition there is not for "Religious view" it is for Religion. It is true, I would probably find two different definitions for "Political View" and "Politics", but you cannot, "Have Politics". Politics is a practice, Political views are views that Politics are based on. Religion and Politics aren't the same, or even similar. I'm surprised you're kicking and screaming at nothing more than someone trying to use proper English.


Missing the point: you're doing it right.


----------



## Korro-Sama (Nov 8, 2008)

Xaerun said:


> LET'S PLAY THE ONLINE DICTIONARY GAME



Feel free to start anytime now. Don't pretend Wordnet is a dectionary. That's about as reliable as quoting Wikipedia.

Oh, and that bitching you did about me saying "Have religion" that there's not my words. To "have religion" is the thing most of the forum atheists have been using to mean "doesn't believe what I believe", so yeah... fundamentalists.... right...


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 8, 2008)

Atheism:

Oxford English Dictionary: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

Merriam-Webster: A disbelief in the existence of deity

Webster's Student Dicitonary: The belief that there is no God.

Dictionary.com: Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


Doesn't sound like much of a religion.



And to Shenzi, I love Buddhism, it's always seemed very practical and reasonable to me =]


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Korro-Sama said:


> Feel free to start anytime now. Don't pretend Wordnet is a dectionary. That's about as reliable as quoting Wikipedia.
> 
> Oh, and that bitching you did about me saying "Have religion" that there's not my words. To "have religion" is the thing most of the forum atheists have been using to mean "doesn't believe what I believe", so yeah... fundamentalists.... right...


Nice, you ignored the main point I was making. Granted, I had to go fast like speed of light (Easog'll get it), but I still said it.
You are confusing atheism with nontheism.

I'll raise some more points.


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> [SIZE=-1]Religion is the seventh studio album by Spear of Destiny, released by Eastworld Recordings in 1997 (see 1997 in music). [/SIZE]


Wait. No. I'll try again.



			
				Merriam-Webster online shitbox said:
			
		

> Main Entry:reÂ·liÂ·gion
> 
> Pronunciation:              \ri-Ëˆli-jÉ™n\          Function:_noun_ Etymology:Middle English _religioun,_ from Anglo-French _religiun,_ Latin _religion-, religio_ supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from _religare_ to restrain, tie back      â€” more at rely Date:13th century
> 
> 1 a*:* the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of _religion_> b              (1)*:* the service and worship of God or the supernatural              (2)*:* commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2*:* a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3_archaic_ *:* scrupulous conformity *:* conscientiousness4*:* a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Hold the fucking phone!
1. The state of a religious? Nup. The service and worship of a God(s) or the supernatural? Nup.
2. A personalized set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices? Nup.
3. Scrupulous conformity? Fuck no.
4. A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith? See Takumi's post.




Easog said:


> Atheism:
> 
> Oxford English Dictionary: Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
> 
> ...



See what I said to Korro. Basically, <3 Easog


----------



## Takun (Nov 8, 2008)

Oh shit I forgot to not pray, my nonexistant deity is going to be _pissssssed._


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Dispute solved with Korro over PM.
__________________________________________________






____________________________________________-

So that's that.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 8, 2008)

I honestly can't understand how this thread spiraled out of control so quickly because someone took offense. I had no idea people were so touchy about things like that (well, no idea that presumably _sane_ people would be so touchy about it). But whatever. I'll answer the question the best way I know how: A children's rhyme.

When God made boys, he made them out of string. He had some left, so he put a little thing.
When God made girls, he made them out of lace. He had none left, so he put a little space.

While we're on the subject, God made Atheists.

Strange, that.


----------



## Takun (Nov 8, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I honestly can't understand how this thread spiraled out of control so quickly because someone took offense. I had no idea people were so touchy about things like that (well, no idea that presumably _sane_ people would be so touchy about it). But whatever. I'll answer the question the best way I know how: A children's rhyme.
> 
> When God made boys, he made them out of string. He had some left, so he put a little thing.
> When God made girls, he made them out of lace. He had none left, so he put a little space.
> ...


 
While we're on the subject,  Theists made god.

Strange, that.


----------



## Toto (Nov 8, 2008)

Roose do you consider it possible that you are wrong?

Also Odin Vil and Ve made christians.


----------



## Ð˜Ð²Ð°Ð½ (Nov 8, 2008)

I made some cookies.

Strange, that


----------



## Takun (Nov 8, 2008)

Easog said:


> I made some cookies.
> 
> Strange, that


 
Oooooo I got me a man that can bake.

YAY *puts an apron on you that says "kiss the chef" and does just that*


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Chefs make food.

Strange, that.


----------



## GoldenJackal (Nov 8, 2008)

Worship that which makes penis butter. -Gayrithians 6:19


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 8, 2008)

Gayrithians was gay.

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, AWAY!


----------



## Enigmaticat (Nov 8, 2008)

Does this answer anything?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 8, 2008)

Toto said:


> Roose do you consider it possible that you are wrong?
> 
> Also Odin Vil and Ve made christians.



Toto, would you like to be more specific, so we have something to discuss?

As for your last comment, I know who Odin is, but I've never heard this "Vil and Ve" part after his name.  Of course, I'm not of Norse decent, so my knowledge of their mythology is limited.


----------



## Bokracroc (Nov 8, 2008)

Stop asking questions and believe *>: [*


----------



## GoldenJackal (Nov 8, 2008)

*sings*
Imma gonna go to hell when I die.
Imma gonna go to hell when I die.


----------

