Author Topic: praying before you eat  (Read 25078 times)

Let's try this again:

Read.
The problem is you show how little knowledge you have on the subject to begin with.  Stop talking out of your ass and study something before discussing it.

my families not really religious or anything, we say grace still sometimes tho. its not really religious just kindve something we've always done idk

why should i thank god for my food

it's not like he made my food

why should i thank god for my food

it's not like he made my food
how do YOU know

That is one of the reasons why I don't identify with atheism is the hypocrites.
I personally identify as Atheist, but some people put a bad stigma on it.
Those people being not just Atheists, but Anti-theists.

I don't need a religion nor believe in one, but I don't need to tell other people that they don't need one either.
I'd be offended if someone tried to force or barrage atheism upon me as much as I would if they tried to do the same with religious beliefs.

I know my family have prayed at times, in our own moments of struggle. But we've never really done it elsewhere, or even together.
So for us, at a dinner table, there's never been a call for grace, nor telling the Lord's Prayer.
But we have a similar system in that we traditionally don't start eating until everyone is sat at the table and ready to eat together.

I suppose my family is, in some way, Christian. Atleast in background.
We've always lived by Christian Morals, as they are good morals.
And we've always followed religious ceremonies. We have Christian weddings and funerals, and Christmas is related to the nativity, even if we don't necesarilly believe in it.

My parent's went to C of E schools, just as I have done. But my family weren't pushy on Christianity, and we weren't church-goers.
I personally chose to go to Sunday School of my own accord, and I loved Bible Stories. My parents joked at one point I'd probably end up going on to become a vicar.
But at some point I left the belief in Christianity. I don't know where exactly. I suppose it was just studying at school, where science really enthralled me, and it often had more logical conclusions than religion.
But I currently study the Philosophy of Religion, which while it isn't an actual study of religious practices and beliefs, it is very very interesting.

I am not a religious freak. I pray when I remember to and usually it's only like 10 seconds or less, but I'm still a saved Christian (and proud to be)

I'm prompting the absence of something.

This sentence makes no sense. The word you meant to use is "purporting," but you're too stupid to know how big words work and you hope that stringing a bunch of them together will make you seem smart.

 I'm not forcing you to do anything against your will, neither am I saying you have to believe X or what have you.

You are literally saying that it's better to mock someone who asks you to participate in a table prayer, because participating would be subjecting yourself to religious oppression. That makes you sound like a fedora-wearing asspie who doesn't understand that our society is built upon silly rituals and tries to exploit them for a false sense of superiority.

 When I'm in a religious debate, I use the religion against itself, and I inform people of mistakes that their beliefs hold, NOT the mistakes in their belief based on my personal preference.  Just so we're clear, mathematics isn't an ideology.

Busting out in handicap-laughter because someone asks you to hold hands and bless the food isn't mathematics, it's autism.

If you apply it the other way it doesn't work either, theology isn't mathematics because gods by definition are immeasurable. So you're still stupid.

What the problem here is that you've failed to read many of my posts which identify both atheists and theists as having negative outcomes.

Another sentence where you try to sound smart but you make absolutely no sense. You can't identify "atheists and theists as having negative outcomes." Nouns can't have outcomes, because nouns aren't causes. You could say "atheism and theism as having negative outcomes" or even "being an atheist and theist," and that would make sense. But this is just another instance of you stringing together words you don't fully understand to make a laughably stupid post.

 I'm consistently playing devil's advocate -- I think modern day biology is a fantastic element of learning,

You aren't playing devil's advocate when you start your argument by saying prayer makes you guffaw uncontrollably, and follow it up with a moronic, fedora-inspired rant against religion in general.

--

You misused the em dash, good job handicap.

I think modern day biology is a fantastic element of learning,

Again, trying to sound smart. This one is almost cringe-worthy because you probably thought it sounded like a really intelligent way to say "I think biology is interesting," when what you managed to say was nothing but inane drivel.

Biology is not an element of learning, is a subject of study. An element is the basics that compose something, so an element of learning would be studying, reading, or paying attention in class. I really hate how stupid you are, and it makes me want to find our flickr album where you must keep thousands of captioned pictures of yourself wearing a fedora and suit jacket.

but I believe we've still MUCH more to learn about how organisms work.  I personally believe evolultion occured, but I never use it to argue against someone's religious beliefs.

Because that would make sense. Then again most of your arguments IRL seem to consist of "HAHAHAHAHA UR PRAYING LOL !!! XD Y WOULD U PRAY DONT U NO MATHEMATICS! ?"

 I never use scientific theory (aside from the earth not being flat and the sun not revolving around the earth) against someone's religious beliefs.  I use fact based on the only perception I have.

Since when is the Earth being round a theory? Like what the hell? Do you expect someone to come around and disprove the roundness of the Earth in the future?

I do not go out and push people around for having beliefs that differ from mine.  I tend to retaliate more than anything, but I do in fact bring up the subject, which is often seen as me being pretentious or oppressive.  I've stated in the past I'm open to intellectual debate, not pissing competitions or pointless banter.

No, you little stuff. If someone asks you pray with them and you bust out laughing you aren't retaliating to oppression, you're mocking a sect of society and making yourself look like a real asperger stuff in the process. I can't take you seriously when you claim to want "intellectual debate" when you try so desperately to sound smart that you misuse easy words, and when you doubt that the Earth is round.

Take from that what you will, but assuming hypocrisy based on argumentative behaviors is so antiproductive is hilarious.

Hypocrisy can easily be considered an "argumentative behavior," although the phrase you were actually going for was a tendency to argue.

 If you had nothing to question your beliefs, you would be nothing but sheep -- and I hope that that isn't the case.

That doesn't make any sense. I think you're the only one who questions whether the Earth is round or not, everyone else accepts it without question, so are they sheep?

Oh, and I can assure you I'm open about this in public.  Stop making stuff up to further an argument.

Yeah, I seriously wouldn't doubt if you exploded into laughter out of a fallacious sense of intellectual dominance of people who are in reality, smarter than you and also not autistic.

Oh, yeah, because your statistic on what atheists believe is definitely true.  Instead of getting on my ass for making reasonable assumption and presenting fact, how about you reread what you're constantly spewing and assume you may be in the wrong.

Again, based on the rest of your post it's really hard to take this seriously.

 Again, try playing devil's advocate, instead of being incredibly stubborn about your belief system.

What the forget?

Why would the person you're arguing with want to play devil's advocate? Who would they argue with? Do you want them to just agree with you so that it doesn't shake your belief in flat-earth theory?

Also, though religion is very old, its original principles (polytheism and the like) are no longer practiced, yet ancient literature is what fueled all modern day religious beliefs.  Take, for example, the fact that the story of Noah's Ark was adapted from the poem The Epic of Giglamesh, written many many years before your Christ was born.

Wow a kind-of real argument. Too bad it's buried underneath a mountain of stuff.

There's a difference between addressing something and bombarding someone with nothing but useless ad hominem. 

Like openly mocking people in public for a tradition as old as history?

If you've got an argument which you can speak of otherwise, go for it, but I tend not to get on someone's ass if they know what they're talking about.

Ok.

This sentence makes no sense. The word you meant to use is "purporting," but you're too stupid to know how big words work and you hope that stringing a bunch of them together will make you seem smart.
Oh boy, attacking gramatical errors and rhetoric, how wonderfully "autistic" of you!


You are literally saying that it's better to mock someone who asks you to participate in a table prayer, because participating would be subjecting yourself to religious oppression. That makes you sound like a fedora-wearing asspie who doesn't understand that our society is built upon silly rituals and tries to exploit them for a false sense of superiority.
I'm saying I'd laugh because I find it silly.  Being under the impression that I'm openly mocking someone isn't a suitable argument as it's incorrect.  Never the less, I separated the act from my argument, and made that extremely clear.  If someone's going to subject me to something as basic as saying grace, then they can handle something as basic as someone laughing at it.  Stop blowing things out of proportion to sway personal vendetta in your argument.  Also, even if it were the case, your "fedora wearing" bias stuff is completely irrelevant.  For someone who likes to nitpick a lot, you sure don't have your stuff together all too well.  Bringing in your silly depiction of what you want to believe an atheist is != an argument.

Busting out in handicap-laughter because someone asks you to hold hands and bless the food isn't mathematics, it's autism.
I never stated it was.  I never implied laughter was my argument.  Having fun atop your high horse, you loving rodent?

If you apply it the other way it doesn't work either, theology isn't mathematics because gods by definition are immeasurable. So you're still stupid.
Mathematics is above theology.  Someone lacking a variable to suggest it's real is, by definition, not real.  Mathematics is the only form of absolute proof the human mind is capable of knowing, so objecting against it is being under the impression your senses are far more capable, even though you're incapable of refuting what you consider to be beneath you.  If I suddenly want to believe my imaginary friend Bill is a deity, does he somehow become exempt from mathematical fact?  Are you really that loving stupid?

Another sentence where you try to sound smart but you make absolutely no sense. You can't identify "atheists and theists as having negative outcomes." Nouns can't have outcomes, because nouns aren't causes. You could say "atheism and theism as having negative outcomes" or even "being an atheist and theist," and that would make sense. But this is just another instance of you stringing together words you don't fully understand to make a laughably stupid post.
See first reply.  I get it, I make mistakes, but you were to make it out as coherent, as you corrected me.  If you understand someone's point, you don't need to get on their case for how they presented it.  Or, at least, when we're in this situation, there's no purpose in doing it.  Well, you know, beyond boasting your oh so superior intellect.

You aren't playing devil's advocate when you start your argument by saying prayer makes you guffaw uncontrollably, and follow it up with a moronic, fedora-inspired rant against religion in general.
I'm playing devil's advocate when I'm not taking sides.  Laughing at something (funny how you say uncontrollably; making things up, again) is a presumed reaction.  When the argument against someone's personal preference of humor is being made by an individual who thinks it's appropriate to call someone an "autistic fedora wearing handicap" every other line, it's extremely difficult to take it seriously. I don't, because I get that it's a general insult.

You misused the em dash, good job handicap.
Again, see the first reply.

Again, trying to sound smart. Again, see the first reply. This one is almost cringe-worthy because you probably thought it sounded like a really intelligent way to say "I think biology is interesting," when what you managed to say was nothing but inane drivel.
Biology is not an element of learning, is a subject of study. An element is the basics that compose something, so an element of learning would be studying, reading, or paying attention in class. I really hate how stupid you are, and it makes me want to find our flickr album where you must keep thousands of captioned pictures of yourself wearing a fedora and suit jacket.
I was implying how I enjoy that we're able to adapt and figure out how certain living organisms thrive.  You're nitpicking again.  I guess that's your only real argument, though.

Because that would make sense. Then again most of your arguments IRL seem to consist of "HAHAHAHAHA UR PRAYING LOL !!! XD Y WOULD U PRAY DONT U NO MATHEMATICS! ?"
Aww, you get on my ass about mocking and then you do it yourself?  I've displayed mathematical argument externally.  I was arguing against people who like to just nab on to anything they can to get a kick/assume superiority.  Everyone assuming I'm hiding under anonymity because I get a kick out of certain religious preachings/think I'm a hypocrite for finding something humorous is outrageous, so I was calling them out on it.  I didn't actually state an argument against religious practices here, I only defended the stance of my own beliefs and actions.

Since when is the Earth being round a theory? Like what the hell? Do you expect someone to come around and disprove the roundness of the Earth in the future?
Err, I should rephrase.  It's a law, but that doesn't mean it's not refutable.  Someone stated that it was a flaw in my argument because it wasn't mathematically absolute, which is true, but it's something that cannot CURRENTLY be refuted.  I was just covering my ass because I've actually gotten people stupid enough to suggest it wasn't.

No, you little stuff. If someone asks you pray with them and you bust out laughing you aren't retaliating to oppression, you're mocking a sect of society and making yourself look like a real asperger stuff in the process. I can't take you seriously when you claim to want "intellectual debate" when you try so desperately to sound smart that you misuse easy words, and when you doubt that the Earth is round.
What the forget are you going on about?  I never stated I retaliate to oppressive religious behaviors in that post, nor did I mension my laughter as a form of retaliation.  I'm referencing other situations when I mention retaliation, and I stated people find MY attitude oppressive, not that I find religion oppressive.  Holy stuff, stop pulling things from your ass and learn to ask for clarifications if you don't necessarily understand something.  I never stated I doubt the earth is round.  Funny how incapable you are of understanding certain segments of the argument, while you're able to rephrase others completely.  Selective comprehension or stupidity, I can't really figure out which one suits your actions more.

Hypocrisy can easily be considered an "argumentative behavior," although the phrase you were actually going for was a tendency to argue.
I was stating their assumption that I'm a hypocrite because I'm presenting an argument.  Sorry, mistyped that out.

That doesn't make any sense. I think you're the only one who questions whether the Earth is round or not, everyone else accepts it without question, so are they sheep?
I never questioned whether the earth was round or not.  Stop pulling stuff from your ass.

Yeah, I seriously wouldn't doubt if you exploded into laughter out of a fallacious sense of intellectual dominance of people who are in reality, smarter than you and also not autistic.

Again, based on the rest of your post it's really hard to take this seriously.

What the forget?

Why would the person you're arguing with want to play devil's advocate? Who would they argue with? Do you want them to just agree with you so that it doesn't shake your belief in flat-earth theory?
This entire group is just "lololol you're autistic for not believing in my god omg stop being so stupid" so I think I'll just ignore it.

Wow a kind-of real argument. Too bad it's buried underneath a mountain of stuff.
The argument I displayed above had nothing to do with me refuting religion, it was about explaining my situation against people who decided to attack me personally.  If you want a religious debate, I'll gladly bring up some old quotes just to get it fired up.

Like openly mocking people in public for a tradition as old as history?
Laughter isn't inherently mocking something.  I find it funny because I believe it's silly.  If you find this inappropriate, that isn't my problem.


« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 08:45:12 PM by Lalam24 »

The only time geocentrism is implied in the bible that I know is when Joshua stops the cycle of day by telling the sun to stop moving, but I think this is probably simply due to the lack of knowledge on the Israelites part and not necessarily a teaching that the solar system is geocentric (God didn't endow them with infinite quantitative knowledge, just the wisdom of how best to serve God and stay on their feet)

The only time geocentrism is implied in the bible that I know is when Joshua stops the cycle of day by telling the sun to stop moving, but I think this is probably simply due to the lack of knowledge on the Israelites part and not necessarily a teaching that the solar system is geocentric (God didn't endow them with infinite quantitative knowledge, just the wisdom of how best to serve God and stay on their feet)
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (1 Chronicles 16:30)
"Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." (Psalm 93:1)
"Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." (Psalm 104:5)
"...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..." (Isaiah 45:18)
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." (Chronicles 16:30)
"He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." (Psalm 96:10)
"I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken from its place." (Isa. 13:13)

"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
"Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (Joshua 10, 12-13)
“Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the.” (Job 9:7)

The problem is that the bible is meant to share absolute knowledge.  People being ignorant of their surroundings at the time implies that the book is not credible and shouldn't ever be considered anything but ancient literature, not a resource for historical accuracies.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2013, 08:52:46 PM by Lalam24 »

Take, for example, the fact that the story of Noah's Ark was adapted from the poem The Epic of Giglamesh, written many many years before your Christ was born.

Ya, FACT.  Scientific Law.  No flaw.  Books stacked up of proof.  I'll give you my opinion on the Great Flood.

The Epic of Gilgamesh contains parts of the Flood from how other people viewed it.  It was written by the pagan Mesopotamians if I remember right.  Noah's Ark is how Christians relate to it.  There are other stories too, such as that of Sargon (also Mesopotamia).  Similar stories come from Hawaii, Australasia, China, old England, etc.  Look at it as Noah's Ark originated from the Flood itself, along with all the other stories, it really seems that a Great Flood did in fact happen (otherwise, how would stories originate from all over the world with no means of international communication).

The Bible says "the fountains of the deep burst open".  This leads to the Wiffle Ball Effect (as some call it).  Take note of the Pacific Rift Valley.  It is a deep lowland that occupies the very center of the Pacific Ocean.  On the exact other side of the world is the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which is a mountain range that runs down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
   In the Wiffle Ball Effect, there are cusps that are formed in the corners of the Pacific that looks almost like a big thumb pushed into a wiffle ball.  It seems that the Pacific Ocean "caved in" if you will.  When (or if) this happened, it caused the mass underneath to push through the planet, jutting the Atlantic's ocean floor upwards.  If such a catastrophic event occured, it would fire water into the air (it would also cause massive tsunamis).  When the water shot into the air, it came down again as very heavy torrential rain.
   Now where would "of the deep" come from?  Does that mean there was water under the surface of the Earth.  Yes.  There are two "oceans" underneath the surface of the Earth (one is underneath Asia).  Theories say that ocean water seeps under the ocean floor and collects underneath.  When such an event would have happened, the underground "floodgate" would have ruptured releasing trillions of tons of sea water a vapor.
   What about Pangaea, the massive supercontinent?  That could very well have existed.  When the ocean floor ruptured, causing the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the continents slid down the sides of it, parting (Continental Drift).  South America and Africa are still drifting apart to this day.
  The Flood can also link to the formation of comets.  Although this seems unlikely (I don't know enough about it to consider it true), the water and vapor that shot into the sky theoretically made it to the atmosphere.  Any of it that was moving too fast to be pulled back by Earth's gravity kept moving out into space.  In space, anything that exists has gravity.  The frozen water crystals used their own gravity to lure in more water crystals.  When the ball of crystals grew big enough to be pulled my the sun's gravity, it went into orbit and became a comet.  Where else would ice come from in space?

I learned most of this going to lectures on the subject.  Don't freaking tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.  I don't know about the reliability of these sites, but they seem to support what I've heard and believe.

Huge oceans under the Earth
Comet formation
Where did the water come from?

LOL I CANT BELIEVE SOMEONE ACTUALLY BELIEVES THE NOAH'S ARK STORY OH MY loving GOD
ITS SUPPOSED TO BE A YOUNG CHILDREN'S STORY

Well then, sir, go read on it.  There seems to be more proof that it DID happen than it DIDN'T.

ITT: xr-7 is dumb, lalam gets #rekt, stocking is 2smart4me

Well then, sir, go read on it.  There seems to be more proof that it DID happen than it DIDN'T.
LOL JESUS forget