| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| Kids and politics |
| << < (87/117) > >> |
| Bisjac:
snack where do you get off assuming anyone that dont believe in your religion just plain didnt read your bible? i was raised as a christian, and i am now atheist BECAUSE i know the bible so well. most Christians don't have a clue whats in the bible. they don't even know why they argue half the things they do. most religious folk are phonies. follow the traditions out of habit and don't even understand the faith or history at all. |
| Inv3rted:
--- Quote from: Rughugger on October 08, 2009, 09:39:03 PM --- --- End quote --- I was making fun of you calling me a fowl mouth. You used the wrong word. I'm sorry if that flew by your all knowing head. I am aware that I use expletives. --- Quote from: Snackbar on October 08, 2009, 09:39:25 PM ---Perhaps we have two different definitions of the Old Testament. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. After all, you've never read the Bible. You said the majority of the old testament was correct. I called your bullstuff. What's the different definition? How is my point invalid? Even if he has read parts of the Bible (and he clearly hasn't read it thoroughly, thanks to several rather large mistakes he has made), he still hasn't read up on his facts, because he still makes wrong assumptions about the Bible. And you still don't bother to even refute a word of his arguments because you can't. Good job. You value it as a piece of literature, yet you say "you only need to read a few passages to see what utter crap this piece of literature is"? I'm sorry, but I think those two statements are incongruous. It still has value. The plot of Inglorious Basterds was utter stuff, but it was a fun watch. It's utter crap because people actually believe it. By utter crap I was talking about its truth. It's bullstuff. I believe you're giving Richard Dawkins quite a lot more credit than you ought. Besides, you're not even using the word politics correctly. I'm not talking about national policy here, I'm talking about why you should stop attacking Christianity like a one-man Inquisition. My point was that you brought up quantum physics when it was totally unrelated, so I brought up politics. You make silly assumptions about my vocabulary when you lack the intellectual ability to defend your own beliefs with logic. --- End quote --- |
| Snackbar:
--- Quote from: Bisjac on October 08, 2009, 09:43:16 PM ---snack where do you get off assuming anyone that dont believe in your religion just plain didnt read your bible? --- End quote --- Where did I say this? I specifically mentioned Richard Dawkins and Inverted, as both clearly did not read the Bible. I never said that you didn't, or that anyone else didn't, just those two. --- Quote from: Bisjac on October 08, 2009, 09:43:16 PM ---most Christians don't have a clue whats in the bible. they don't even know why they argue half the things they do. most religious folk are phonies. follow the traditions out of habit and don't even understand the faith or history at all. --- End quote --- I wouldn't say most. I'm sure some do, but no one I have ever known has been like that. Even if they are "phonies", there's not much I can do about that, is there? All I can do is make sure that I have faith for the right reasons. |
| Wedge:
--- Quote ---That's what happens when you forget over your whole post with a paragraph. --- End quote --- I did not. --- Quote ---Humility isn't a Christian virtue or anything...you know...just sayin'. --- End quote --- I don't even see how this is related to humility, but I'll attempt to decipher your argument and humor you. Humility requires something to be humble to. Christians believe there is no other God and therefore there is nothing for him to be humble to. I'm sure the "be nice to your neighbor" commandment would cover that were there another God. Since there is nothing for him to be humble to, there is nothing to measure humility with. --- Quote ---You must be pretty dense to not see it yet. I said he is more than flawless. He is the believer's standard of perfection. Do not deny this; it is at the core of half the theistic defenses. --- End quote --- Why would I deny this? I never have. Apparently there was some ambiguity. I'll make it clear again. I believe Christians believe their God is flawless. --- Quote ---He is a hypocrite, he is a murderer, he is jealous, and he is the standard of perfection for so many people. You still don't see how there is a negative aspect here? --- End quote --- A murderer? This is new. Do gods murder? Is it murder if a god kills? Murder is unlawful. It is not against the law for a god to kill. In fact, it is a god's god-given right to snuff out the life of its creations at whim. Supposedly they have a good reason for this, typically it's punishment for some grievous offence against humanity or the religion. This does not conflict with it's message that killing is wrong for it's subjects to do. The flaw is in and of itself judging a god on the same standard as a human. By the nature of religion god is above humans. And none of this is even relevant to your point that "Christian morality is destroying America." Suppose that the book it's based on has fallacies in it? How does this manifest itself in the values themselves being poor? Let's clarify something. None of my posts have been trying to state Christianity is true or that you have to believe it. My arguments so far have been trying to get you to justify your ridiculous comment about how America needs to throw away its morals because they're too shrouded in religion, that these morals are invalid because of inconsistencies, and other such things. That's what I tried to lead every argument back to. I don't even get what you were proposing. Our morals are already secular. Murder is declared unlawful in common law "because it is evil." This is a moral. How is this shrouded in religion? Some people chose to believe that this is evil because a god said so. So what? What is wrong with this? God doesn't exist? So? I do not think you are concerned that America's morals are too religious. I think what you meant to complain about was the prevalence of religion which is something altogether different and totally separate from what I was arguing with you about and what you originally wrote. --- Quote from: Inv3rted on October 07, 2009, 11:12:55 AM ---Morals with religious undertones are horrible for society. --- End quote --- This is what I'm arguing with. I'm smart enough not to touch "Religion is stupid and should be abolished" with a 50 foot pole. If thats where you want to take this then forget off, I'm not coming. If you want to argue more about how Christian morals are the cancer that is killing American politics and here me retort with more, no, that's people bending a religious text to fit a political agenda, let me know. |
| Snackbar:
--- Quote from: Inverted ---My point was that you brought up quantum physics when it was totally unrelated, so I brought up politics. You make silly assumptions about my vocabulary when you lack the intellectual ability to defend your own beliefs with logic. --- End quote --- I apologize, I was mistaken. I shouldn't call your knowledge of vocabulary into question. Rather, I should call into question your knowledge of literary devices. Ever heard of an brown townogy? I suppose not, because you certainly didn't recognize it when I used it. --- Quote from: Inverted ---And you still don't bother to even refute a word of his arguments because you can't. Good job. --- End quote --- Fine. I will. --- Quote from: Inverted ---1. Among the hardest things to figure out in the universe was how the universe and its appearance of design arises. 2. Humans have a natural tendency to assume that what looks designed is designed by a creator. 3. This is false, and is a sky hook. The designer must be more improbable that what is designed, and that raises the question of who designed the designer. This leads to an infinite regress, which is unacceptable. 4. The opposite of a sky hook, a crane, was the process discovered by Darwin: evolution by natural selection. This explained how life diversified on Earth, thus proving that the appearance of design in life is an illusion. 5. The same crane has not yet been discovered in the larger field of physics, but it is possible to apply a similar kind of selective process leading to improbable structures to the whole of the cosmos. This, of course, requires more luck, but by use of the anthropic principle we may postulate more luck than imagined. 6. Such a crane in physics would be ultimately satisfying, because at present we do not have any valid and non-sky hook designer methods for the universe. --- End quote --- Richard Dawkins's "proof" is simplistic in that it states that God is improbable because God must be complex, and therefore must have been designed by someone else. If that's the case, than I guess scientists should stop trying to create the Grand Unified Theory, because it's clearly highly improbable according to Dawkins, because the GUT would be far more complex than anything it's trying to explain. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |