First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
90% of Atheists/Agnostics are idiot posers
681 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Guam.
Offline
Posted 5/10/08
I myself am agnostic... And I believe if god does exist... He or she is one and the same person as the Devil... lol... True story -.-

But yeah... I don't see how people can not believe in god and also be scared of things like ghosts and demons, or the devil... If god doesn't exist... obviously his other half... Satan doesn't exist correct?....

I.E. Demons, Ghosts, Spirits, Souls ( in a religious sense ).

I believe things have an essence of them in a whole.

I.E. A feeling of certain differential depth to each individual.
killar 
69281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 5/10/08
I grew up with some crazy bible thumping parents. I know the bible better than most, even read through the Quran a few times. And after doing all that, I sat back one day and thought, 'this shit is fucking stupid'.

I don't know what that labels me (and I don't care) but I'm not a misinformed idiot. I don't believe it, and I don't really give a fuck what others believe. I really only care about myself on this issue.
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/11/08 , edited 5/11/08
Glob: actually I've heard it being said that it was allowed when it was necessary (every woman was your sister or your mother, apllies to Adam and eve and Noah), but after there was enough people, one shouldn't. One of the books (the 3rd I think) contains all the rules, and there is a lot of rules against incest I believe. I don't think it was ever promoted as such, although in the story of Onan, this guy felt it would be wrong to take his brother's wife althogh god wanted him to. Not all christains works with an all-knowing god. It is not a necessary conclusion either. What logical connection?
2. Yeah, I think claiming "mysterious ways" is a bit on the level of New Age. But that is mostly a catholic explanation I think. I live in a protestant country, and I have never heard any protestant going "if it's bad, mysterious ways". Anyways I'd still think you'd get better answers from religious people if you searched more.
3: when you write something down, especially just after it has happened, it becomes more reliable than when it is a story told by others before you. That's the point. The written tradition beats the oral tradition. I do not claim that any part of the bible is true, the point is whether or not it is written down fast or after a long time when it has been abbreviated (I think that's the word).

Soca: religion does have an impact on non-religious people. What impact depends on the country. And religion and politics is always mixed, usually at least in form of a pressure group for "decency" like censorship). That, for many, is the point.

Skies: god and the devil the same? Even the gnostics don't go that far (well maybe, but in another way). You don't have to believe in god to believe in ghosts. Ghosts are the spiritual essence of dead people. No god needed. Demon means evil spirit I believe. Demons are present even in philosophical systems without a god (like buddhism). And not everyone is "afraid" of ghosts, even if they believe in them. Actually, lots of them are pretty positive, wanting to believe.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 5/11/08

jestorebo wrote:
Glob: actually I've heard it being said that it was allowed when it was necessary (every woman was your sister or your mother, apllies to Adam and eve and Noah), but after there was enough people, one shouldn't.


Who did you hear this from? god? If not, maybe you're going against god for not having incest and have fallen for the trap of the devil.


jestorebo wrote:
One of the books (the 3rd I think) contains all the rules, and there is a lot of rules against incest I believe. I don't think it was ever promoted as such, although in the story of Onan, this guy felt it would be wrong to take his brother's wife althogh god wanted him to.


Then he went against the will of god. Great for him. That makes him what? Going to hell?


jestorebo wrote:
Not all christains works with an all-knowing god. It is not a necessary conclusion either. What logical connection?


If he knew all, he would have known that there would be lots of incest. So either he did not know all or he wanted incest.

Using "Not all christians" is just as strong as "Not all american males like american football", "Not all europeans were against the nazis", "Not all asians have black or brown hair", "Not all xyz..."


jestorebo wrote:
2. Yeah, I think claiming "mysterious ways" is a bit on the level of New Age. But that is mostly a catholic explanation I think. I live in a protestant country, and I have never heard any protestant going "if it's bad, mysterious ways". Anyways I'd still think you'd get better answers from religious people if you searched more.


Shifting the onus of explaination as having "not searched more" is as valid as the following sentence "I've *never* stepped on an ant and I think you should not have stepped on ants if you looked more carefully"


jestorebo wrote:
3: when you write something down, especially just after it has happened, it becomes more reliable than when it is a story told by others before you. That's the point. The written tradition beats the oral tradition. I do not claim that any part of the bible is true, the point is whether or not it is written down fast or after a long time when it has been abbreviated (I think that's the word).


Well who told the story? How about the rest of the stuff? Did the apostles have a editic memory? A microphone and recorder?
1328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / Closing in
Offline
Posted 5/12/08
Glob: I have no idea why you insist upon god wanting incest. I just....have no clue. Why do you Insist on Incest Incessantly? And the rules are pretty mush laid out in the 3rd and 4th book I believe. There's a whole book of rules, so I am sure it's there somewhere. It even contains stuff like "if you borrow someone's slave on a sunday...but if it's a weekday...."-stuff.

I don't remember what happened to Onan. I must admit. Then again, I'm not Christian. Actually I should say: I don't really know the bible. There are sometimes a huge difference between the 2.

Actually god is pretty fair about letting people sin. It might punish them, like levelling cities to the ground, or letting them burn in hell for all eternity, but god always let people sin. And knowing is not the same as allowing things to happen. I know that people will die and get raped today, that doesn't mean I am really "allowing" it to happen. As for the all-knowing god, my problem is really that I do not know where the churches all stand. The calvinists and the catholics believe in an all-knowing god I believe. But I think the gnostics don't. There is both variation among theologies of the different churches, as well as individualism. So it's not the same as your examples. There is not one christian church, and no statistics. I just don't have the necessary knowledge, and listing the different churches would be a pain too.

Actually, the point is that you can not blame the religious for you not checking for answers. Can you blame a teacher for not answering the questions you didn't ask?

If it's written down, we can check the validity. The age, the language it is written in, where it was found, etc. This is usually what one gets. I think Paul is pretty verified. Personally I don't think he belongs in NT, but there you go. Other than that it is pretty unverified I think. One knows some of the churches' "translations" and editing, when one has another source. that's pretty much it.
Posted 5/12/08

le1chi wrote:

Atheism being edgy? A FAD?!...What a scary thought. Usually, you'll get stares if you pronounce yourself as an atheist/agnostic.


That's exactly what I thought too Apparently it isn't in my state.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/08 , edited 5/12/08

jestorebo wrote:
Glob: I have no idea why you insist upon god wanting incest. I just....have no clue. Why do you Insist on Incest Incessantly? And the rules are pretty mush laid out in the 3rd and 4th book I believe. There's a whole book of rules, so I am sure it's there somewhere. It even contains stuff like "if you borrow someone's slave on a sunday...but if it's a weekday...."-stuff.


Simple, because there is no excuse or rationalisation people can cook up since this was the "beginning" of the world and since this belief is well known, extremely few christians can claim to have not known it. Incest is also known to be a "sin" in christianity, so we have a contradiction.

If it happened, god allowed it -> god allowing incest certainity=100%. You say it got banned, when who banned it and why? This resolves into a 2 way situation

If god allowed it to happen then banned it, is he a fickle god or he had no idea what the hell was going on?
If god allowed it and didn't ban it, then who did? The devil? The church?

In no circumstances does god not allowing incest exists.

If he is a fickle god, then how can you be sure that everything the bible says is still true if it was true in the first place? He may have changed his mind, so for example all those who believes him goes to hell. Heck it may even be those with the letter "a" in their names goes to hell

If he had no idea what the hell was going on, he is not omniscient nor omnipotent.

If he didn't ban it and someone else did, those that don't do incest are going to hell for going against god's will.


jestorebo wrote:
Actually god is pretty fair about letting people sin. It might punish them, like levelling cities to the ground, or letting them burn in hell for all eternity, but god always let people sin. And knowing is not the same as allowing things to happen. I know that people will die and get raped today, that doesn't mean I am really "allowing" it to happen. As for the all-knowing god, my problem is really that I do not know where the churches all stand. The calvinists and the catholics believe in an all-knowing god I believe. But I think the gnostics don't. There is both variation among theologies of the different churches, as well as individualism. So it's not the same as your examples. There is not one christian church, and no statistics. I just don't have the necessary knowledge, and listing the different churches would be a pain too.


I like the part here he's leveling cities to the ground. I'm sure all those month old or 3 year old sinners really need to die. Nice.
Then there's the part where he lets people sin, even though he made them imperfect. Let us think of this.

Manufacturer of lightbulb builds a lightbulb that explodes 1% of the time. It also has a camera linked back to the HQ. The CEO of the company spends his time looking at people and waiting for lightbulbs to explode then executes them for their lightbulb exploding. They really should check their lightbulb every 5 seconds, so its their fault :)

If he does not know all, he cannot be omnipotent. Like i have previously pointed out, i don't need to bother with the minority. What do you think the majority of christians believe? That god is not omniscient and/or omnipotent?


jestorebo wrote:
Actually, the point is that you can not blame the religious for you not checking for answers. Can you blame a teacher for not answering the questions you didn't ask?


Eh, i asked i received stupid answers. To structure your sentence to correctly reflect that
"Can you blame a teacher with little knowledge (even though he's a teacher) for not answering the questions you asked? "


jestorebo wrote:
If it's written down, we can check the validity. The age, the language it is written in, where it was found, etc. This is usually what one gets. I think Paul is pretty verified. Personally I don't think he belongs in NT, but there you go. Other than that it is pretty unverified I think. One knows some of the churches' "translations" and editing, when one has another source. that's pretty much it.


Let us assume genesis is false . So god did not create the world. Adam and eve did not exist. Reference these back to the other writings whats the result? Then since doubt is thrown onto 1 part of a whole, the whole is in doubt.
Let us then apply the following to all the others

You said it can be checked as written in year X at location Y. But can it be verified it was written by Z?
Lets assume so. Then can it be confirmed that Z has a editic memory or a microphone and recorder or he had a book in had recording every single thing and word as it happened?
Lets assume he had a compact recorder. Can ie be confirmed that it was not biased or exagerrated in any way?
Lets assume it was not biased nor exagerrated. Can it confirmed that no additional editions happened.

Whats the result?
568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Behide my compute...
Offline
Posted 5/12/08
In my opinion people should be able to believe in what they want to. If they want to believe in god then so be it. If they want to be Atheists then let them. But somehow these two sides can never leave each other alone.
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/08
Well, the only command God told Adam and Eve was do not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And they did, that was the first sin. God never told them that they couldn't repopulate with their siblings in the beginning. When the world was populated, God laid the rules down for incest and other forms of sexual immorality. God can do whatever He wants.

You completely rule out the option that God told Moses the creation story in full, I mean, Moses did talk to God on mount Sinai. But your logic is great for science. It is widely believed and taught in school as fact, that the world was created by a big bang of matter that later formed galaxies, planets, and then life. Now, no one was there in the beginning, and there is no physical evidence or proof (now I am probably going to get a bunch of wiki or biased links....) Science can check and say that the big bang happened and that the earth formed in X year, at Y surroundings and circumstances. And it was all put together and said as fact by Z scientist who doesn't understand the world. What is the result? Biased scientific propaganda ftw ^_^
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/12/08

digs wrote:

wiki or biased links....) Science can check and say that the big bang happened and that the earth formed in X year, at Y surroundings and circumstances. And it was all put together and said as fact by Z scientist who doesn't understand the world. What is the result? Biased scientific propaganda ftw ^_^


you need to back up your statements or the one who sounds like he was fed dogma and propaganda is you.
nice try with the 'this link is biased' but that does not work with everyone.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/12/08

blablabla9876 wrote:


le1chi wrote:

Atheism being edgy? A FAD?!...What a scary thought. Usually, you'll get stares if you pronounce yourself as an atheist/agnostic.


That's exactly what I thought too Apparently it isn't in my state.


Move to New York City. Atheists are EVERYWHERE where I live (the village because I am a student at NYU).
Scientist Moderator
digs 
48106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/08
Mine is the Bible, I guess I can post a link to the creation story. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201;&version=31;
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 5/12/08

digs wrote:

Mine is the Bible, I guess I can post a link to the creation story. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201;&version=31;


Who says the bible is reliable? It is certainly not more reliable than scientific evidence .
Posted 5/12/08 , edited 5/12/08
Well, people as beings are just flawed. You can say that you are believing in some ideology, but will you consequently follow it? There are situations where even your ideology has no ''rights'', or will just simply be ignored. Also do we need to know that a lot of people don't really understand the meaning of such words as Atheism/Agnosticism, a lot of them just red maybe an article about this, and liked it, so the next day they claim to be Atheists or Agnostics, or w/e, without knowing what the real meaning of this words are. De facto there are a lot of people who don't care about the real meaning of something, they don't care about the depth of a certain philosophy or ideology, well at least the most don't, they just look at it from the surface and use it to label things or other people.

Coming back to the fact that you can claim that you are a Christian, well does that make you a good Christian? Not really, or now does it? You can know the Bible by heart, and claim to be a Christian..does that make you a ''good'' Christian? No. Now, for example same goes with Atheists/Agnostics...If you would be really able to follow this ideologies or life philosophies word by word, then that would mean that you must somehow lack the ability of having strong emotions, emotions which make you break the laws, emotions that sometimes can't be controlled, or think 100% rational, which is just impossible, as I said human beings are flawed.
Lets say that you are following a dogma, where it says that you should not kill as it is a sin, and even your morals are set like that, you think that you are unable to really harm a person...but then there you get into an extreme situation and you start to question your morals, as your morals are in the way to survive...well this is an extreme case in an extreme situation..., but this was just to show that our thinking and acting is flawed and that even tiny details may make this flaws of ours show up. This is just to say that we set our morals and the change them in a subjective way...I mean to say that we change things the way so that it will bring us profit, it doesn't matter what it is...

In every sect, every group etc are people who act against their morals, dogmas or ideologies, and this is mostly not the ideology's fault, it is the people's fault who can't restrain their bad habits that much.
Calling 90% of atheists and agnostics, or any combinations of this two, idiots is a bit harsh, but then again I don't care that much about this....w/e floats your boat

Floetry~
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M
Offline
Posted 5/12/08 , edited 5/12/08

digs wrote:Well, the only command God told Adam and Eve was do not eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And they did, that was the first sin. God never told them that they couldn't repopulate with their siblings in the beginning. When the world was populated, God laid the rules down for incest and other forms of sexual immorality.


Now assuming god is not all knowing, what you're saying is that god let then commit incest even though later he said it was a sin. So he purposedly let them sin and continue sinning, without stopping them, for quite a while since populating the world would take quite a number of people. Now christ died for your sins but god let them sin, so christ died because god led to it. Interesting

Now assuming god is all knowing, what you're saying is that god knew they would eat the fruit, knew that they would commit incest later yet purposely told them they could not eat the fruit and let them commit incest. So god actually wanted people to
i) do exactly the reverse of what he said
ii) go commit incest


digs wrote: God can do whatever He wants.


Yeah so the bible is completely worthless since he could have changed his mind on stuff eh?


digs You completely rule out the option that God told Moses the creation story in full, I mean, Moses did talk to God on mount Sinai.


Eh? I was working on the premise that the christian creation story was correct and incorrect seperately. The first portion is when genesis is correct. The second portion is when genesis is fake. you really should work on reading the whole thing


digs
But your logic is great for science. It is widely believed and taught in school as fact, that the world was created by a big bang of matter that later formed galaxies, planets, and then life. Now, no one was there in the beginning, and there is no physical evidence or proof (now I am probably going to get a bunch of wiki or biased links....) Science can check and say that the big bang happened and that the earth formed in X year, at Y surroundings and circumstances. And it was all put together and said as fact by Z scientist who doesn't understand the world. What is the result? Biased scientific propaganda ftw ^_^


You sure? Science theorizes, it does not hold as fact the big bang occured. You seriously need to read on how a hypothesis is supported.

Here's the difference between it as religion. A theory is tested against measured data and stands until something is shown that it is wrong then it is reworked or alternates are presented.

But this poor attempt at deflection of attention on what my post was actually about, does not work.

So according to you god is a fickle being.
So is he omniscient and omnipotent?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.