Christians Are Fools

Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by RETSoldja, Dec 20, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    well, it's no secret that evolution is wrong and stupid. It's the most dangerous religion in the world. Many people know this, except the ones kept in the dark. It does not take a great amount of thought to see how the theory only exist on paper. Thing is, it's your religion and you are dogmatic about it. So, to you it happens in your mind and you know it...

    Link me some evidence, post it up here. If I passed up on some I did not mean to do so bro. Start a new thread with it, if you are brave enough or if you are confident it will hold the Christian rebuttals. I have not see any pro evolution threads...I wonder why ? It's the truth, right ?


    nope.

    Great Granpa was not a rock.
    test
  2. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    it's because the real truth doesn't have to be mindlessly professed, we don't have to convince anyone of it, but for some reason, people like you get faith locked and bible bound, and start denying it...and it's up to the pragmatic to turn you idiots around...

    i'm not going to waste my time by posting the same shit that's already been posted, and have you redundantly ignore it, how about you just go look through the archives

    ice tubes
    vestigial organs
    gravity and the supposed order of the universe
    birds from dinosaurs
    elements in labs being made under star conditions
    the ability for us to see the light from an occurring supernova when it is farther than 6000 light years away

    the list goes on and on fag
    test
  3. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    ice tubes
    vestigial organs
    gravity and the supposed order of the universe
    birds from dinosaurs
    elements in labs being made under star conditions
    the ability for us to see the light from an occurring supernova when it is farther than 6000 light years away


    expect a thread...and be ready to look stupid...
    test
  4. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    all in all. IMO of coursed it's biased. but I have a strong inclination to believe the atheist hasn't been able to disprove god. not once. but the theist has proven time and time again that there is a god. the atheist of course doesn't recognize it, but instead they get angry at the claims and call names..

    could it be that the flesh hates god.. and that since they have no relationship with the spirit they are easily influenced by the flesh?(worldly knowledge)

    i mean all in all.. theism has been around a lot longer then athesim
    test
  5. MissAndrya

    MissAndrya Evolution is what is.

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2011
    Messages:
    5,052
    In my estimation, athiests aren't trying to disprove God, they are trying to get theists to PROVE him. Big difference. Scripture isn't proof, show him to me and I'll believe.
    test
  6. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I was addressing NightmareX.

    Frankly, if you so desire to avoid the dictionary definition of English words, I no longer wish to partake in any such discussion on the subject. I quite clearly presented how atheism, by way of its own definition, can be considered a religion. If I were to acquiesce to your line of reasoning, I too would be disregarding the English language. I choose not to.

    Your example of using a homonym to argue your point is, quite frankly, nonsensical and incoherent. In no way does it refute the fact that atheism, according to its basic premise and definition, can be considered a religion.

    To once more, however, articulate my argument concisely, please see below.

    a•the•ism   [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
    noun
    1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    Observe the two fundamental words in the first definition.

    doc•trine [dok-trin]
    noun
    1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
    2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
    3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church

    The first definition, of the first fundamental point defining atheism, reveals that atheism is indeed consistent with religion.

    be•lief [bih-leef]
    noun
    1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
    2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
    3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
    4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

    An elaboration of the second fundamental point of the definition reveals that every definition of said point is directly related to religion.

    the•ism   [thee-iz-uh m]
    noun
    1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).
    2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism).

    Amazingly, it is consistent with theism, which you can agree is in accordance with religion.

    re•li•gion [ri-lij-uh n]
    noun
    1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith

    When examining the definition of religion, it is even more apparent that atheism is logically connected. Almost every definition given asserts this simple fact. Please note that “usually” indicates just that, it is not a mandatory requisition.

    Again, not every atheist will consider that they’re religious; many theists also share the same sentiments. However, the simple fact that a belief is held, a belief with the absence of irrefutable proof, lends them to being considered religious.

    In case you overlooked it previously, atheists do indeed have churches, complete with ministers permitted to perform weddings, funerals, etc. They have mass with scheduled sermons, or perhaps you’ll prefer lectures, and even choirs for their “parishioners” to partake in.
    test
  7. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    Lol. Guilty*
    test
  8. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    I am not an alias of any member on this board. No substance? I rebuke your dishonest statement, sir. Please refer to any number of my posts, which, with diligent thought, are comprised of intelligent discourse, historical fact, scientific reasoning, logical inquiry and coherency that still await indication to the contrary. Again you exhibit the same attributes I’ve already observed and noted that sully your reputation. Please reconsider your methodology and composition when replying; you’re only doing yourself an injustice.

    My observations are neither bold nor absolute but just a product of my cognizance which alerts me to what I consider to be either duplicitous behaviour, or simple lack of wherewithal to produce anything else. Not to be taken as belittling your character, perhaps you are simply not well studied in literature or scripture and/or lack the resources to engage in discourse on the subject.

    Forgive me for choosing to deny your request for evidence supporting my statement. I neither feel obligated nor have the desire to expend any more time on matters of such insignificance. Not to say you’re insignificant, but I only intend to contribute here on subject matter I consider important to benefit others and this surely does not. And I am sure, if anyone requires such evidence, a search of your past posts would produce more than enough to satisfy.

    I am unaware as to how Coup or TheBigPayback can proselytize their faith; I presume you mean advocate their faith in an attempt to proselytize or proselytize for their faith, I don’t see why they would be eager to convert their own faith but this is inconsequential. If you feel that their statements are not conducive to an academic argument, respectfully decline to engage in discussions or advise of their lack of articulation or data to support said claim, or that you simply interpret the data differently (it is not considered impolite, I would imagine, to refrain from posting at all). Rhetoric, insult, unsubstantiated claims and the like, do you, the other parties and the topic being discussed an injustice. It is worth noting, however, that scripture can be, and invariably is, debated at length. It is somewhat usual though that those not well studied or with a predilection to demeaning scripture exhibit similar behaviour to yours.

    Your propensity for hostility speaks volumes, sir, I can only pray you overcome such temptation and instead prosper in humility and kindness. I am frankly surprised at your “Asantaist” analogy, it is quite remarkable. We’re already discussing “atheists” and “theists”. This already debunks such a flawed analogy, I really have no further input regarding this and am beginning to reconsider my initial impressions. Being an atheist need not be a predictor to anything thereafter to enable consideration of said atheist being religious. It is simply not necessary. The irony of your last paragraph is that the axiom here is atheism, in and of itself, can be religious. I don’t believe anybody is trying to elevate atheism above what it is; the doctrine or belief that there is no God, to me is undeserving and abhorrent.

    You need not apologize to me, sir. I take no offense whatsoever. I pray you find it within yourself to be more understanding and learn to embrace humility and kindness above pride and anger. I would like to apologize if any statements I have made provoke any such emotion or reaction. I only aim to identify grievance and/or misrepresentation and instead provide clarity.
    test
  9. lyricalpriest

    lyricalpriest Rap Games Dawson Creek

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2000
    Messages:
    24,093
    come on Miss- theres to much overwhelming evidence that there is something superior to our race.. It's hard to give it an identity similar to man, b/c it is super natural. IMHO it's the more intelligible and spiritual route to believe in something you can't yet define in our laws of nature.

    but that's just IT.. everyday we exhibit "faith" on all kinds of levels. from basing trust that tomorrow will come.. too having faith that if i go to college i will make something of my self..

    so why in our everyday life do we see "faith" being used. and you find it odd that some one would place faith into the holy creator?? that's sorta contradictive

    i could understand if there was no instance of "faith" in mankinds life. but that fact there is proof that we place faith into things everyday that we can't see or prove yet.

    not to mention the nature around us is reaching for god(hence tree's growing up I know thats sorta immature statement but it's how i feel), or how time exceeds us all, or how a baby is born.. we see miracles everyday and yet we refuse to give credit to whom it's due. nothing in universal law would suggest we reproduce. but we can. we've been created that way.

    Since God (of the kind to which the argument relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object, it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question.

    # The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
    # The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.

    * The hypothesis of Intelligent design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause. Its proponents are mainly Christians and Jews.

    The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God

    Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an epiphenomenon, such as Morality

    The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
    Arguments from historical events or personages

    Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties.

    Arguments grounded in personal experiences

    dogmatic definition affirms that God's existence "can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason".
    Many other Christian denominations share the view that God's existence can be demonstrated without recourse to claims of revelation.

    If God could rationally be proven, his existence would be unimportant to humans. It is because God cannot rationally be proven that his existence is important to us
    test
  10. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    wrong, for something to even be religious is requires a SET of beliefs, practices, and rituals

    I've never heard of an atheist church as you describe, maybe I'm wrong, but, yea, if so, those people are practicing an atheistic religion...but to label everyone who doesn't believe in god as people of an atheist religion is fucking redundant, just like the definition you supplied "doctrine or belief" is idiotic because a doctrine is a set of beliefs being taught

    my use of an analogy using an homonym was a purposeful display of how ridiculous it is to label everyone who happens to have the same thought as one group with the same exact set of beliefs

    if this is true, then, because I hold to the teachings of jesus, but think the biblical account of him is mostly garbage, and don't really care if it was even jesus that taught them, i guess i would be considered christian
    test
  11. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Please pay close attention to what I have previously said and the definitions quoted. By using valid syllogistic reasoning it is most apparent that atheism can be considered a religion, thus atheists religious.

    Barbara AAA 1

    All beliefs (or lack of) in God establish further beliefs pertaining to our existence which constitutes a religion. (Major premise)

    Atheism presents a belief that God doesn’t exist which establishes further beliefs pertaining to our existence. (Minor premise)

    Therefore, atheism can be considered a religion. (Conclusion)

    I chose to exhibit a rather basic form of deductive reasoning for easier comprehension.

    However, I am already chastising myself, not to mention feel rather convicted, for having indulged in this frivolous debate for as long as I already have and am unwilling to continue.
    I will of course respectfully disagree with you and absquatulate from this debate. If you feel shortchanged, however, I will endeavour to rectify your grievance.

    On another note, albeit wholly unrelated, may I inquire as to your opinion regarding the authenticity of the Biblical account of Jesus?
    test
  12. TheBigPayback

    TheBigPayback God Particle

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    Messages:
    11,469
    test
  13. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    If he existed at all as a man (highly debatable, but not relevant), there is not nearly enough extra biblical text (see: none) that supports the bibles account of him. That is, there is nothing outside of the gospels to show the man as a miracle worker who rose from the dead. There are NO contemporary accounts of Jesus' life not even enemy attestation. You would expect for such a polarizing political figure (what he would have been in actuality, first and foremost), to have different members of the Jewish temple write something along the lines of "Man....this guy Jesus. He's fuckin my whole shit up! I hate that guy". But there is nothing of the sort. Details of the life of Jesus as told in the bible are inaccurate from top to bottom (ie. two thieves were crucified with him, even though theft was not a capital offense under Jewish or Roman law).

    You seem quite a bit more knowledgeable than these other douche bags so I'm interested in what you have on the subject.
    test
  14. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    Keyword, CAN, i understand your reasoning completely and agree that through a stretch of deductive reasoning, you CAN considered ALL atheists to be practicing a religion

    but SHOULD you? No
    Unless they are actually practicing an atheist religion, and adhering to that doctrine's beliefS, see that pluralization there?
    just because someone doesn't believe in god does not definitively make them of a religion

    Your deduction are sound though, in that they CAN be called religious, but only by idiots and charletons...by using this same deduction...

    All native Italians are European...
    All Europeans are Earthlings
    therefore all Earthlings are Italian

    understand now?

    the contradictions, hypocrisy, bragging, exaggerating and "telephone game"
    Jesus taught to be good and humble, jesus did not teach creationism, did not teach the trinity, did not teach elitist exclusivism, did not teach anything remotely historical...it's about the teachings, i think jesus did exist, but I wouldn't care if there was proof he didn't, the teachings are what matter...I wouldn't care if they came from a rambling train station hobo, it's the lessons, not the history
    test
  15. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    The keyword is religion; as some would make the false assertion that atheism cannot possibly be considered as one. No such stretch of syllogistic reasoning is necessary. It would either be valid or fallacious. It happens to be valid. I would not assert that all atheists are practicing a religion; only that atheism is a religion. The former is not a prerequisite for establishing the latter.

    I would not be so prideful as to believe I am entitled to determine what ought to be. You may, rightfully, hold dear your own opinion, please refrain from telling me what I should or should not do. As was made evident in my preceding post, the requisite plurality is met by atheism. From one’s subjective position, I may be able to agree with the last sentence of your second paragraph, however, this would not detract from my argument.

    I am aware of the validity of my reasoning. What authority would you have to be asserting who should and/or would make use of such truth? If you would like to call me an idiot, by all means do so, I would strongly disagree. In any case, your example is that of syllogistic fallacy, unless of course you unintentionally transposed “Earthlings” and “Italians” in your conclusion which, if corrected, would corroborate the argument I have presented.

    I believe I am starting to understand that you may well agree with the truth of the matter, albeit unwillingly. In any case, however disinclined you may be I believe I share the same reluctance, if not more, to post on this subject again. I would conclude that I have presented enough evidence to support my argument, and that any person with objective interest in the debate would share my sentiment.

    I was inquiring as to your opinion regarding the Biblical account of Jesus not the interpretations or actions individuals may espouse which you may quite rightly resent. I applaud your understanding of what He did or did not teach. (More than “good and humble” he emphasized the importance of love and forgiveness. A Moslem executing an honour killing may believe he is doing “good” for example. Being good can be contextual in a self-defeating manner.) However, in an attempt to not appear condescending, I would only ask that you not let Christians turn you away from Christ. Not assuming that you have not already read the Bible, if you would try reading it with a very simplistic view, it may present differently. Perhaps a complex teaching is not the intent, in which case a complex understanding is not necessary.

    It is worth reiterating what you briefly mentioned: We would all be well served exercising a little more humility than that which we may otherwise be used to.

    test
  16. breathlesss

    breathlesss Registered Sex Offender

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,600
    your deduction...

    Atheists do not believe in god
    Not believing in god is a belief
    A set of beliefs is a religion
    this makes atheism a religion...?


    All native Italians are European...
    All Europeans are Earthlings
    therefore all Earthlings are Italian

    No transposing, just more ignorance on your part, i'm pretty sure you're coup's faggot twin

    for me to say how a word SHOULD be properly used...and you to take that as controlling or offensive, whatever...
    hey, you should not call the grass a rodent
    you should not snort salt
    it's commonsense
    test
  17. eashaya

    eashaya seer

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Again, please pay close attention, your comprehension seems to be lacking.

    My example of valid syllogistic reasoning, which you somehow fail to comprehend and completely misunderstand, evidenced by your last post, is in stark contrast to your counter-example of syllogistic fallacy. If I have displayed any such ignorance, I believe it would only pertain to your motives, objectives and/or capacity to reason. I pray I may be more knowledgeable in the future. And, despite the irrelevance of your attempted insults, your assumptions of who my sibling is and what my sexual orientation may be are both incorrect.

    Lets have another look at my rather simple example of valid syllogism:

    All beliefs (or lack of) in God establish further beliefs pertaining to our existence which constitutes a religion. (Major premise)

    Atheism presents a belief that God doesn’t exist which establishes further beliefs pertaining to our existence. (Minor premise)

    Therefore, atheism can be considered a religion. (Conclusion)



    Your fallacious syllogism by way of illicit process:

    All native Italians are European...
    All Europeans are Earthlings
    therefore all Earthlings are Italian



    Please, present my example and your counter-example to any college professor, any senior high school mathematics teacher, perhaps even a 9th grade math student and allow them to explain the difference between valid syllogistic reasoning (my example) and a syllogistic fallacy (your remarkable counter-example).

    The minor term remains undistributed in your minor premise yet is distributed in your conclusion. It is proven false by any Earthling not Italian. I’m quite surprised that you are unaware of this, or would you be deliberately misrepresenting? I’ll leave that question for others to answer themselves. To be considered valid, the conclusion would read:

    ∴ All Italians are Earthlings.


    Your logical fallacy is akin to:

    All asses are mammals
    All mammals are animals
    Therefore, all animals are asses



    As much as I would rather not have responded, I would much rather not have your misrepresentations remain, free of correction, allowing them to misguide others.
    test
  18. NightmareEx

    NightmareEx The Beast

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    5,134
    Jesus Christ...are we still "debating" whether atheism is more than "a lack of belief in god"?? Stop applying erroneous things onto something so that it drops down to your level (which is why you bother calling atheism a religion in the first place, don't think you're slick).
    test
  19. Coup d'état

    Coup d'état Don't believe the hype

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,096
    You have to believe there is no God. Atheism is a religion. Christ is not, rather he is Truth. If you were not ignorant about the creation you would see this...

    For had Ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if Ye believe not the writings, who shall Ye believe my words ? John 5:46-47

    Moses edited together Genesis from 10 first hand accounts of the Creation of God. Learn it.

    **

    Muse, means to think. Amuse means not to think. Theist is a belief in God, Atheist is a non belief. That "A" says a lot about you.

    You are an:

    Amusing Atheist,

    you should go to an Amusement park and not think, rather just feed the flesh more, evolution in process: dumbing down. But aren't we to become gods ?

    Up is down, down is up in the secular world.


    .
    test
  20. Jay Bee

    Jay Bee Boricua

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,596
    coup and E are the same person...
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)