Staredit Network

It's all really funny actually, math and science are concepts made up by humans also. So this pretty much destroys any argument that says god was just made up and science is made up of facts. The other funny part is the indulgences. Indulgences were sold by "corrupt" clergy members. Yet they sold indulgences for money. Money is an object that was used for trading and large amounts of it would probably improve your daily life. So that pretty much means that priests wanted money for the real world, and got it for making up that god would forgive anyone that slapped some moola in the priest's hands. Put the pieces together.

Christians believe in god and tell other religions that their god is false. First of all what gives them the right to say these things. What makes them think that they have the correct religions and everyone else is wrong.

Just think about that.

Errors? What Errors?

I have said time in and out the best explanations to these arguements for the last few pages, and i should probably post it again, but i wont so people can argue .
But anyway last time i checked POV's were excluded from being incorrect, which would be an error. And the defenition of an error is:

And last time i checked, we willingly acknowledge our ignorance to athiesm ways and view our way as correct. I could show you your errors, but of course you will remain blind because you feel you are aware of the doings in the world, and your mind is made up.

One thing i want to say is, taking an affirmative stand such as Cheeze or Millenium means you are throwing yourself into this league, or side of a conflict or event. You both obviously support your side of opposition and you can't prove to the other what is "truth" because we don't know truth. But of course only a neutral or an agnostic standpoint would say this because this person feels obligated to take his or her stand as an intermediatry. So basically I'm saying based on your standpoint you will always think and feel as you do, until you yourself choose where to stand. The only thing about this I don't like is that some people have 1 or 2 things happen to them in their life, and suddenly they are pushed over the edge of the influencial bar and pass into one of these sections. It's a combonation of stacking influence and then a large push to take you over the edge of the viewpoint ridge. Neither of you probably CHOSE where you are because you refuse knowledge of the opposing side, or you feel you already know what offers the other side of the Hill has. I hate both of these points, and lots of people have them, this is what drove me to be at the neutral standpoint, to take in Knowledge of both and eventually choose my beliefs based on the truth we already have.(This is for anyone who couldn't figure out my reasons since someone was complaining about it, i forgot who) That's all for that.

Now, you shall see some people on the attacking standpoint, and some on the defence standpoint, and some others that are in a spectator standpoint. Let's put this into a School Metaphor for better understanding(and i wanna waste time )

School Hotshot and Egotistical Leader:
This would be the guy who is the attacker. Waits for many people who are not on his side to make small slip ups and expose them to make them look foolish or to try and boast their popularity and recruit people to their side.

The Quiet and Confident Kid:
The Reciever of attacks from the attacker. He/She worries about making the slightest slip-up for an attacker to use as a weapon. Doesn't see the need to acquire help, acquiantance, or popularity through attacking others. Eventually to survive is pushed into becoming an attacker and loses his individuality that makes him calm and collective. To survive must usually rely on the attacker's pattern of attack or allow the attacker to win.

The Spectator:
The guy that just watches the conflicts and events happening between attackers and recievers. Takes his own standpoint in his mind and won't come out with his views into reality unless it is needed to restore some sort of balance or safety to the conflict and event. Takes in both sides of a situation and makes the most reasonable answers on the issue as his own standpoint.

The attacker will always attack, the spectator will always watch, but the reciever of the attacks is likely to revolt or surrender. In which case the receiver stands the least chance of survival. And should the reciever take the long way out, or the way of counter-attacking, you will have only created another attacker.

The Spectator is important because the truth lies within this person most of the time. While other people waste time with bickering and arguing, he has combined facts and belief to come out with a most reasonable answer, and is the best likely to survive as long as he doesnt take a real standpoint.

The attacker 1 thing seperating him from the others, determination and faith in what he is doing. Who he is in being an attacker, this doesn't mean he is ignorant or arrogant, just that his beliefs are as strong as the quiet kid's, he will throw himself into his beliefs carry out his task(usually to embarass or smirf someone) until he feels complete. Usually is stoppable by the spectator's truth and facts, but not always, he is usually easily slowed down.

Now the mix of these 3 groups are their amount of faith or belief they are putting into what their standpoint is. An Aggressive attacker is usually never unstoppable until removed from the situation. A clueless spectator usually can't help any side sense he takes little attention and has little truth. A Defensive and strong confident Kid(reciever) is usually unmovable from his standpoint. Though he is not guaranteed to be able to standup to any attacker, his beliefs affirm his actions.

If you don't understand what this has to do with this thread re-read it, or ask for a better explanation(which would make my metaphors pointless ). These are the facts of the situation, and no matter what this is how it will comeout, no real solution, just the original facts that were there before. And think about this...
We are not proving anything does or does not exist, we are convincing, which in itself is against many constitutional laws, but the government doesn't adress it, they're busy taking Arabian homes and hotels for money.

Exactly, ignorance is bliss. I could show you them if you (not you specifically, but in general) are willing to post your exactly beliefs on this subject.


Incorrect. If there is sufficient evidence to back up the god claim, I will openly accept the existance of god; however, I will never accept a religion because I beleive religion is foolish.


The answer is simple, they know they're right. The irony is so do the other religions.

I think we have a small misunderstanding whenever I use the word proof:

"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."
-Dictionary

When I say proof, I don't mean undeniable proof. I just mean exactly what that definition says. Burden of proof is proof because it compels me to make an assertion that the bible is wrong. (If you want to be a PoV smart ass, everything is proof) And the religious side can't really use anything right now as proof, except for faith. Which again isn't proof.
Now the only 2 major defences they got left is:

A - We're no different from you

B - You can't undeniably prove you're right

That's about all they really got left. People please, tell me whatever major ones I've left out.

That school thing was seriously a good metaphor Td. But it still doesn't mean we can't find an answer.

I too was speaking in generalism(it sounded as if i was adressing 1 person)

I too don't accept many religons, tho the morals and purpose of their teachings are usually acceptable, themeans of which they formed and what their goals are, usually are quite negative. But in my view that's is MOST religons not all, or religon as a whole. Religon as a whole is simply divided in my view, for you have known groups who really don't know what they do(Cathlics...) and you have others who have a good understanding of their beliefs(Muslims, Buddhists, Jehovah's witnesses which are different from your average christian).

Very correct, the irony is the fact that their faith is one sided, on certain cases as you said they will contradict into a pointless belief, ending in conflict and/or war. But i don't think this of all religons, just the ones making the others look foolish. I don't believe 1 bad apple can decay the rest, i think it'll only decay the ones close to them and that remained unpicked from the tree or market.

I see how you think a little bit clearer now Cheeze. Your appearance before was a devout disbeliever in god, but now it looks like your disbelief in with religon. Which is very common and actually a majority of thought and opinion. For the reasons You, and I have stated religon has many corrupted forms and principles. Not much you can do about it really.

Only most other religions don't conquer you with hordes, claim you are a devil, and burn you at the stake if you say "I'm not religious."

Yea, those people were mainly those zealous fundamentalists. TOday, most christians shouldnt be like that... i hoope

I'm hearing no defence from the religious side right now. Starting to think they got little defence left. (If not, any)

I don't have much to say expect that others need to read your latest posts and then peek at your post count.

Hm...I just wanted to add a small comment I thought of before this topic died altogether...

I thought about how people argue... and its kinda like when people edit writing(Im a writer so this is just looking at it as how I can relate to it). When one edits writing, they look it over first, and read through the whole thing. Since they aren't familiar with the writing, the concept, the idea its trying to display, the message its sending out, the arguement its making, or simply even the words and sentences(spelling and grammer errors =P), they are more likely to see gaps, holes, places that don't make sense, and stuff that should otherwise have been corrected, but could not have been because the author looked it over. Well, the way I see it, athiests seem to like pointing holes in religion because they arent familiar with religious ways of thinking(believing in God, all that stuff), so they look at it in another way, which points out errors as seen from that perspective. Its kinda like what I posted an example I posted in another topic...

From the Topic "What is real?":



What I'm trying to say is that, when more people see something in one type of way, or in similar ways, they tend to accept it more as what is, and take the other possibilies and consider them to be what isn't. Someone told me a while ago that around 60% of the population of earth is athiest. I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then proof doesn't really even matter anymore, because athiests have already proved to themselves why God couldn't be real. What more people have accepted is what will continue to go on as the more common belief, and it will grow, and less and less people will believe in God. This is just simple reasoning, its not accurate, and I am not assuming myself to be correct, I can gaurentee you that, but It's still another way of looking at it...

P.S.: If this has already been stated by others, sorry, but I can't read through everything, theres not enough time for me to do so...

Dreamer, congratulations. You're acting a lot less arrogant now.

The cup thing is a good example. However, it doesn't mean we can not know the universal truth. (Universal truth is the truth not affected by PoV what so ever. Unless you actually think the universe revolves around you. Which is beyond arrogant. Like, way beyond it) Universal truth does exist, but wether we know or not, That's what is in question. The closest way to knowing that we are right on it, is combining our PoVs. Combining in your example is when they argue then show each other their proof, and then they resolve their arguement.
This whole religious thing, there is no proof to show, because it's more like we're talking about a cup that once existed. It's only in memory. And it's not even our memory in the 1st place. So the only way to resolve this right now, is to argue about the cup that exists today. God. They have said there is a handle on their cup. We have said there isn't, and we have asked them to turn the cup over and show it to us. They say they can't/won't, because it's all about faith. We ask again, same response.

I now firmly believe the religious side is either in denial, or is afraid to argue even more, because the people who say it's all about faith, ironically don't have enough faith in their own beliefs to share them with the other side. (Not hitting mill on this, cause he never said it's all about faith)

That's a bit ignorant to say, don't you think? I refuse to debate the same arguements over and over only because the names happen to change. Its a never ending struggle for who says "yes, I see but..." the most. I'm tired of it, and there are only one or two people I enjoy debating with, who seemingly dropped out of this debate long ago. It is not that I'm in denial. I'm tired of debating. Got a problem with that?

Ya, I got a problem:
Explain to me more why the cup thing is ignorant. Oh wait, I forgot. You're done debating. My bad.

So, what you're saying is....We can never find an answer to this? We're just wasting our time? Ya, for a guy that's on starcraft forums looking in the serious discussion section, you got a lot of room to speak when it comes to wasting time. Oh, wait. That makes you a hypocrite don't it? Unless you mean something else by it.

Like saving us OUR time by going off and argueing about another topic. Ya, that's what i think you mean. However, a lot of topics come right back down to this one. Why, if we were to resolve this one, it would help us resolve all the other ones a LOT easier. So in truth, this topic isn't wasting time at all. Which then makes me a hypocrite in the sense of the serious discussion forum wasting time. And if you take that as true, then you're wrong by implying that we're wasting our time.

Now, if you're gonna say you're done debating: don't state something new, THEN say you're done debating. That's just kinda closed minded. Ain't it?

That's the problem; there is no way to resolve this problem. It is "well I think" against "well I think" and I never said the cup was ignorant. I said the fact that you were calling us religous people that we are in denial, or we have given up. To be perfectly honest, I'm not strong in my faith right now, and so I try to stear clear. However, putting words in my mouth isn't going to do much for me.

I was calling you ignorant; I used a bible verse above to explain why I for one stopped debating. Ya'll won't listen, and the fact that you didn't even notice it is proof enough that I was right.

Achk, I have to go get ready. later.

Didn't notice your verse? Did you notice my REPLY to your verse? Or the reply right above yours right now? Which indirectly went against it. It kinda helps shows your either in denial or just didn't read what I said.

BTW - I love how you're acting so dismissive. (Only said that because you called me ignorant. Push me and I push back)

I'm still standing here calling out the religious side to state why their religious. Atheists have done it through the entire forum. Now I want to hear from the religious side. I want to know exactly why they're religious. (I have a pretty good idea why, but I want to be 100% sure)

Religious people are religious because they are afraid of death. A lot of them don't know they are. But why else would a person be religious, if not for immortality?

Burning in hell and suffering forever?

Logic > Suffering

Well then, I suppose I should step back. I'm not very religous in anything I do.

Anyways, I was a christian because all the cool kids were doing it. Peer pressure is 73h r0xx0rz

ADDITION:
Sorry, I missed your comment to my verse. A reply usually implies there is some sort of inference to which you are replying to. I had no way to tell that you quoting Leif was directed at me, and none of it seemed to apply to what I had said.

This is really a losing battle. That's all I said. Or, if I didn't, that's what I meant to say.

It's ok, I accept your apology. Takes a lot more guts admiting you're wrong than it does admiting you're right. We all know how bad of an ego basher it can be. I too must apologize for kinda starting that whole arguement between you and I. Sorry.

fair go. Now, if as you claim this is a one sided battle, should I close this thread? Or is there still life to it

Give it some more time. I think the religious side is offline or something right now. I'm pretty sure my side is right, but I'm also pretty sure it has some flaws in it, and I want the religious to point them out to me. (Hoping that they can)

Ain't it the truth.



Yes, well, until that happens, I suppose it would do us some good to try out the religious point of view also, so I'm gonna go ahead and see if I can try and defend the believers. So....here we are again, trying to prove God is real. Except this time, an Athiest is doing it.

Btw, just to make sure this stays cleared up, I'm not trying to prove that the christian or catholic or any specific God is real, I'm just trying to prove that God is real.

Hmm...well, one cannot deny the fact that there have been quite a few religions based on the concept of one single God, right? So there must be some form of God out there, right? I mean, If you take my example from before, even if there may not be proof behind it, many people still believe in a single God, even if in different ways... And not to mention that Islam and Judiasm were spawned in 2 completely different areas, yet they both focus on a single God. Christianity, I will simply call a deviation from Judiasm, because thats what facts seem to present to me(This part is unconfirmed, if anyone wants to add commentary to this, go right on ahead). Then comes the part where certain "Prophets" brought about these religions. Islamic religion seems to have the best hold on the topic of Prophets, So ill just quote em:



Yeah, so, quite a list, eh? Well, now that I've gone through that, theres on last thing I would like to address. All these Prophets seemed to have the same base idea in mind(One God), even if there may have been some slight differences in their teachings. So what could have possibly given them this idea? I understand that wild mushrooms can do some wierd ass things to a dude's brain, but honestly, you don't think all these people were mushroom eaters, do you??? Hell, Islam was started in the desert! Do they even have mushrooms there? Well, there may have been enough humditiy to cause them to hallucinate. That still does not mean that they would hallucinate to see the God the others have aparently seen. Though this one thing cannot be explained by means of myself and the knowledge I posses, I can assure you that it is quite possible that something linked all of these prophets and their ideals in one way or another.

Ok, phew. Whoa, do you know how hard it is for an athiest to go religious? I'm worn out! Anyway, I hope this provides a little bit of material for us athiests to ramble upon again Have fun, and no holy wars while I'm gone, k?

ADDITION:
Oh, and also...



Thanks. I think I was just really pissed or something(It's not like me anyway) when I wrote that...I dunno. Anyway, I'll try and be a bit for humble.

The religous side doesn't have any constant debaters except for MA. Which only shows a SEN shortage of intelects, debaters, readers of the serious forum, on the side of religous peoples. And I've said 4 times why you won't see an assaultive or provoking arguement from a religous standpoint on this thread. You'd have more luck talking to a real Christian, one who chooses to be of his own will, rather then anyone posting in this thread. In short, Many people who are against god point fingers at the ones who are forced to bare proof(notice this was done with witch trials, and early European law systems) after providing some very obvious evidence. But the religous side, or the side being pointed at is forced to try and prove what they believe in, and people never want to believe it cuz it's not factual, physical, or literal at times. This type of arguement can be copy and pasted to many different things in the history of Humans, only after a negative(always a negative almost) outcome was resolved and time passed over did humans realize the solution, which usually wasn't any sort of solution or ending factor, they used the knowledge they already had and called it "truth" of the matter. That was all they could do, then they decided what about the truth or factors was acceptable and humans would learn to live with it.(ex: Crusades, Witch Trials, American Civil War, French Civil War, the list goes on)

Not to be rude tho this comment is rude, but some of the people on this thread remind me of situations kids have in life, at home, in school, or in their mind. Having something pressuring them into belief of something. This basically is all this thread is doing on either side of the situation. One kid believes in bad luck, another tells him that there is no such thing it's all just coincidence, it's not possible. Now based on our "truth" of the world we don't believe as a society or portion that bad luck is an actual "thing". But of course this would be another intangible thing that you can't prove, it's just a matter of how much belief you put into it from your standpoint. How many colors in a rainbow? How do we know we've seen the only rainbow? our world could be limited to colors that we can't imagine because memory is based on experience and physical action, and memory is based on something that was fact... Oh we have come to a contradiction, it was said that Faith in god is only a memory, but now we come across how memory is based on fact and experience...

Well anyway, I'm just trying to prove that the more you attack religon the less they will respond to you, their only fact, or physical proof would be their proof of their historical events(bible, Quran, other books....) So if you're going to say these physcial pieces of evidence are invalid, they must now rely on your world, or side of opinion, to prove their point. That's like taking away research and learning, and making someone prove the evolution theory.

Also if you stop pouncing at the otherside they may feel comfortable enough to give you a response, but i think I gave something to go for a few posts
(Btw let's try and set a posting goal)