Staredit Network

I've always thought a major apocolpse thingy sounds awesome.

Human's have already destroyed this world anyway, what's the point?

We're in the process of destroying it, we haven't completely destroyed it.... yet

Sorry, this sense of evolutions isn't used that way. When the environment that surrounds us changes, we addapt thus evolving. If the changes are major then the evolving steps taken could be noticable (morphological mutation aspects).
Good evolutions are the ones that keep your species alive and bad addaption ones are the ones that lead that diverting species path into oblivion. Not due to society as you tried to infer.

So it's sin for me to act human? That's a new one.
If that was that way, God/whatever would created us differently since we had feelings even when inside Eden (Adam felt incomplete without Eve, for mere instance). Your point still doesn't stick.

-----------
Getting back on topic, the morality of the religion you profess dictates your stances upon God/whatever deity you pray for. Not the higher entity itself.

I'm not. In fact, I try to make as few assumptions based on human morality or interpretation as possible. As was mentioned ealier, you're making a logical fallacy called Burden of Proof. It is up to you to prove your claim, not me to disprove it. You're also making a fallacious Straw Man argument by misrepresenting my argument and putting words in my mouth. I never once stated that God's creation of humanity was a bad act - all I did was ask you to provide evidence for your claim.

Who cares?

People who believe in God tend to have better morals but not all God-believers are good and not all non-believers are evil.

On what evidence do you base that claim? It just so happens that the atheists that I know are the most moral people I know. They don't justify or rationalize the commitment of immoral acts by telling themselves that they were born with sin already inside them, like it's not really their fault. They accept responsibility for their own actions. Please don't go around making unfounded claims about atheists without at least backing them up. Not much offends me, but the claim that atheists are less moral than theists just happens to be one of my pet peeves.

Well, ok, but this doesn't disprove a perfect sinless world. Perfect as in no violence/bad stuff and all that junk i mentioned on the other post. The personalities of people, not the environment. Just like Jesus was a perfect man in our far-from-perfect world.

And yes, it is. You haven't even heard of that?? That's what sin is, most people, believer or non, should at least be aware of it. But just because you know about it doesn't mean you have to believe in it.

Still bickering about how my points are weak? Then, give me some better eloquences rather than ones that really don't say much.

Fine, Noz... I'll rephrase it.
Many people who believe in God tend to have better morals.
Many people who believe in God are completely apathetic idiots.
Many atheists are geniuses.
Many atheists are criticized wrongly simply because of their belief, or as others' interpretations, the lack of it.
Happy?


If you're getting tons of replies saying that YOUR points are weak, maybe, just MAYBE, they really are.

The problem with this statement is that no matter what we say, you won't recognize them as "better eluquences".

Sorry for separating paragraphs, but to explain my PoV's better, I thought it to be better.



Since we never saw a "perfect sinless world" we can't recognize one, even if that 'slice of Heaven' was just in front of our eyes. *Hint, hint*

The surrounding environment interacts with you making you act/react differently. Therefore it's entangled with our personality, either way you put it. It just doesn't depend on your will.

As for Jesus being a perfect man, that's your own belief. Not that it's proven or something.



This one is actually funny.
1st, you say that sin is acting as regular humans, believing in your religion or not. Wich I don't. And it isn't, has I reasoned before in my posts.
2nd, then you try to shift from knowing how to identify it into not believing in it. In which we stand afterall?
Using a Nozumu's quote to wich I can rely with, to explain it better:


Can have/be moral enough without the use of any religions' referencials if I want to. I just don't have to excuse myself with that religion's model(s) as you're trying to do ("we sin because we're human").



Just hope you're refering to this last paragraph of mine, because I couldn't get any clearer on the above without paraphrasing myself.

And I did left it out 'sorta open', expecting you to pick with it. (As usual, you did.)
Let's pick marriage, for instance. In some religions polygamy (when properly refered to, it's polygyny), is tolerable and ain't a sin (read muslim for naming only one and not picking with religious sectors within the U.S.). So, why not poliandry? Answer: It's a mostly male driven society, even when considering the (religious) clerk. And not a God's/whatever will. Didn't he said man to be equal to woman in some sort of way (Adam n' Eve for one)?
Well, let's get back to religious marriage stances... and in the current Catolic practice it doesn't warrant polygamy. So as you can see, sin here is dictated by religion's model referencials and not by their God/Allah/whatever itself as you vehemently keep saying.
The religious stances in marriage/abortion/adoption come from within the guys who interpret the 'holly books' of theirs (no matter wich faith professed), not the 'Higher Entity' itself.
For example, we had misfortunes of that in the Middle Age with the poor hermeneutics interpretations that vehemently believed that the "Earth is flat". As proved already that it isn't, but in those days religious fanatics (amidst those, the Inquisition ones) clinging that there couldn't be another way. Similar worked for the Heliocentrical theory that Copernicus raised (that compromised the C.Church's Geocentrical one). That article proves my point on how strict interpretations can make a huge mess on religious views. That's what I'm saying, why trust an ol' book that hasn't been properly revised or even translated. The misshapes are bound to happen and we can't be sure if it already hasn't happened.

It works the same for religious driven dressing conducts, as for the veil (or even worse, the burka). It was layed inside the muslim referencial by Mohamed, the prophet, since he didn't want to be tempted by the beautiful women around him (some married to his close friends). Please tell me in the Quran where you see any similar passages before that.

But no matter what we can say to disprove your erroneous conclusions, that you still won't make the effort of seeing ior at least test try the other side (no D.Vader pun, please). And some of you said (in other similar 'cussing threads) I narrow mind too much... *Meh*



That previous comment almost had me goin' but this one I can't really let it slide by... *Shudders*
I'm beggining to have the urge to flame you, but I won't give you such pleasure. Especially since you're compilling flame bait for both sides, only stirring outgoing animosities. (Wich is a serious NO NO, imo.)
Define yourself or at least quit those foolish flame fest attempts, please.

That's flame? What about my other statements:


Ok, let me put it this way: none of you are actually making any progress in swaying the other side, because the other side simply views what you say as nonsense; the human mind has that, er, ability. One's beliefs really cannot determine whether that person is "good" or not. (ergo, "Many people who believe in God tend to have better morals. Many people who believe in God are completely apathetic idiots.") I've seen and heard of the actions that churches do for people and those are bona fide charity things, i.e., GOOD. I've also seen on the news what church priests do TO people, i.e., molestations. However, there are molesters who are atheists, and there are charities founded by atheists. However, if an atheist who may have been "evil" converted to Christianity by being moved by its teachings, and thus became "good", that is the best scenario. If a church priest can do things to little kids and get away with it, that's the worst scenario.

If both sides are being "baited" by my so-called flame, I'd simply say: prove me wrong; getting mad is only your own problem, whether you are atheist or otherwise. For the record, I don't go to any churches and don't believe in God, i.e., I'm an atheist. However, I do not go to Christians and attempt to prove them wrong, because we all know that "having something to believe in", or "faith", is universal, regardless of race/nationality/belief, whether it be faith in a higher being or just faith in, well, fate.

I'm not trying to sway his opinion but to widen it's tolerance level to accept other opinions... wich it seems to end always in steril ground. But it's fun to counter his faulty conclusions and I'm non-providing any other plausible reasonings (as before). It's an 'reverse burden of proof' that I'm testing myself on, actually. (And succeeding, imho.)



That's what I actually am tryin' to put in it's senses currently but it seems to thick headed for it, anyways. *Meh*
He agrees n' in the same place swirls opinions when he realizes that it goes against his creed(s). Compromising doesn't seem to be it's best quality, alas.

As for the rest of your post... well, that's the kind of religious zealotry that I usually go against. As for any extremisms as well. That's what made me reply to you in the 1st place.
A known Christian of mine died caused by it recently and I still grief her personality loss (mostly witty n' cheerful).

Well, offending anyone won't get the job done either. Besides, I was quite certain that my statements were quite unambiguous. I know why Kerry lost the election ...

Since when I offended him (especially when not returning the 'favour')? I dare you to find it.

And why the shameless thread hi-jack attempt to topic derailling? Just wondering...

ò.ô thread hijack? Can you be more specific... or accurate? Exaggerations are getting kind of confusing...

I'm sure nobody here wants to "offend" anyone else, but you're using words like "religious zealotry", "extremism", which are not exact what you'd say to applaud someone. And what's with the death link? It's got 20 pages, and even reading 5 pages into the topic I still can't figure out how she died, aside from ONE person mentioning the word "suicide". it'd be easier if you attached a link to the page that talks about the cause, if that's one of your supporting arguements.

Okay, Fredz, let's get a little closer to being back on track by tackling your claim that "Many people who believe in God have better morals". How many people? How do you define "better morals"? Until you can back up your statement, it is invalid.

Ok, I know some people who are, like, SERIOUS Chrisitians, and they're very wise.

I know some people who go to church but don't display their faith very much, and they're scum.

Faith seems to improve people more times than they degrade them, do you not agree? Remember, I'm saying this from the point of an atheist. Things just seem this way to me.

I disagree. You're inferring the actions of the majority from too small a sample. Use the qualifier "based on the people I have met" if you're going to make such a generalization. That way we know that you're not telling us that on the average theists are more moral than atheists.

I think faith neither improves nor degrades people. It's not what they believe that matters, it's how they act. Based on the people I have met, the atheists have acted much more morally (according to even the hardcore Christian view of morality) than the theists.

All respects to MilleniumArmy and others aside, let's agree on that the main religions today (i.e., Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc.) had no major effects on the actions on mankind itself (not simply individual people) except having made them slaughter each other for centuries past and likely centuries to come, if we don't get conquered by aliens before that. (Google "december 2010" and "end of the world")

Then why do you say an existance of a perfect sinless world is disproven by evolution if you don't really know what the perfect sinless world is like?

Yes it does interact with you but the way we respond to it depends on what type of personality we have. With sin implanted into ourselves, we have certain extent of temper and patience level. It all just depends on what traits you got from your parents and/or how you were raised. With a sinless personality, we wouldn't be all angry and lose control emotionally when it comes to certain events. Infact, in a perfect Sinless world, God would even prevent all these disastrous things from happening.

Not just my own belief, but like 5 million other ppl much smarter and knowledgable than you or me.


Hmmm, lemme rephrase it.

Sin is acting human. Whether you believe in it or not there's nothing we can do to coerce u to change your view. Then i brought up another point saying that just because you knew what sin was doesn't mean you think it's correct. Just like all of you atheists/agnostics/w.e. know what God is but then you dont believe in it no matter what reasonings you possess. Those two states do not contradict each other if that's what you've seemed to of interpreted. I was just a little bit surprised that you didn't know that many aspects of being human are sins.


Marriages that you make isn't sin. But if you commit adultery or divorces, that's what sin would be. It also doesn't say anywhere that Gay marriages are illegal and immoral so theoretically, it is ok for them to "bond." Speaking of the Bible, we came to believe in it because of many of the prayers we've made. Throughout the bible it mostly says "pray and you shall be answered." Most prayers i've made were eventually answered.

(your second paragraph is about Islam not christianity and so i'm not obligated to reply to it since i lack much in-depth knowledge about islam.)

But yes, i am looking at things ur way. I'm not that selfish or dumb not to. So i tried looking at things ur way but i still prefer to go by things my way.


There's a difference between tons of replies from one or two people and a ton of replies from several individuals. Im getting tons of replies from just like one or two ppl, not several. But yes, it could be possible


No, i have seen some "better" arguments.


True, we really aren't making any progress at all. So again, this will never go anywhere no matter how hard we try.

Chinese proverb: one mountain is higher than another. Naturally intelligence of the humankind will never peak (unless if you take into account my alien-doomsday link). Just because those people are smarter--defined as with higher IQ, better kindness, forgiveness, etc.--does not mean everything they say can be correct.

[Really Important Point]If you're taught something very solid since you were very young, it'll stick with you for the rest of your life, and would be impossible, or at least nearly so, to be swayed unless if presented by something even more convincing, which is ever harder as time progresses.[/Really Important Point]

Thus those "much smarter" people, while they may be smarter in general, may not be correct with God. Just because they believe it doesn't make it so; most "scholars" a few centuries back thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

it doesnt. If a person jsut became a a believer of any religeon (who is a cry baby or a weaker person who has personality sway) may "try" to become better, however, you are suppose to feel normal. If you become a Christian, you feel normal there is no "special feeling" that you feel when you become a christian. The "feelings" follow after you have the Holy Spirit in you.
A person is just a worser believer if he doesnt change (applies to girls too (duh) )

Please enlighten me in wich the following quote added in quality your previous post?

*Sigh* I rest my case.



Gee... that's a dificult one. Guess that I'll have to fetch the dic' to explain you this one...
This is extremism, from WikiPedia.org.
And religious ,zealotry from Dictionary.com.
Again, please explain to me thoroughly, where these terms are offensive.
I'm not here to applaud anyone, btw. Especially for coming up to conclusions from things that aren't so or even (logically) proven. Perhaps when agreed with someone and even in such occasions, it doesn't happen very often (as you can see for yourself).

It's memorial thread, what did you expect? Not a "dead link" as you said! And a few pages one!?! Do you have problems with reading or somethin'? We (fellas there) e-knew her n' only a few pages later in there (maybe at 9th) a close friend came to explain it with details. That friend by 'chance' also attends at the same forum as she did. He was 'dragged' by her to those forums, such as I was once (but from SC.org).
Com'on, respect at least the memory of the dead, please. *Shrugs face* Tks.



The perfect stage of evolution is when you don't change for a long period of time, read milenias, and the environment that surrounds us keeps stationary. Wich it doens't (n' won't happen) as you know. So by evo' pattern it would never occur.

Let me get it clearer... It just doesn't solely depend on your will.
And wich "disastrous things" you speak of? *Crosses fingers for it not being the (latest) natural disasters*

I was saying "your own belief" as in the religion you profess. *Sigh* Never stated or infered it was a 'one person religion', did I?

ADDITION:


Another "burden of proof" comin' up... *Shudders* be so kind to prove it, please.

As for putting agnostics and atheists in the same proverbial bag, it won't do. Simply cause, as I've dic' linked it earlier here somewhere, their beliefs differ and by that so your attempt.
And we (atheist side), may not believe in God/Higher Entity due to mere lack of evidences to support that Concept.

Just don't drop your jaw too much (aka get amazed). I don't believe sin to be acting human but instead the wrong actions you do or are about to and still fulfill'em.
The rest (as for angry, lose patience, etc.) are only gloomer aspects of our nature that we need to somewhat keep under control. Not sins itself as you excuse'em to be, under that cliché of religion referencial(s).



Did youby any chance skimmed or skip-read my point? Geez, it sure likes it.
I was picking on the different beliefs or marriage that many diverting religions (even Christian sub-branches) preach to their followers. And since those aren't spoken by God/whatever (or they would be unanimous) it just draws my point. The guys who interpret the 'holly books' are the ones whom actually choose what's best n' what's not. Again, not the Higher Whatever as you allegate.
The muslim part as just another example that I happen to know of, that shows my part a little better.

And you (Christians) believe in the Bible 'cause you want to, not that it answers your prayers. Praying to whom whatever Higher Being you choose to, solely depends on your faith.

As for homosexuals to "bond"... why not marry? Since they do a couple life similar to hetero couples do anyway. But it's progress of yours anyways.

Just as a fact clearer, I didn't called anyone such foul names. *Grins face*
Seeing both angles is what we're here for afterall ('cuss, debate n' eventually learn new possible horizons). But hey, if you don't want to change your views that's your choice n' stance. No harm done or meant (on both sides, or at least I hope so).



You're supposed to have the Holy Spirit within you, no matter what, according to Christian referencial. It may be stronger or not, depending if you're Christian or not. *Cringe*
Folks that don't even know their religions well and that come preaching about just make my day... only to make it clearer, I wasn't a worse believer when changed faiths (from Christian to agnostic) altough only afterwards it, went to become a part of a C.Chruch's choir.

I wasn't hijacking, I was referring to my statements that seemed two-sided, and your response to it, "He agrees n' in the same place swirls opinions when he realizes that it goes against his creed(s)." Kerry contradicted himself, and I wasn't trying to do that. I just have some trouble with advanced sentence structures ...

I clicked on the Extremism link you provided, and there it was... "Extremist, along with "radical", is a common term to describe those who tend to choose extreme methods, particularly violence to express their views, in an attempt to cause political or social change." Dictionary.com: "zealotry-- n : excessive intolerance of opposing views [syn: fanaticism]". These aren't exactly, ahem, nice words.

I didn't say we should applaud people, the phrasing "which are not exact what you'd say to applaud someone" should be interpreted as "which are stuff you'd say to make one feel negative".

Wasn't trying to offend any memories.

Wouldn't marriage of people with the same gender complicate this already disastrous society (assuming you live in the U.S.)? As in, change of last names, etc. I'm not against it, but I'm not for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltheism

That article has a lot of good information on past debates regarding the goodness of God. It really opens up your mind. For all you know, God could be an evil bastard that gets off on watching people kill each other over him. The Bible, Koran and Torah could all just be propaganda spread by him to make people do his bidding. Satan could be a scapegoat, a made-up entity so that people won't pay attention while he watched humanity suffer.

Personally, I don't care. It's fun to talk about these things, but the only way you'll know for sure is when you're dead and in Hell, according to thousands of years of writings by many religious scholars. Isn't that lovely?

No according to the Christian Faith. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU UNTIL YOU CONFESS AND BECOME A CHRISTAIN.
that means that you CAN control yourself to do what is right in YOUR eyes, not in the Holy Spirit's eyes. So thus you do not have the presence of the Holy Spirit unless you are Christian.
Where did you hear that everyone has the presence of the Holy Spirit? Not everyone does.