Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-20 at 00:28:53
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 19 2005, 11:20 PM)
Mill you are referring to "these" topics as a hole. Talk about THIS particular topic, that would be thx.
[right][snapback]293623[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293623[/snapback][/right]
This is no different from other god topics. I'm seeing the same stuff being said over and over again, as cheeze and some other people have said.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 00:29:34
Which is why this topic is useless?
THX BAI
THX BAI
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-20 at 00:34:09
No
Even though the topics in general all say almost the same things, i still learn more and more about the personalities and PoVs that the other side contains. The more posts that these people make, the more I get to know about them.
Even though the topics in general all say almost the same things, i still learn more and more about the personalities and PoVs that the other side contains. The more posts that these people make, the more I get to know about them.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 00:35:50
It may benefit you to read other people's POV but it doesn't outweight the bad that comes from this pointless topic.
The fact that it's old and is repeating things said before shows that people who post here aren't making any new points and are just rambling.
I would rather have you know less about people's POV rather than condone pointless topics which produce nothing intelligent or new and a possibility for flaming.
BTW, all the past posts are WAY off topic. There's no use to discuss whether it's good or bad, it's already dead.
The fact that it's old and is repeating things said before shows that people who post here aren't making any new points and are just rambling.
I would rather have you know less about people's POV rather than condone pointless topics which produce nothing intelligent or new and a possibility for flaming.
BTW, all the past posts are WAY off topic. There's no use to discuss whether it's good or bad, it's already dead.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-20 at 00:38:07
You're not learning from them, you're learning things that you didn't know about them.
Hard to explain like that, so:
You know Religious people and how they feel.
Person X comes along. You don't know what they're like.
You learn they are religious. You think you learned something new when you didn't.
Ok, I lied, you learned a boolean value. Nice. You learned true and false. You learned they are religious. You also learned that because the boolean value is true, that person is the same as you or someone else that you previously knew.
So basically, you didn't learn anything new.
Hard to explain like that, so:
You know Religious people and how they feel.
Person X comes along. You don't know what they're like.
You learn they are religious. You think you learned something new when you didn't.
Ok, I lied, you learned a boolean value. Nice. You learned true and false. You learned they are religious. You also learned that because the boolean value is true, that person is the same as you or someone else that you previously knew.
So basically, you didn't learn anything new.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-20 at 00:41:05
I got to know you ppl more, not I learned alot from you people. That's what i meant 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 00:41:31
true, but....its still useless! this topic is for people to come in and spew there beleafs about there religion and what they think about god i mean.......thats all this topic will ever be good for. that and one of the best flame fests that i will ever see!!!! but, yeah.......continue on...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-20 at 00:45:48
Alright it is useless, but IMO not 100% useless. But yes, continue on 
ADDITION:
Now that there's a Lite Discussion Forum, i believe that's the place for topics like this.
ADDITION:
Or at least more so than the Serious Discussion one
ADDITION:
Now that there's a Lite Discussion Forum, i believe that's the place for topics like this.
ADDITION:
Or at least more so than the Serious Discussion one
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tdnfthe1 on 2005-08-20 at 01:59:05
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 19 2005, 09:59 PM)
I'll put my view on what CheeZe said:
No change is useless, period. Anything you've said above saying why people gain from no change is not infact "no change" it is change, which by the way has not happened, as you have been making claims without evidence, and just saying what you believe, and not giving any objective evidence. Also you refer to other topics to prove that this topic should stay. Other topics don't matter.
Infact, the fact that there ARE other topics like this, and it has been discussed over and over and over makes this topic useless. If the same things are being discussed, people should just read the old topics, instead of causing new arguments and creating new flames, which ultimately lead to some kind of "enlightenment". The same "enlightenment" could be accomplished through reading the old topics that have been discussing this same topic.
Basically I feel that the post you quoted has little to do with your reply. You haven't addressed why discussing topics that have been talked about over and over is beneficial as opposed to just reading other topics. This may be an important topic, but it has been talked about before. I'll put it this way
[right][snapback]293592[/snapback][/right]
No change is useless, period. Anything you've said above saying why people gain from no change is not infact "no change" it is change, which by the way has not happened, as you have been making claims without evidence, and just saying what you believe, and not giving any objective evidence. Also you refer to other topics to prove that this topic should stay. Other topics don't matter.
Infact, the fact that there ARE other topics like this, and it has been discussed over and over and over makes this topic useless. If the same things are being discussed, people should just read the old topics, instead of causing new arguments and creating new flames, which ultimately lead to some kind of "enlightenment". The same "enlightenment" could be accomplished through reading the old topics that have been discussing this same topic.
Basically I feel that the post you quoted has little to do with your reply. You haven't addressed why discussing topics that have been talked about over and over is beneficial as opposed to just reading other topics. This may be an important topic, but it has been talked about before. I'll put it this way
[right][snapback]293592[/snapback][/right]
Your very first sentence there happens to be ramble. First of all, what claims? Did I claim anything? Did you even see the point I made? My points my friend, were very simple.
1)This thread doesn't need to be closed just because you feel you can't lose.
2)I wanted my question from before answered
3)There doesn't have to be change, or conclusion in an argument or discussion(this is an argument because one side is determined to prove the other wrong).
That being said the rest of your post is pointless because your at fault, because you didn't grasp the purpose of the post. It's as simple as the first sentence, "No Change is Useless
?". Before you say "That didn't answer anything!" listen please.
You don't need purpose for discussion(I stated that before) you only need conclusion if you're bent on creating and outcome. I pointed out good uses of these threads, and yes people can view the other ones, but that doesn't make this one any less worthwhile. And I wasn't using other topics as some sort of evidence(
). I believe I said:QUOTE(Tdnfthe1)
To point out previous threads, some people learned differences between agnostics and athiests. Some people learn about biblical things. Some people learn of the arguments against/with different religous gods.
I used that as PROOF OF PEOPLE LEARNING FROM THE THREADS. That was the purpose of mentioning that. Nothing more or less. My post makes sense just fine(except the ending
). QUOTE(Devilesk)
Basically I feel that the post you quoted has little to do with your reply. You haven't addressed why discussing topics that have been talked about over and over is beneficial as opposed to just reading other topics. This may be an important topic, but it has been talked about before.
This is where everything I've said over a string of 3-4 posts gets to be said physically
! Other people are experiencing this for the first time, the guy who made the thread was making this topic and takin a side that as far as I know of, was still on the brink of discussing the whole "God" thing. What wasn't right is people who have already made decisions and conclusions about it, to come in here and place your powerful influentive views onto others. And I mean people do this often(on both sides) and try to tell more then just what they believe, they try and tell others they are wrong. In a sense that what this topic is about, but to my views it shouldn't be that extreme. I think it would be fine to let other people who havn't discussed this as much as the almighty knowers of the world, and let them just learn and do things for themselves as you have. Maybe adding ur own 2 cents and such here. But to be kinda picky(like Cheeze actually) things like this arn't needed:QUOTE(Cheeze)
Basically, Kirby said:
"I don't know so god must be the answer!"
"I don't know so god must be the answer!"
Sarcastic disaproval and disregard is something I think makes the reasons why these threads get nowhere as you say in your terms. \
That sums up what I wanted to reply to, let others learn as you did and be content with watching from the side, that is my view of somewhat of a better "world". It's flawed but it's also is a solution, no solution will ever be perfect.
Saw Cheeze's Post:
Why waste my breath? Oh yeah I'm not wastin any breath
.QUOTE(Cheeze)
Ok, I read that. But I know what the situation is. See, Tdnfthe1 is a "newbie" at this whole god thing.
"Newbie" - you should go play Dota on WC3, you'd fit right in.
QUOTE(Cheeze)
He hasn't seen the more sophistcated topics on this. And if he did, he certainly hasn't been paying attention to them. The reason I say this thread is pointless is I've discussed this thing more times than you can count.
The last time this happened, the thread was ignored. I destroyed it. I explained every counter arguement to my arguement. I backed it up with evidence. I explained it with reasoning. I showed some counter-counter arguements. You know what people did?
The last time this happened, the thread was ignored. I destroyed it. I explained every counter arguement to my arguement. I backed it up with evidence. I explained it with reasoning. I showed some counter-counter arguements. You know what people did?
Ok I kinda wanted to bring this up last time you felt "all-knowing-like" but I said "meh, I'm hungry". Now I got a Cheeseburger!
1)Yeah I was partially in the other threads(observing and posting minor stuff)
2)I directed a question that was avoided for 10 pages, I didn't point it out just because, it's the same question I asked everyone 3 pages back from this one.
3)You didn't "win" the other topic because MA was the only God believer in the thread with any knowledge(to clear this up I take no stance on the subject, I await angels to destroy earth or eternal death, f.y.i.). So you claimed that there was not enough proof to prove that god is in existant in our world. I read, agreed, disagreed with your way of making it so vague and harsh, but agreed.
That being said, there was no so called "defeat" because the topic was asked to be closed. You seek something greater than your own knowledge and acknowledgement of viewpoint from your arguments, I don't know what and don't care but it's really more to you than "knowing that of yourself". In my opinion that should be all that matters to anyone.
But anyway, I recall you twisting the whole burden of proof thingamajig to your favor and saying that if believers can't provide evidence of existance, then you win and they lose. I also recall people comparing real historically known events and connecting them to how they were later brought to light by use of a "Christian" bible. You disregarded and said it can't be proven, said the records are disprovable. Then everyone argued about everything is disprovable and blah blah blah. Eventually the "christians/cathlics" stopped replying because you wouldn't take to heart the reason behind their statements and then they left. Not that there were many of them I recall. Then you deemed yourself and your athiest breathren victorious over nothing, because you only "won" a discussion, not truth. You ain't(YEAH I SAID AIN'T!) proved that God is a non-existant figure/being. You just passively forced other people into giving up, or feeling powerless to continue a discussion in opposition to you. In true fact and honesty I was impressed by how others were somehow silenced, but of course I still think you have ego problems if beating other people out of a discussion is the only thing that feeds your inner opinion. However, in all truth Cheeze, I bet you could make a great Lawyer or politician, but Lawyers and politicians don't need the truth, the just make the truth not exist then make their truth the most reasonable answer. In truth I admire your ability to do that, except for the fact that you go about it in ways I wouldn't.
QUOTE(Cheeze)
Pointless arguing.
It's only arguing when there is conflict. If there is not conflict, it is discussion.
Ok basically, the bulk of what I wanted to say in general is on the top part of my post, and the rest is just bleh, me makin a statement(just so there is no controversy on that matter). I made clear what the points of my other post was, which was the overall point of this post, so now can we stop pointing out my "flaws" or things misunderstood and you guys choose to close ur lil topic or not?
To Devilesk:
Thanks for being somewhat subtle with the critizing of my writing. The toughest part of writing anything, is making your point clear. I will use your advice and attempt to achieve more clarity with my posts.
~Tdnfthe1
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-08-20 at 10:51:40
I sense somebody will post only stuff that they think is wrong in Tdnfthe1's post (most of the non-God stuff the typed) and avoid the things they can't answer (the QUESTION!!!)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 11:03:26
QUOTE
discussing ideas that have been talked about over and over and over = useless.
Discussing ideas that have been talked about over and over and over = useless.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-08-20 at 13:26:34
QUOTE(devilesk @ Aug 20 2005, 09:03 AM)
Discussing ideas that have been talked about over and over and over = useless.
[right][snapback]293953[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]293953[/snapback][/right]
Saying this makes me a hipocrit, but, talking about things you think are useless = useless.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-20 at 13:51:47
No, because we want action taken to lock this topic.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-08-20 at 15:51:33
Then become a mod or ask for a lock
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-20 at 19:28:57
Cheeze got owned by a "newbie."
If you guys want a lock, then stop posting or just stop participating.
ADDITION:
btw cheeze, you remember this post you made some time ago?
If you guys want a lock, then stop posting or just stop participating.
ADDITION:
btw cheeze, you remember this post you made some time ago?
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Jun 21 2005, 01:09 AM)
I grow tired of this constant tug of war game. This will perhaps be my last post in such a topic but I will try to address all issues posted and all issues that could result in my replies. I may have messed up with the copying and pasting within quotes and my replies so if there’s a mistake somewhere that I did not catch, please address it before you actually reply to it. It’s required that the whole must be understood before the parts are to be addressed.
I try not to assume anything I don't need to. Remember, being an atheist does not mean one is automatically in belief of something; instead, it's the exact opposite, the lack of belief in something. I don't know if the universe always existed; but the information for that to me is as important as my broken monitor. It does not affect my life in anyway nor will it.
Religion, however, changes all of this and places a burden on your brain that requires you to think in the way of their beliefs. Why would you want to see the world through one eye when you can see through it so fully?
I see it through all perspectives; I have been a theist before. However, the beliefs in such things after learning actual logic and understanding of the world allowed me to easily conclude that the foolishness of humanity is within this idea.
Yes, bring it as much as you want, because it does not hurt my arguments. Remember, simply because we don't understand it does not mean it cannot be understood. This concept is the foundation of my beliefs. Take it to heart when arguing against it; common arguments used will easily fail simply because my belief already ignores the problem!
I only ask that you don't see this as a "religious" type of thing, I still believe in a lack of god, this belief is simply my personal view on life: we are meant to learn and expand. When we die, our knowledge is passed on to generations to come and this must expand.
No. Simply because I said it one-way does not mean the opposite answers of the opposite assumption must also be true. To keep it simple, natural means anything that doesn't go omni-like. This might be too simple so don't try to attack it.
Getting more in depth:
Natural things should be able to be observed through evidence and experiments and not relied upon heavily in faith. You may say it requires faith to use the objects; certainly this is true. I have faith that by hitting my keyboard but this is definitely a different level of faith than believing in god.
I see often that people will use one word but it gets attacked simply because that word can have multiple definitions. I ask that you guys not do this but use the correct one through context. It's not difficult, but it raises the maturity of such threads.
Correct. But what about those we cannot explain? I believe it's stupid to use something we cannot explain to explain something that we cannot explain. This is why I asked that question. For some reason, I think you are avoiding it; you've said the answer already, now ask yourself why (god)?
Perhaps another example might help. The exact cause for tornadoes is still unknown today (it's true!). However, does that mean we should look toward god as the creator of these tornadoes, or should we look at the evidence or common trends among them?
Let's say we cannot find the exact cause within our lifetime. Shall we continue with our research or to create a deity to be the cause? Of course, my beliefs are to continue with the research until every last piece of information has been exhausted. Such things will probably never happen so I could even go as far as to conclude that the creating this deity would be unnecessary since we will always try to find a the "natural" cause.
How can you have more evidence for the universe having a cause? Does my game boy have a cause too? Does air? Does water? Also, how can the Big Bang Theory support an argument, which says the universe has a cause? If anything, it supports the exact opposite since it happened by random chance! Perhaps rather than saying something is supported by something, you should also say why and how. Everything I say, I try to link them together to show the connections between each argument. This way, not only would it be easier to understand, but also be presented in a stronger fashion.
I have never said I supported the Big Bang Theory. I prefer to be skeptic of that area. Something so complicated is not for me to answer; instead, we must follow standard procedures of science experiments by allowing the people who have an expertise of that field to do research.
Nothing caused evolution; it's a common process through the interactions between an organism and its environment. I don't think you understand evolution fully. Perhaps read something about it?
Actually, we have never observed live evolution; we have plenty of fossil records to show overwhelming evidence. Microevolution has been proved; however, I see the two as exactly the same since they require the exact same conditions.
But this is far off topic, as it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, unless you are trying to turn off topic into a creation verse evolution debate? (Which has been proven to go no where because we have already concluded that creation requires faith from past debates.)
Perfection does not require complexity. I will, however, admit that perfection will probably be attained from a complex organism (such as ourselves). However, perfection will not last long because environments easily change and the generations will once again try to adapt.
Also, how did you get Man from higher animals? Do not know that evolution the path of simple to complex? Among the most basic things, you misinterpret the easiest one; I am appalled. If you had another meaning, please restate it and perhaps another person will judge it.
One thing that bothers me from your posts is why do you state arbitrary things for my replies? Perhaps if you can connect the points together, it wouldn't seem so random.
Bible is wrong not because it's by man nor god but because the "miracles" and such things described all lack evidence. Not to mention many of the events that contrary to what is shown in reality. A website said: If it's logic verse reality, reality wins".
Remember, do not try to bend reality to fit your understand; instead, you must extend your understanding to fit reality. Reality has a pattern but understanding it requires an extreme amount of scrutiny; many of which have not been done.
In one of the rare cases where the opposite is correct; science, while created by man, requires evidence to back up it's claim. Unlike many religious beliefs, things in science are always wrong until proven otherwise. This is why scientists are extremely skeptical on new ideas and such. However, every single good science articles and publication’s findings have been analyzed and confirmed by many people. This is called “peer review” which asks the science community to recreate experiments to confirm the data. Such a process is not done in the “religious science” things because they must bend the truth in order to preserve the faith of people.
However, man did not create science. Science always existed, or rather, the idea was always there, but not until recently have we "discovered" or learned them. An example: If we were to go back in time millions of years, two plus two is still four; similarly, the properties of oxygen remain the same.
What is the point in finding if all of these already exist you may ask. The answer is simple, to convert these things into things that can help with daily life and possibly in the future, to expand to other planets. Fusion reactions has been observed and confirmed to be in the core of the sun. But we do not stop there; we try to reproduce this power in order for the greater good of humanity.
Man created the procedure used to confirm the data; however, I ignored science as being created by man because that is false and I assumed that people would know that many things within it are reproducible and, thus, would be proven already to be true. A simple way to prove something is false is do the experiment and show that the data does not match.
This shows that while we did create the procedure, it has been extremely reliable because any claim can easily be falsified if it were incorrect. Religion cannot because one would simply say, “God works in mysterious ways”. This is easily an ad hoc fallacy but then it would be the theists who try to hide and not science.
Yes, the people. If the people are as blinded as I make them out to be within these threads (and countless others through other forums), then it will simply further back up my idea of religion being useless.
Christianity is exactly like many other religions except with changed names. But how it makes sense is still something I have not figured out. Have many countless logical arguments done nothing to perhaps show you the true side of an atheist? Or do you still think I’m some kind of person who will be sent to hell and anything he says is simply wrong because it’s against my beliefs.
Why do you want to go to heaven? Why do you want eternal life so badly? I think one life is more than enough to live and understand the world. Exactly what do you do in heaven? Sing to god? I think that would be quite boring!
I think people who want to go to heaven by sacrificing themselves to the lord are foolish. My belief is like this: your allegiance lies within two groups; it doesn’t have to be so strict but it will always tip one favor. The two groups are humanity and god. If given a choice, I would let humanity live and god die while many of you would not!
Sure, you could let god live so he could create more humans, but that would be lying to yourself on where your true allegiances are. I don’t like this one bit. I acknowledge that this reply to it is somewhat harsh but it is what I feel.
Another reason I see for one people want to go to heaven is because they are afraid of death. This reason’s response is a lot less harsh but it attacks some key points in a person’s life. Death scares people; whether it is a lot or little, people are afraid. I think that people created a place called “heaven” so that they would be forever alive.
This is, once again, lying to your-self on the truth. However, many years have passed since then and the idea has been deeply implemented into the brains and teachings of religion; so much that it’s impossible to escape.
My response is accepting your destiny. Do everything to make your life worthwhile in this one. How much work required in getting the “worthwhile” is completely determined by you.
This also raises the question for the morality of atheists. I actually think atheists are more moral than religious folks because they are not limited to changing decisions based on beliefs.
If this is how you perceive me to be, then all of your arguments are in vain. I conclude the idea of religion is unreasonable and retarded but certainly not god! God is fabulous idea; but to make it real is unreasonable (not retarded). The idea of certainly sped up civilization as seen in history but in our current times, a person of logic can safely assume no god is there to guide us or anything of that such.
So ends my beliefs. In summary, the foundation for my beliefs in topic here:
-Simply because one does not understand something does not mean one must create a super natural cause.
My other one has to do with free will and fate. I can show it now but I will not discuss it now.
-Our actions are determined by current conditions (which cannot change).
Our actions change future conditions, which will become current conditions as time passes.
Thus, all actions we take already have a path because the current condition will never change.
This is simply a summary; I can go into it much more if such topic does arrive but I hope it does not because it would most likely lead to another topic like this.
[right][snapback]240024[/snapback][/right]
I try not to assume anything I don't need to. Remember, being an atheist does not mean one is automatically in belief of something; instead, it's the exact opposite, the lack of belief in something. I don't know if the universe always existed; but the information for that to me is as important as my broken monitor. It does not affect my life in anyway nor will it.
Religion, however, changes all of this and places a burden on your brain that requires you to think in the way of their beliefs. Why would you want to see the world through one eye when you can see through it so fully?
I see it through all perspectives; I have been a theist before. However, the beliefs in such things after learning actual logic and understanding of the world allowed me to easily conclude that the foolishness of humanity is within this idea.
Yes, bring it as much as you want, because it does not hurt my arguments. Remember, simply because we don't understand it does not mean it cannot be understood. This concept is the foundation of my beliefs. Take it to heart when arguing against it; common arguments used will easily fail simply because my belief already ignores the problem!
I only ask that you don't see this as a "religious" type of thing, I still believe in a lack of god, this belief is simply my personal view on life: we are meant to learn and expand. When we die, our knowledge is passed on to generations to come and this must expand.
No. Simply because I said it one-way does not mean the opposite answers of the opposite assumption must also be true. To keep it simple, natural means anything that doesn't go omni-like. This might be too simple so don't try to attack it.
Getting more in depth:
Natural things should be able to be observed through evidence and experiments and not relied upon heavily in faith. You may say it requires faith to use the objects; certainly this is true. I have faith that by hitting my keyboard but this is definitely a different level of faith than believing in god.
I see often that people will use one word but it gets attacked simply because that word can have multiple definitions. I ask that you guys not do this but use the correct one through context. It's not difficult, but it raises the maturity of such threads.
Correct. But what about those we cannot explain? I believe it's stupid to use something we cannot explain to explain something that we cannot explain. This is why I asked that question. For some reason, I think you are avoiding it; you've said the answer already, now ask yourself why (god)?
Perhaps another example might help. The exact cause for tornadoes is still unknown today (it's true!). However, does that mean we should look toward god as the creator of these tornadoes, or should we look at the evidence or common trends among them?
Let's say we cannot find the exact cause within our lifetime. Shall we continue with our research or to create a deity to be the cause? Of course, my beliefs are to continue with the research until every last piece of information has been exhausted. Such things will probably never happen so I could even go as far as to conclude that the creating this deity would be unnecessary since we will always try to find a the "natural" cause.
How can you have more evidence for the universe having a cause? Does my game boy have a cause too? Does air? Does water? Also, how can the Big Bang Theory support an argument, which says the universe has a cause? If anything, it supports the exact opposite since it happened by random chance! Perhaps rather than saying something is supported by something, you should also say why and how. Everything I say, I try to link them together to show the connections between each argument. This way, not only would it be easier to understand, but also be presented in a stronger fashion.
I have never said I supported the Big Bang Theory. I prefer to be skeptic of that area. Something so complicated is not for me to answer; instead, we must follow standard procedures of science experiments by allowing the people who have an expertise of that field to do research.
Nothing caused evolution; it's a common process through the interactions between an organism and its environment. I don't think you understand evolution fully. Perhaps read something about it?
Actually, we have never observed live evolution; we have plenty of fossil records to show overwhelming evidence. Microevolution has been proved; however, I see the two as exactly the same since they require the exact same conditions.
But this is far off topic, as it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, unless you are trying to turn off topic into a creation verse evolution debate? (Which has been proven to go no where because we have already concluded that creation requires faith from past debates.)
Perfection does not require complexity. I will, however, admit that perfection will probably be attained from a complex organism (such as ourselves). However, perfection will not last long because environments easily change and the generations will once again try to adapt.
Also, how did you get Man from higher animals? Do not know that evolution the path of simple to complex? Among the most basic things, you misinterpret the easiest one; I am appalled. If you had another meaning, please restate it and perhaps another person will judge it.
One thing that bothers me from your posts is why do you state arbitrary things for my replies? Perhaps if you can connect the points together, it wouldn't seem so random.
Bible is wrong not because it's by man nor god but because the "miracles" and such things described all lack evidence. Not to mention many of the events that contrary to what is shown in reality. A website said: If it's logic verse reality, reality wins".
Remember, do not try to bend reality to fit your understand; instead, you must extend your understanding to fit reality. Reality has a pattern but understanding it requires an extreme amount of scrutiny; many of which have not been done.
In one of the rare cases where the opposite is correct; science, while created by man, requires evidence to back up it's claim. Unlike many religious beliefs, things in science are always wrong until proven otherwise. This is why scientists are extremely skeptical on new ideas and such. However, every single good science articles and publication’s findings have been analyzed and confirmed by many people. This is called “peer review” which asks the science community to recreate experiments to confirm the data. Such a process is not done in the “religious science” things because they must bend the truth in order to preserve the faith of people.
However, man did not create science. Science always existed, or rather, the idea was always there, but not until recently have we "discovered" or learned them. An example: If we were to go back in time millions of years, two plus two is still four; similarly, the properties of oxygen remain the same.
What is the point in finding if all of these already exist you may ask. The answer is simple, to convert these things into things that can help with daily life and possibly in the future, to expand to other planets. Fusion reactions has been observed and confirmed to be in the core of the sun. But we do not stop there; we try to reproduce this power in order for the greater good of humanity.
Man created the procedure used to confirm the data; however, I ignored science as being created by man because that is false and I assumed that people would know that many things within it are reproducible and, thus, would be proven already to be true. A simple way to prove something is false is do the experiment and show that the data does not match.
This shows that while we did create the procedure, it has been extremely reliable because any claim can easily be falsified if it were incorrect. Religion cannot because one would simply say, “God works in mysterious ways”. This is easily an ad hoc fallacy but then it would be the theists who try to hide and not science.
Yes, the people. If the people are as blinded as I make them out to be within these threads (and countless others through other forums), then it will simply further back up my idea of religion being useless.
Christianity is exactly like many other religions except with changed names. But how it makes sense is still something I have not figured out. Have many countless logical arguments done nothing to perhaps show you the true side of an atheist? Or do you still think I’m some kind of person who will be sent to hell and anything he says is simply wrong because it’s against my beliefs.
Why do you want to go to heaven? Why do you want eternal life so badly? I think one life is more than enough to live and understand the world. Exactly what do you do in heaven? Sing to god? I think that would be quite boring!
I think people who want to go to heaven by sacrificing themselves to the lord are foolish. My belief is like this: your allegiance lies within two groups; it doesn’t have to be so strict but it will always tip one favor. The two groups are humanity and god. If given a choice, I would let humanity live and god die while many of you would not!
Sure, you could let god live so he could create more humans, but that would be lying to yourself on where your true allegiances are. I don’t like this one bit. I acknowledge that this reply to it is somewhat harsh but it is what I feel.
Another reason I see for one people want to go to heaven is because they are afraid of death. This reason’s response is a lot less harsh but it attacks some key points in a person’s life. Death scares people; whether it is a lot or little, people are afraid. I think that people created a place called “heaven” so that they would be forever alive.
This is, once again, lying to your-self on the truth. However, many years have passed since then and the idea has been deeply implemented into the brains and teachings of religion; so much that it’s impossible to escape.
My response is accepting your destiny. Do everything to make your life worthwhile in this one. How much work required in getting the “worthwhile” is completely determined by you.
This also raises the question for the morality of atheists. I actually think atheists are more moral than religious folks because they are not limited to changing decisions based on beliefs.
If this is how you perceive me to be, then all of your arguments are in vain. I conclude the idea of religion is unreasonable and retarded but certainly not god! God is fabulous idea; but to make it real is unreasonable (not retarded). The idea of certainly sped up civilization as seen in history but in our current times, a person of logic can safely assume no god is there to guide us or anything of that such.
So ends my beliefs. In summary, the foundation for my beliefs in topic here:
-Simply because one does not understand something does not mean one must create a super natural cause.
My other one has to do with free will and fate. I can show it now but I will not discuss it now.
-Our actions are determined by current conditions (which cannot change).
Our actions change future conditions, which will become current conditions as time passes.
Thus, all actions we take already have a path because the current condition will never change.
This is simply a summary; I can go into it much more if such topic does arrive but I hope it does not because it would most likely lead to another topic like this.
[right][snapback]240024[/snapback][/right]
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-20 at 20:07:18
*EDIT*
QUOTES WEREN'T WORKING, GREEN TEXT IS QUOTE
*/EDIT*
Yeah. I sure did. Anyway, as promised for devilesk, here is my full analysis of this topic. I'm sure I'll feel bad after spending so much time writing this only for it to be locked:
This was my first reply in the thread:
There's nothing to debate about. It's nearly impossible to change someone's beliefs and the arguements people use will be the same.
Through this whole topic, I've been focused on this. I don't go off topic.
I find this totally ironic. The theists here consistantly go and spam random things. Proof?
Here:
you guys make me laugh
No one cares what it does to you. This is all still opinion. Laugh? Go ahead, but you will be the inferior person for having such ignorance on a topic. Thinking so narrowly is pathetic.
We'll see when your burning in hell and im playing Starcraft in Heaven. Yup
This is begging the question. Not only that, it is one hundred percent irrelevant to the question. I have already answered the question. What suprises me is the next reply to this. (Made by the person above)
Oh there's going to be more than just starcraft in heaven. We'll also have Starcraft 2, Starcraft 3, Starcraft 4, and everything about starcraft! xD
ADDITION:
While everyone in hell is stuck with Warcraft3
Do we care? Honestly, do you think we care? Do you think that this will change someone's mind? Logic is the best ally in any arguement. Evidence and consistancy is that. You know what contridicts evidence and consistancy? The bible. Your holy bible.
Then, Kirby comes and also says something irrelevant. He tries to justfy it by saying it "appears" to be irrelevant; later we see, there is no further reply to it. I show the failure of his reply by posting a similar one that mocks it and, if actually read, shows the error in your ways.
Post 23. Finally. Something relevant.
I think religion is just a way for them to teach you on how to be a better person. Every religious person I met is extremely well mannered and extremely nice. The bible just offers advice a such. You have to look past the flaws and look at the true meaning of what the people are tryingto tell you.
Italicized text, I agree with. Everything else, no. Reason? Because you should "look past the flaws and look at the true meaning of" non-theists also. This isn't very hard to do since you don't have to use faith. You can look at the evidence and choose your beliefs.
I would like to note (and I will keep doing so), that everything said above has been discussed in a previous topic.
Neiji tries to explain something and I ask the ultimate question, which I must add, no theist bothered to answer.
How about this; pretend god doens't exist.
How is your life different?
Seriously. If you can tell me a difference, please do so. I will try to explain, in every possible way, that the difference will have zero impact on your life.
This is from a few posts back, but the people picking on 1 or two posts to try and completely pick on RELIGON in general need to stop. This is YOUR perception on the whole "god thing". No, not god, this is your preception on christianity, or cathlism(spelled that wrong) or watevr else uses that burn in hell blam.
I hate religion. That is the truth. That is the absolute truth. Does that mean I hate god? No, it does not. In fact, if you can show me proof that god exists, then I will believe in god. I will never, however, choose a religion. Religion is not god.
If you don't want to believe in a cathlic or christian god fine, but don't go :censored:ing flammin at the idea of god, as some hypocritical bas**rd.
I don't flame. You go around and choose a couple of people's ideas who try to argue, beat them and think you've won. How about trying to disprove my posts? Why are you ignoring them? I don't ignore posts, I choose not to reply to ones that are absolutely ridiculous (which is almost this whole thread).
And second of all where the hell did you hear about this whole burn in hell blam? Only one's damned to burn in hell are followers of Satan, and satan himself(yeah I read some of the Bible pinch.gif ). So where ever you got the whole idea of god sending everyone who did bad to hell, that's not even what this so called christian "god" you're talkin about goes about it.
Awesome, you have different ideas than someone else. Further showing the stupidity of religion and beliefs. Thanks for supporting me.
Mind if I ask what it is about the idea of a God that sickens you? Because obviously you don't just not believe in god, you detest the thought of any "christian/cathlic god" so I'm guessing something/s shaped your mind like this. Why do you hate the idea of a god?
(this goes to lots of you Athiests, I just have to know what tics you guys off it's rediculous)
I hate religion. Question answered.
Okay this is just a question, and it might be a misconception of mine, but doesn't god send you to hell if you don't believe in him?
Depends on the religion. (Laugh laugh) Anyone with half a sense of logic should, by now, be seeing some hole in religion.
If you read my post, that's one of the things I'm using as an immediatary. In CATHOLISM and CHREISTIANITY, some people believe in the crap that god sends everyone to hell who doesn't do EXACTLY WHAT PLEASES HIM. Besides the fact that I personally don't believe that, the point of my post was to see why you guys like to single out christianity and catholism and make fun of it in every way u don't like.(specifically Alpha(mc) ) What's so sickening to you athiest's about those religons? Maybe it's becuz what you don'tunderstand you dislike, or repel. That's the way of the (white supremacy ohmy.gif ) world. You guys will always look correct because you lash out at religons(NOT GOD) and point out some little piece of crap of information you guys think is so unbelievably bottom. So yeah I want a response from you guys who keep sayin "We don't need this thread because The believers can't prove their god." I want you to answer my question from the earlier post, that's all I ask.
Answer: Because religion does follow any pattern. It follows beliefs. Beliefs are opinions. In this case, the opinions will not change. The extremists will always be religious. They simply don't understand logic. They close their eyes and see heaven; I open my eyes and see hell.
Ok, your side is OVER 50% OF BEING CORRECT right? But that's your opinion, in reality it's as simple as this, it's a blatent 50% chance of being right or wrong. That simple. It's a yes or no, exist or not question. Straight out it's 50% chance straight out. If you wanna have personal honor or whatever fine, if you think people who worship a god are hypocrits and idiots-fine. However, if you were a real person of honor, you wouldn't make mockery posts of other people/things because you don't want to be apart. Just don't be apart of it, and be happy, feeling the need to state so means it's for some personal inner gain, not for the fact of just doing or being. Meh I've wasted time.
I mock anything that is simple and wrong. Like beliefs that don't make sense. Espcially the kind that requires faith and don't follow any laws of the world.
Now comes where I actually do stuff.
Kirby said some stuff. I read it, it was boring.
So I said:
Basically, Kirby said:
"I don't know so god must be the answer!"
Reason? Because that is what his beliefs are. Don't believe me? Ask him. If he says no, then all of his arguements against me that we've had before are basically obsolete. He has made so many logical errors that not only is it totally wrong, it doesn't even matter if it's right, because it's not his belief.
I thought Kirby was atheist...
My suspicion of Neiji not reading any replies has been confirmed. THANK YOU.
You lack the ability to reproduce results as well.
Yeah, we might as well throw out calculus; throw out science; throw out the literally billions of science books. All of them are simply tests done one time. I mean, seriously, we can't reproduce them! ... Get your facts straight. Thanks.
Proving something is or isn't are equally important
Correct; you should prove god exists. Religion doesn't matter. I know religion exists.
Being sarcastic and lashing out to prove discontinued points, are lowly things. In my opinion, your P.O.V. is similar to that of which we know as the evil of Hitler.
Yeah, well good thing Hitler didn't think he was evil. Fortuantly, my Point of Views aren't like Hitler. It's almost the exact opposite seeing as how he tried to destroy people in the name of religion while I'm trying to open your eyes in the name of logic.
I see this whole thread is upsetting you so I won't go to great lengths to use such words as "Fallacies". By the way, it was an opinion, no matter how deep you take it, opinions arn't wrong, it's just the way we say we don't like em.
Fallacies. Oh.. such a big word. It means you've made a mistake. Shall I say it again?
Opinions can't be wrong, that is correct. However, opinions that never change is useless to talk about.
No one said anything about you not having arguments, cuz there arn't any. Kirby's point of his post was to clear the face of the hole, "God damns you to Hell" thing. But if you're looking for an argument, the simplest one would be answering my question(which you all have avoided mellow.gif ), it's on the last page, until you answer that you're still at the short end of the stick
Done. Now stop doing the same to me.
When in reality he was clarifying a question. None said anything about an argument or you being an idiot, don't think so much of what people might think
You have no idea what an ad hoc is do you? Ad hoc means the thing he said is not an arguement. This also confirms my suspcision that you don't understand half the words I'm saying. (THANK YOU)
...Continues Reading ...
Your very first sentence there happens to be ramble. First of all, what claims? Did I claim anything? Did you even see the point I made? My points my friend, were very simple.
1)This thread doesn't need to be closed just because you feel you can't lose.
2)I wanted my question from before answered
3)There doesn't have to be change, or conclusion in an argument or discussion(this is an argument because one side is determined to prove the other wrong).
Good, I like bulleted lists. It's to the point.
Here's my response:
1) You're right, that's not why we feel it should be closed.
2) Done.
3) No it's not. I'm not determined to prove anything. I'm only determined to open your eyes. Whether or not you accept it is still your choice.
I don't want to reply to what you said following to that. It's too much of just random add ons to one point: People can learn from this thread. (Prove me wrong if I am)
In this case, I ask you to point out what hasn't been discussed already in the previous threads.
Sarcastic disaproval and disregard is something I think makes the reasons why these threads get nowhere as you say in your terms. \
That sums up what I wanted to reply to, let others learn as you did and be content with watching from the side, that is my view of somewhat of a better "world". It's flawed but it's also is a solution, no solution will ever be perfect.
Sarcasm is the quickest way to show people the errors. Then, there are people who take everything too literally. *cough* The bible. *cough*
You're right, no solution is perfect. I still think we should go for a solution that is logically correct, consistant and follows the rules and laws of our universe. Don't you agree? If so, this certainly rules out all of genesis.
1)Yeah I was partially in the other threads(observing and posting minor stuff)
It doesn't matter whether or not you've been there. The question is whether or not you understood it. If you didn't, you could have read it a thousand times and it wouldn't matter.
3)You didn't "win" the other topic because MA was the only God believer in the thread with any knowledge(to clear this up I take no stance on the subject, I await angels to destroy earth or eternal death, f.y.i.). So you claimed that there was not enough proof to prove that god is in existant in our world. I read, agreed, disagreed with your way of making it so vague and harsh, but agreed.
Cool. You agree that it was pointless. Why are you arguing against me anyway?
That being said, there was no so called "defeat" because the topic was asked to be closed.
Because it was pointless. Just like this one.
You seek something greater than your own knowledge and acknowledgement of viewpoint from your arguments, I don't know what and don't care but it's really more to you than "knowing that of yourself". In my opinion that should be all that matters to anyone.
What? If you mean, I want to learn, then yes. Of course I want to learn. But I'm not learning anything here (except maybe the ignorance of theists, but I realized that many months ago).
But anyway, I recall you twisting the whole burden of proof thingamajig to your favor and saying that if believers can't provide evidence of existance, then you win and they lose.
You don't know what the burden of proof is. Don't try to bring it up until you do. By the way, MilliniumArmy does not understand it yet. (If you think you do, give me your definition) I don't think you would.
I also recall people comparing real historically known events and connecting them to how they were later brought to light by use of a "Christian" bible. You disregarded and said it can't be proven, said the records are disprovable.
Correct.
Then everyone argued about everything is disprovable and blah blah blah.
Correct. Everything can be disproved.
Eventually the "christians/cathlics" stopped replying because you wouldn't take to heart the reason behind their statements and then they left.
That's funny, I felt that way and said that was going to be my last reply. I guess I lied. The non-believer side still needs a person who can argue for me. So, I'm going to do this until that person comes out. Maybe you should actually go read my "final" post. (Thread: "Christianity", somewhere at the end)
Then you deemed yourself and your athiest breathren victorious over nothing, because you only "won" a discussion, not truth.
I did win. My point was to show that it was pointless. MA said that it was a draw of arguement, which was my entire point. If my goal was reached, would you call that a victory?
You ain't(YEAH I SAID AIN'T!) proved that God is a non-existant figure/being.
I'll bring it up: Burden of Proof.
You just passively forced other people into giving up, or feeling powerless to continue a discussion in opposition to you. In true fact and honesty I was impressed by how others were somehow silenced, but of course I still think you have ego problems if beating other people out of a discussion is the only thing that feeds your inner opinion.
Well, I'm sorry for learning much more than most of the people here. Maybe if you went like me and spent the time reading the nearly thousands of pages and discussions I've done, you'd be able to establish well thought out arguements.
I suggest going to christianforum.com and reading some of their debate stuff. Much more accurate, to the point and justfied than my stuff. The links in the sticky are helpful too.
However, in all truth Cheeze, I bet you could make a great Lawyer or politician, but Lawyers and politicians don't need the truth, the just make the truth not exist then make their truth the most reasonable answer. In truth I admire your ability to do that, except for the fact that you go about it in ways I wouldn't.
What ways? I don't flame. I don't attack. I've said before, sarcasm shows errors much easier than any logical reason. Espcially for theists.
It's only arguing when there is conflict. If there is not conflict, it is discussion.
Conflict: This thread should be locked.
Cheeze got owned by a "newbie."
Yeah, he praised me too. Thanks.
btw cheeze, you remember this post you made some time ago?
Reason explained above.
That's the same post I'm talking about too from above.
QUOTES WEREN'T WORKING, GREEN TEXT IS QUOTE
*/EDIT*
Yeah. I sure did. Anyway, as promised for devilesk, here is my full analysis of this topic. I'm sure I'll feel bad after spending so much time writing this only for it to be locked:
This was my first reply in the thread:
There's nothing to debate about. It's nearly impossible to change someone's beliefs and the arguements people use will be the same.
Through this whole topic, I've been focused on this. I don't go off topic.
I find this totally ironic. The theists here consistantly go and spam random things. Proof?
Here:
you guys make me laugh
No one cares what it does to you. This is all still opinion. Laugh? Go ahead, but you will be the inferior person for having such ignorance on a topic. Thinking so narrowly is pathetic.
We'll see when your burning in hell and im playing Starcraft in Heaven. Yup
This is begging the question. Not only that, it is one hundred percent irrelevant to the question. I have already answered the question. What suprises me is the next reply to this. (Made by the person above)
Oh there's going to be more than just starcraft in heaven. We'll also have Starcraft 2, Starcraft 3, Starcraft 4, and everything about starcraft! xD
ADDITION:
While everyone in hell is stuck with Warcraft3
Do we care? Honestly, do you think we care? Do you think that this will change someone's mind? Logic is the best ally in any arguement. Evidence and consistancy is that. You know what contridicts evidence and consistancy? The bible. Your holy bible.
Then, Kirby comes and also says something irrelevant. He tries to justfy it by saying it "appears" to be irrelevant; later we see, there is no further reply to it. I show the failure of his reply by posting a similar one that mocks it and, if actually read, shows the error in your ways.
Post 23. Finally. Something relevant.
I think religion is just a way for them to teach you on how to be a better person. Every religious person I met is extremely well mannered and extremely nice. The bible just offers advice a such. You have to look past the flaws and look at the true meaning of what the people are tryingto tell you.
Italicized text, I agree with. Everything else, no. Reason? Because you should "look past the flaws and look at the true meaning of" non-theists also. This isn't very hard to do since you don't have to use faith. You can look at the evidence and choose your beliefs.
I would like to note (and I will keep doing so), that everything said above has been discussed in a previous topic.
Neiji tries to explain something and I ask the ultimate question, which I must add, no theist bothered to answer.
How about this; pretend god doens't exist.
How is your life different?
Seriously. If you can tell me a difference, please do so. I will try to explain, in every possible way, that the difference will have zero impact on your life.
This is from a few posts back, but the people picking on 1 or two posts to try and completely pick on RELIGON in general need to stop. This is YOUR perception on the whole "god thing". No, not god, this is your preception on christianity, or cathlism(spelled that wrong) or watevr else uses that burn in hell blam.
I hate religion. That is the truth. That is the absolute truth. Does that mean I hate god? No, it does not. In fact, if you can show me proof that god exists, then I will believe in god. I will never, however, choose a religion. Religion is not god.
If you don't want to believe in a cathlic or christian god fine, but don't go :censored:ing flammin at the idea of god, as some hypocritical bas**rd.
I don't flame. You go around and choose a couple of people's ideas who try to argue, beat them and think you've won. How about trying to disprove my posts? Why are you ignoring them? I don't ignore posts, I choose not to reply to ones that are absolutely ridiculous (which is almost this whole thread).
And second of all where the hell did you hear about this whole burn in hell blam? Only one's damned to burn in hell are followers of Satan, and satan himself(yeah I read some of the Bible pinch.gif ). So where ever you got the whole idea of god sending everyone who did bad to hell, that's not even what this so called christian "god" you're talkin about goes about it.
Awesome, you have different ideas than someone else. Further showing the stupidity of religion and beliefs. Thanks for supporting me.
Mind if I ask what it is about the idea of a God that sickens you? Because obviously you don't just not believe in god, you detest the thought of any "christian/cathlic god" so I'm guessing something/s shaped your mind like this. Why do you hate the idea of a god?
(this goes to lots of you Athiests, I just have to know what tics you guys off it's rediculous)
I hate religion. Question answered.
Okay this is just a question, and it might be a misconception of mine, but doesn't god send you to hell if you don't believe in him?
Depends on the religion. (Laugh laugh) Anyone with half a sense of logic should, by now, be seeing some hole in religion.
If you read my post, that's one of the things I'm using as an immediatary. In CATHOLISM and CHREISTIANITY, some people believe in the crap that god sends everyone to hell who doesn't do EXACTLY WHAT PLEASES HIM. Besides the fact that I personally don't believe that, the point of my post was to see why you guys like to single out christianity and catholism and make fun of it in every way u don't like.(specifically Alpha(mc) ) What's so sickening to you athiest's about those religons? Maybe it's becuz what you don'tunderstand you dislike, or repel. That's the way of the (white supremacy ohmy.gif ) world. You guys will always look correct because you lash out at religons(NOT GOD) and point out some little piece of crap of information you guys think is so unbelievably bottom. So yeah I want a response from you guys who keep sayin "We don't need this thread because The believers can't prove their god." I want you to answer my question from the earlier post, that's all I ask.
Answer: Because religion does follow any pattern. It follows beliefs. Beliefs are opinions. In this case, the opinions will not change. The extremists will always be religious. They simply don't understand logic. They close their eyes and see heaven; I open my eyes and see hell.
Ok, your side is OVER 50% OF BEING CORRECT right? But that's your opinion, in reality it's as simple as this, it's a blatent 50% chance of being right or wrong. That simple. It's a yes or no, exist or not question. Straight out it's 50% chance straight out. If you wanna have personal honor or whatever fine, if you think people who worship a god are hypocrits and idiots-fine. However, if you were a real person of honor, you wouldn't make mockery posts of other people/things because you don't want to be apart. Just don't be apart of it, and be happy, feeling the need to state so means it's for some personal inner gain, not for the fact of just doing or being. Meh I've wasted time.
I mock anything that is simple and wrong. Like beliefs that don't make sense. Espcially the kind that requires faith and don't follow any laws of the world.
Now comes where I actually do stuff.
Kirby said some stuff. I read it, it was boring.
So I said:
Basically, Kirby said:
"I don't know so god must be the answer!"
Reason? Because that is what his beliefs are. Don't believe me? Ask him. If he says no, then all of his arguements against me that we've had before are basically obsolete. He has made so many logical errors that not only is it totally wrong, it doesn't even matter if it's right, because it's not his belief.
I thought Kirby was atheist...
My suspicion of Neiji not reading any replies has been confirmed. THANK YOU.
You lack the ability to reproduce results as well.
Yeah, we might as well throw out calculus; throw out science; throw out the literally billions of science books. All of them are simply tests done one time. I mean, seriously, we can't reproduce them! ... Get your facts straight. Thanks.
Proving something is or isn't are equally important
Correct; you should prove god exists. Religion doesn't matter. I know religion exists.
Being sarcastic and lashing out to prove discontinued points, are lowly things. In my opinion, your P.O.V. is similar to that of which we know as the evil of Hitler.
Yeah, well good thing Hitler didn't think he was evil. Fortuantly, my Point of Views aren't like Hitler. It's almost the exact opposite seeing as how he tried to destroy people in the name of religion while I'm trying to open your eyes in the name of logic.
I see this whole thread is upsetting you so I won't go to great lengths to use such words as "Fallacies". By the way, it was an opinion, no matter how deep you take it, opinions arn't wrong, it's just the way we say we don't like em.
Fallacies. Oh.. such a big word. It means you've made a mistake. Shall I say it again?
Opinions can't be wrong, that is correct. However, opinions that never change is useless to talk about.
No one said anything about you not having arguments, cuz there arn't any. Kirby's point of his post was to clear the face of the hole, "God damns you to Hell" thing. But if you're looking for an argument, the simplest one would be answering my question(which you all have avoided mellow.gif ), it's on the last page, until you answer that you're still at the short end of the stick
Done. Now stop doing the same to me.
When in reality he was clarifying a question. None said anything about an argument or you being an idiot, don't think so much of what people might think
You have no idea what an ad hoc is do you? Ad hoc means the thing he said is not an arguement. This also confirms my suspcision that you don't understand half the words I'm saying. (THANK YOU)
...Continues Reading ...
Your very first sentence there happens to be ramble. First of all, what claims? Did I claim anything? Did you even see the point I made? My points my friend, were very simple.
1)This thread doesn't need to be closed just because you feel you can't lose.
2)I wanted my question from before answered
3)There doesn't have to be change, or conclusion in an argument or discussion(this is an argument because one side is determined to prove the other wrong).
Good, I like bulleted lists. It's to the point.
Here's my response:
1) You're right, that's not why we feel it should be closed.
2) Done.
3) No it's not. I'm not determined to prove anything. I'm only determined to open your eyes. Whether or not you accept it is still your choice.
I don't want to reply to what you said following to that. It's too much of just random add ons to one point: People can learn from this thread. (Prove me wrong if I am)
In this case, I ask you to point out what hasn't been discussed already in the previous threads.
Sarcastic disaproval and disregard is something I think makes the reasons why these threads get nowhere as you say in your terms. \
That sums up what I wanted to reply to, let others learn as you did and be content with watching from the side, that is my view of somewhat of a better "world". It's flawed but it's also is a solution, no solution will ever be perfect.
Sarcasm is the quickest way to show people the errors. Then, there are people who take everything too literally. *cough* The bible. *cough*
You're right, no solution is perfect. I still think we should go for a solution that is logically correct, consistant and follows the rules and laws of our universe. Don't you agree? If so, this certainly rules out all of genesis.
1)Yeah I was partially in the other threads(observing and posting minor stuff)
It doesn't matter whether or not you've been there. The question is whether or not you understood it. If you didn't, you could have read it a thousand times and it wouldn't matter.
3)You didn't "win" the other topic because MA was the only God believer in the thread with any knowledge(to clear this up I take no stance on the subject, I await angels to destroy earth or eternal death, f.y.i.). So you claimed that there was not enough proof to prove that god is in existant in our world. I read, agreed, disagreed with your way of making it so vague and harsh, but agreed.
Cool. You agree that it was pointless. Why are you arguing against me anyway?
That being said, there was no so called "defeat" because the topic was asked to be closed.
Because it was pointless. Just like this one.
You seek something greater than your own knowledge and acknowledgement of viewpoint from your arguments, I don't know what and don't care but it's really more to you than "knowing that of yourself". In my opinion that should be all that matters to anyone.
What? If you mean, I want to learn, then yes. Of course I want to learn. But I'm not learning anything here (except maybe the ignorance of theists, but I realized that many months ago).
But anyway, I recall you twisting the whole burden of proof thingamajig to your favor and saying that if believers can't provide evidence of existance, then you win and they lose.
You don't know what the burden of proof is. Don't try to bring it up until you do. By the way, MilliniumArmy does not understand it yet. (If you think you do, give me your definition) I don't think you would.
I also recall people comparing real historically known events and connecting them to how they were later brought to light by use of a "Christian" bible. You disregarded and said it can't be proven, said the records are disprovable.
Correct.
Then everyone argued about everything is disprovable and blah blah blah.
Correct. Everything can be disproved.
Eventually the "christians/cathlics" stopped replying because you wouldn't take to heart the reason behind their statements and then they left.
That's funny, I felt that way and said that was going to be my last reply. I guess I lied. The non-believer side still needs a person who can argue for me. So, I'm going to do this until that person comes out. Maybe you should actually go read my "final" post. (Thread: "Christianity", somewhere at the end)
Then you deemed yourself and your athiest breathren victorious over nothing, because you only "won" a discussion, not truth.
I did win. My point was to show that it was pointless. MA said that it was a draw of arguement, which was my entire point. If my goal was reached, would you call that a victory?
You ain't(YEAH I SAID AIN'T!) proved that God is a non-existant figure/being.
I'll bring it up: Burden of Proof.
You just passively forced other people into giving up, or feeling powerless to continue a discussion in opposition to you. In true fact and honesty I was impressed by how others were somehow silenced, but of course I still think you have ego problems if beating other people out of a discussion is the only thing that feeds your inner opinion.
Well, I'm sorry for learning much more than most of the people here. Maybe if you went like me and spent the time reading the nearly thousands of pages and discussions I've done, you'd be able to establish well thought out arguements.
I suggest going to christianforum.com and reading some of their debate stuff. Much more accurate, to the point and justfied than my stuff. The links in the sticky are helpful too.
However, in all truth Cheeze, I bet you could make a great Lawyer or politician, but Lawyers and politicians don't need the truth, the just make the truth not exist then make their truth the most reasonable answer. In truth I admire your ability to do that, except for the fact that you go about it in ways I wouldn't.
What ways? I don't flame. I don't attack. I've said before, sarcasm shows errors much easier than any logical reason. Espcially for theists.
It's only arguing when there is conflict. If there is not conflict, it is discussion.
Conflict: This thread should be locked.
Cheeze got owned by a "newbie."
Yeah, he praised me too. Thanks.
btw cheeze, you remember this post you made some time ago?
Reason explained above.
That's the same post I'm talking about too from above.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l2k-Warrior on 2005-08-20 at 21:47:26
QUOTE(MiLlEnNiUmArMy @ Aug 19 2005, 11:34 PM)
No
Even though the topics in general all say almost the same things, i still learn more and more about the personalities and PoVs that the other side contains. The more posts that these people make, the more I get to know about them.
[right][snapback]293653[/snapback][/right]
Even though the topics in general all say almost the same things, i still learn more and more about the personalities and PoVs that the other side contains. The more posts that these people make, the more I get to know about them.
[right][snapback]293653[/snapback][/right]
Then I'll give my POV
I am a believer in God, but that doesn't mean I don't question what I'm taught. I think its only human nature to be curious and seek knowledge of the unknown. Also theres nothing wrong with keeping an open mind to other's pov.
What I mean about question what I'm taught is can God do the impossible? IE Can God create a boulder so heavy that even himself cannot move it?
I also believe Jesus to be the son of the Lord and never thought otherwise. When I took a religion class last year our teacher gave us an interesting thought in that the Old Testaments had been the rules of the land for many years. Then this man comes along and tells everyone to follow him and his new writtings.
Its also interesting to see all the similarities between different religions. Whatever you believe, keep an open mind.
-Warrior
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Frozen-rpg on 2005-08-20 at 22:01:00
I am an agnostic, meaning i believe there is a god of some kind that watches over us. I do not believe in fate or the idea that this 'god' has chosen how our life has been laid out for us. But there is one thing i do know. I believe that god, whatever his shape, essense, or whatever being the 'true' religion (if there is a such thing), i do not think that god would want his people to kill themselves or to kill others in his name....
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-08-20 at 22:48:18
now, all of you that have studied ALL the religions out there, raise your hand. thats right. noone has. i havnt eather but i can safely say that there is noone here that has studied more than 4 religions in depth. i havnt eather so i am also dissing myself. but if your going to post something, make sure you know what you were talking aobut.like i have said, i havnt studied many religions, so i cant realy talk. and im sure someone will quote me and try to flame me and disregard my post, but thats fine. i feel better
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MindArchon on 2005-08-21 at 22:54:33
QUOTE(Frozen-rpg @ Aug 20 2005, 07:01 PM)
I am an agnostic, meaning i believe there is a god of some kind that watches over us. I do not believe in fate or the idea that this 'god' has chosen how our life has been laid out for us. But there is one thing i do know. I believe that god, whatever his shape, essense, or whatever being the 'true' religion (if there is a such thing), i do not think that god would want his people to kill themselves or to kill others in his name....
[right][snapback]294430[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]294430[/snapback][/right]
Thats not what agnostic is..
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
- dictionary.com
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2005-08-21 at 23:54:27
Meh, IMO there are many different definitions of agnostic/atheist.
Btw cheeze, i think you're more agnostic than atheist according to my definitions.
What i think of atheist is one who doesn't think god exists not only because of lack of proof, but because the idea of one is unreasonable. Sometimes they think the idea of a God is retarded. I was looking at one of the atheist sites you (or alpha i think) posted and what i've been seeing most about it is them trying to find flaws and errors about the idea of God. However, you even said that you would love the idea of a God but since there is no proof of one, you simply do not believe in one. Personally that's what i think of as one form of agnosticism, they really love the idea of God but they just cant find any good reason/proof to believe in one. I believe there are many forms of agnosticism.
Just my thought.
Btw cheeze, i think you're more agnostic than atheist according to my definitions.
What i think of atheist is one who doesn't think god exists not only because of lack of proof, but because the idea of one is unreasonable. Sometimes they think the idea of a God is retarded. I was looking at one of the atheist sites you (or alpha i think) posted and what i've been seeing most about it is them trying to find flaws and errors about the idea of God. However, you even said that you would love the idea of a God but since there is no proof of one, you simply do not believe in one. Personally that's what i think of as one form of agnosticism, they really love the idea of God but they just cant find any good reason/proof to believe in one. I believe there are many forms of agnosticism.
Just my thought.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-22 at 07:47:45
Actually, I'm sort of both. But, I do not favor the idea of god like you say. I guess the main difference between me and most other atheists is that I hate religion while they hate god. I thought you'd figure that out by now. :/
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Neiji on 2005-08-22 at 11:13:03
Proof leads to knowledge. If you proved 100% God exists, then you'd be knowing, not following. You'd love the idea of God, not God himself. Then, everybody would go to heaven. That takes away the point...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-08-22 at 12:11:30
QUOTE
Proof leads to knowledge. If you proved 100% God exists, then you'd be knowing, not following. You'd love the idea of God, not God himself. Then, everybody would go to heaven. That takes away the point...
... ya because if you proved god exists there wouldn't be anymore faith
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-08-22 at 18:06:53
QUOTE(Neiji @ Aug 22 2005, 10:13 AM)
Proof leads to knowledge. If you proved 100% God exists, then you'd be knowing, not following. You'd love the idea of God, not God himself. Then, everybody would go to heaven. That takes away the point...
[right][snapback]295342[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]295342[/snapback][/right]
Wow. How can you still not get it. Proving god exists does not prove heaven exists. Nor does it prove hell exists. You have an interpretation of what god is. I have a different one, one that doesn't exist until he is proven to be existant.