# The Choice I Never Made...



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 30, 2011)

I have a tough time wrapping my head around this, it would seem all it would take is a little bit of thinking to settle this before it ever escaped anyones mouth, but sadly, I'm so frequently proved wrong I decided to dedicate a thread to it and see what you good people thought...

Belief, and how so many people think it's a conscious "choice" that one makes.

They say "you chose to be an atheist" - alright, that statement is partially correct in that I can't prove God _doesn't _exist, my atheism is a position of faith. I believe one doesn't. I do not know for sure (about anything) if one exists, therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. But it is literally impossible for me to "choose" to believe in any diety. I can say I do, I can pretend I do, but I wouldn't, not _really_ anyway. 

If you're born in America, it's likely you'll end up Christian, Pakistan, probably a Muslim, South America, Catholic, etc. Other factors influence your "decision" that people outright dismiss, this, I feel, disables it from ever being a conscious decision to be made.

Another thing that should be pointed out is the faulty logic behind such a _decision_ if one were to ever even consciously make it in the first place, Heaven v. Hell - I offer you a fat blunt or a .357 round to the forehead and tell you to _'make a choice...'_, I'm pretty sure I could predict the outcome of that 100% of the time.

So if you believe belief in God is a conscious choice one makes, please explain why. If not, I'm also interested in hearing why you feel that way.


----------



## guy incognito (Jun 30, 2011)

I chose to reject god even though it was pretty much rammed down my throat. I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just let the evidence speak for itself.


----------



## kmksrh21 (Jun 30, 2011)

Agnostic... There's something somewhere of some importance in someway, as far as what it may be, I am not the least bit certain.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 30, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just let the evidence speak for itself.


This is the point believers don't seem to get.

Do you "choose" not to be a Muslim or a Jew? No, you look at the evidence and decide there's not enough to convince you, same with Santa Clause, same with the Easter Bunny.. 

Why don't they understand this?


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

God Rules !!!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

We do not chose to believe in Santa, we are simply taught to until our critical thinking skills tell us better, or else someone lets us in on the secret and we accept it. Some kids figure it out for themselves, some need to be told. At that point they have a choice to continue belief, almost no one makes that choice.

A person may not always make the conscious decision to believe in a deity at first, but if at some point they become aware of all the absurdities and weak assumptions involved in that claim, it then becomes a choice to either ignore the conflict, rationalize it, or be persuaded. Ignorance is built in to religious dogma, and rationalization is a conscious thought process, though it may not be easily recognized. To a believer, this makes those two choices more appealing than persuasion. Just as nearly all kids develop enough critical thinking skills to see through Santa, most people see the reasons to doubt god, but chose not to.


----------



## hgkdehs (Jun 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> We do not chose to believe in Santa, we are simply taught to until our critical thinking skills tell us better, or else someone lets us in on the secret and we accept it. Some kids figure it out for themselves, some need to be told. At that point they have a choice to continue belief, almost no one makes that choice.
> 
> A person may not always make the conscious decision to believe in a deity at first, but if at some point they become aware of all the absurdities and weak assumptions made in that claim, it then becomes a choice to either ignore the conflict, rationalize it, or be persuaded. Just as nearly all kids develop enough critical thinking skills to see through Santa, most people see the reasons to doubt god, but chose not to.


couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## undertheice (Jun 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Belief, and how so many people think it's a conscious "choice" that one makes.
> 
> They say "you chose to be an atheist" - alright, that statement is partially correct in that I can't prove God _doesn't _exist, my atheism is a position of faith. I believe one doesn't. I do not know for sure (about anything) if one exists, therefore I'm an agnostic atheist. But it is literally impossible for me to "choose" to believe in any deity. I can say I do, I can pretend I do, but I wouldn't, not _really_ anyway.


whether conscious or unconscious, the decision to believe or refuse the god myth and the religions of the world is a choice. doubt, since we lack any direct evidence of any god's existence, would seem only rational, but to claim a deity's existence or lack thereof goes beyond mere doubt. 

claiming that it is impossible for you to believe in a god is one of those politically correct cop outs we use to deny our own culpability. saying "i was born this way" or "the world around me made me this way" display the sentiments of the self-professed victim-hood that denies the power of the human intellect. somewhere along the way you made a choice, the choice to embrace the truth as the vast majority of the population sees it or to press forward that niggling doubt and bring it out of the recesses of your mind. 



guy incognito said:


> I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just let the evidence speak for itself.


what evidence? the most that any atheist can claim is that the lack of evidence has given them no reason to believe.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

undertheice said:


> what evidence? the most that any atheist can claim is that the lack of evidence has given them no reason to believe.


It's an expression. "The evidence speaks for itself" is generally understood to sometimes refer to the lack of evidence. It is also understood that we are not making any claim such as "god does not exist". Saying "It is impossible for me to believe in god" may be used as a cop out in the context of playing a victim, but it seems clear Pad was really saying "It's impossible to chose to believe in god without first being convinced."


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Atheists claim that hell doesn&#8217;t exist, which by default mean that they won&#8217;t be in danger of going there. But bible has other ideas though, it says &#8220;when a wicked man dies, his hope perishes; all he expected from his power comes to nothing&#8221; (Proverbs 11:7). It also says &#8220;be sure of this: the wicked will not go unpunished&#8230;..&#8221; (Proverbs 11:21).
All men are unrighteous, so, they need a Savior, so they need to believe in Jesus
and accept Him as their Savior.
If they or anyone does not, they go to hell.
It's really a simple rule.
I heard hell sucks- God Rules, Jesus Is King !


----------



## serioussquirrel (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Atheists claim that hell doesnt exist, which by default mean that they wont be in danger of going there. But bible has other ideas though, it says when a wicked man dies, his hope perishes; all he expected from his power comes to nothing (Proverbs 11:7). It also says be sure of this: the wicked will not go unpunished.. (Proverbs 11:21).
> All men are unrighteous, so, they need a Savior, so they need to believe in Jesus
> and accept Him as their Savior.
> If they or anyone does not, they go to hell.
> ...



People arnt perfect - no argument there 
Beliefs from fear - a fallacy of logic


----------



## Timmahh (Jun 30, 2011)

my 3 cents worth.


Christianity, or any organized religeon, including Muslim, Any Christian faith, ie catholoism, luthern, baptist, 7th Day Adventist, Morman, JCLDS, ect... are mostly a bunch of hypocrits blindly following what someone 2,000 years ago said was the son of god.


Doest God, in the earliest scriptures known to humans, tell us to beware Decievers, claiming to be God Himself, or his main emersary? doesnt god go on to say, the lies spoken by the unrightous, will be so factual, and so full of rightousness, that we humans will simply say, oh, this is the path GOD wants us to follow, and will do so like sheep. to me, this explains Christainity quite well.

dont question us, just give us your money and blindly follow. 

i know thats not the path the real GOD wants us to follow.

Yes i do believe in a GOD. an all knowing, all powerfull, all encompassing being, but i dont see him in any organized religeon. I do NOT believe in organized religeon. as all organized religeons i am currently aware of, are so Ripe with Hypocracy, Evil, and Bad, and oppressive motives, they just can not be the rightous word of the almighty God of all.


no im not agnostic, nor athiest, which i used to be both as i was growing up as a teen/young adult. Nor am i Christian, nor Polically Correct. 

I am simply a humanbeing, with the good nature, good heart, and good soul that wants to see ALL GOOD MANKIND, prosper and live an enriched and gifted life. With that said, i would like to see all NON Good humans left wanton and hungry for eternity with the desire to be a good humanbeing only.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Atheists claim that hell doesnt exist


Some people claim hell doesn't exist. Those people make this claim in addition to and outside of atheism. Atheists simply remain unconvinced there is a hell, which is much different than claiming there isn't one.


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Some people claim hell doesn't exist. Those people make this claim in addition to and outside of atheism. Atheists simply remain unconvinced there is a hell, which is much different than claiming there isn't one.


 I'm pretty sure your wrong and that if you feel that way your not atheist your Agnostic
Atheists do not believe in god Agnostics say it is unprovable.
*Agnosticism*


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> I'm pretty sure your wrong and that if you feel that way your not atheist your Agnostic
> Atheists do not believe in god Agnostics say it is unprovable.
> *Agnosticism*


Knowing that someone is an atheist simply tells you that they are not convinced of god. It does not tell you the reasons they are unconvinced of god. It tells you precisely how someone responds to one specific claim. You can not go on to assume the atheist makes a claim himself; that they are convinced there is no god. Some atheists make that claim, but they do so in addition to atheism. An atheist simply remains unconvinced until something convincing happens (evidence, divine experience, ect) to justify belief. Many atheists have high standards for what this evidence can be, but that is not the same as stepping up to make the claim that god is not real. An atheist sets a standard for believing something, and then does not believe a claim until those standards have been met. This of course means, if the standards are met, the rational atheist will believe.

Agnosticism is only an opinion about knowledge, whether something is knowable or not.


----------



## billy4479 (Jun 30, 2011)

So back to the orginal post the choice,,,,,,, have any you ever found it odd that humans whorship in general spread across time and oceans,land humans find gods or things to whorship almost like where genticaly programed to do so .............................


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Knowing that someone is an atheist simply tells you that they are not convinced of god. It does not tell you the reasons they are unconvinced of god. It tells you precisely how someone responds to one specific claim. You can not go on to assume the atheist makes a claim himself; that they are convinced there is no god. Some atheists make that claim, but they do so in addition to atheism. An atheist simply remains unconvinced until something convincing happens (evidence, divine experience, ect) to justify belief. Many atheists have high standards for what this evidence can be, but that is not the same as stepping up to make the claim that god is not real. An atheist sets a standard for believing something, and then does not believe a claim until those standards have been met. This of course means, if the standards are met, the rational atheist will believe.
> 
> Agnosticism is only an opinion about knowledge, whether something is knowable or not.


 Your still wrong but it's cool.
What your describing is Agnostic, Not Atheist but I already explained that-an Atheist by definition believes their is no God


----------



## Timmahh (Jun 30, 2011)

a summation.


i exist. i think, theirfore i reconize my existance. i reconize my existance as a string if occurances run togther in a string of time as i understand it. considering, i think, i reconize that i think, i can intermingle with these occurances, then said occurances shape my next moment in time, then it only seems logical, if i can do this, then others can to. simple mathmatical principles as the "Law of Averages" nearly proves others like us exist. so If others like us exist, then they must also exist on different levels of knowledge, understanding, higher cognative reasoning, ect.... which would also include a more indepth knowlege of the universe. 

now here on lil ole earth, many believe that god is a sigular being. One higher entity. and while i can understand, and even relate to this train of thought, it still leaves much to be desired for me for an explanation of what GOD is. I have for a long time held the beleive, GOD isnt so much of a Who, but a What. And its my current beliefe, that god is one of a few things, as we humans can understand to be:

1. God is a singular being as most popularly held to be the case.
2. God is not a singular being, but rather a being, or race of beings of higher intelligence, that thru genetic manipulation of their own genome, and available genomes available here on earth, ie Chromagnum, or Homo Erectous, perhaps both, created the "evolution" if you will to our current species.
3. Evolutionist. simple to understand. these folks dont believe in higher power, except the one monocur of "survival of the fitest" train of thought.
4. their isnt nothing else ( if you beleive in science, then you believe in mathmatics, then you must believe in the law of averages, as without it, then nothing EVER happens out of pure chance). these folks just exist. being good or bad is just a choice.

and finially my own train of thought.
5. God is the accumulation of all scencient beings core energy, spirit, or even soul if you will. Our collective inner life force, which is what sets us appart from much of any other known type of lifeforce to exist here on earth, in our current knowledge of life past and presant.



Simply put, imo, GOD is the energyforce of All Sentient life forces, anywhere and everywhere, in every plain of existance, in every rehlm of reality, and in every moment of time spanning all of time itself. it is the essence of being sentient beingd in existance in any given point in space simutaniously, that creates what i believe to be GOD. thus thier is only one overall force, but its made from the core commonality of just being scentient beings.


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

billy4479 said:


> So back to the orginal post the choice,,,,,,, have any you ever found it odd that humans whorship in general spread across time and oceans,land humans find gods or things to whorship almost like where genticaly programed to do so .............................


 We are programed to know God and to seek a connection with him, that's the meaning of life be good surround yourself with good people have a family be right with God get old and die.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Your still wrong but it's cool.
> What your describing is Agnostic, Not Atheist but I already explained that-an Atheist by definition believes their is no God


This is part of the problem. YOU are wrong on this one beardo, Heis is right. 

You have to recognize that if the conversation is to continue productively.

If you still think he's wrong, don't just say "your wrong", explain why.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> We are programed to know God and to seek a connection with him, that's the meaning of life be good surround yourself with good people have a family be right with God get old and die.


Why does "the meaning of life" have to be the same for everyone?

That question has become almost meaningless to me.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Your still wrong but it's cool.
> What your describing is Agnostic, Not Atheist but I already explained that-an Atheist by definition believes their is no God


What I described was differences between the positions. It is as simple, yet subtle, as the difference between disbelief and denial. Saying I am unconvinced of the existence of Bigfoot is different from saying it is completely impossible for Bigfoot to ever exist. It is simply saying that I have not experienced anything to lead me to believe Bigfoot is there, is not the same as saying he couldn't be there. What you are describing is the definition of atheist in your head, to which apparently you have not given much thought.

Am I convinced of god?

Theist = Yes

Atheist = No

Agnosticism answers a different question

Do we have the ability to know if there is a god = NO

My position is that we do not currently have any good reason to believe there is a god, or to engage in worship. Only a fool would go on to say that we will never have reason to believe in god. How can we predict what the future will bring? Some atheists are fools, but not by necessity. It makes it easier for you to believe all atheists are fools because it allows you to dismiss the position. What you are describing is actually a small subset of atheists, and attributing their views to all of us.


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This is part of the problem. YOU are wrong on this one beardo, Heis is right.
> 
> You have to recognize that if the conversation is to continue productively.
> 
> If you still think he's wrong, don't just say "your wrong", explain why.


 I did, -I went on to state that an atheist by definition believes their is no God.-


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Why does "the meaning of life" have to be the same for everyone?
> 
> That question has become almost meaningless to me.


 Because that is how God made it.
If you are happy with your beliefs that is fine and maybe God has a different plan for you I will not try to convince you of his existance because I could not prove him to you because if you can not see proof of his existance in a lake or mirror or woman and a child or old person then their is no convincing you just as you can not provide me with any proof God does not exsist.


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Only a fool would go on to say that we will never have reason to believe in god. How can we predict what the future will bring? .


 That's what i'm saying,
Plus rep...I'm glad we have some common ground.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> I did, -I went on to sstate that an atheist by definition believes their is no God.-


Yet your definition only includes a subset of all atheists. An atheist is by definition, without theism, IOW, does not hold a theistic POV. If one is a theist, then the only logical counterpoint the claim of theism is atheism. Theist professes belief in a god, an atheist does not profess belief but says nothing about whether the individual believes in the possibility, not matter how slight. If you ask the question about whether I believe there is a deity or not and I answer I don't believe there is one, OR I have never even been introduced to the idea of a god, then I must be by definition an atheist. I do not have to claim that a god does not exist for the label of atheist to be meaningful. 

As others have pointed out, agnosticism deals with a completely different ontological problem, the problem of whether aspects of god is knowable or not, including, but not limited to existence. Any theist that claims that god or certain characteristics of god is inherently unknowable is also agnostic. If you don't believe me or them, read Huxley, he explains exactly how he coined the term. 
_
&#8220;Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe&#8221;_
~Thomas Henry Huxley


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yet your definition only includes a subset of all atheists. An atheist is by definition, without theism, IOW, does not hold a theistic POV. If one is a theist, then the only logical counterpoint the claim of theism is atheism. Theist professes belief in a god, an atheist does not profess belief but says nothing about whether the individual believes in the possibility, not matter how slight. If you ask the question about whether I believe there is a deity or not and I answer I don't believe there is one, OR I have never even been introduced to the idea of a god, then I must be by definition an atheist. I do not have to claim that a god does not exist for the label of atheist to be meaningful.
> 
> As others have pointed out, agnosticism deals with a completely different ontological problem, the problem of whether aspects of god is knowable or not, including, but not limited to existence. Any theist that claims that god or certain characteristics of god is inherently unknowable is also agnostic. If you don't believe me or them, read Huxley, he explains exactly how he coined the term.
> _
> ...


 *Atheism*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 "Portal *·* WikiProject v *·* d *·* e *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]*Agnosticism*

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
C
t 
 v *·* d *·* e *Agnosticism* is the view that the truth value of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge,[_clarification needed_] rather than about any specific claim or belief.


----------



## beardo (Jun 30, 2011)

If that is wrong can someone please update wikipedia?
I know Huxley was a smart guy but wasn't he inbreed and tripping on acid all the time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-5


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the *rejection of belief *in the existence of deities.[1] In a *narrower sense*, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] *Atheism is contrasted with theism*,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]


Your post has just supported our points. The atheist that says god is not real is a small subset, a narrow sample of atheists. Someone who simply rejects the claim is also an atheist, and does not necessarily say god can't exist.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> Agnosticism is the view that the *truth value* of certain claims&#8212;especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims&#8212;is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the similarities or differences between belief and knowledge,[clarification needed] *rather than about any specific claim* or belief.


Again, read your own posts. They are saying the same things we are.


----------



## incognito5320 (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> We are programed to know God and to seek a connection with him,.


I cannot say whether ALL people are born programmed to know God. Obviously, some people find it very easy to deny that God exist, so perhaps they are not programmed to know God. I can only say with certainty that I am programmed to know God. Or, as often said ... I know that I was born with the religion gene. I know THIS with certainty. And for that I am thankful.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> *Atheism*
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> "Portal *·* WikiProject v *·* d *·* e *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]*Agnosticism*
> ...




So now you understand? Does this mean you concede the points? This is practically identical to what you are being told. 

Of course no debate is practical unless both sides can agree on definitions. By denying the validity of the broader sense of the word, you essentially create a strawman in misrepresenting what the atheist himself says is his position. 

Remember also that the term atheist is actually an accusation. There is nothing else that I am aware of that labels a person based on a position they do not hold. It is the theist that calls a non-believer an atheist. The non-believer would typically describe himself in terms of what he DOES believe, not based on the infinite number of things he doesn't. 

In addition to not believing in any god or gods, I'm also a non-stamp collector, an unbeliever in unicorns, I don't race motorcycles either. Given all of this negative information, you still have no idea what I do believe and what sort of philosophical views I have.


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 30, 2011)

incognito5320 said:


> I cannot say whether ALL people are born programmed to know God. Obviously, some people find it very easy to deny that God exist, so perhaps they are not programmed to know God. I can only say with certainty that I am programmed to know God. Or, as often said ... I know that I was born with the religion gene. I know THIS with certainty. And for that I am thankful.


 What does it mean to know god? What kind of knowledge do you have? Can you at least acknowledge what people have been saying, that rejecting your claim that a god exists is not the same as denying god exists?


----------



## mindphuk (Jun 30, 2011)

beardo said:


> If that is wrong can someone please update wikipedia?
> I know Huxley was a smart guy but wasn't he inbreed and tripping on acid all the time?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-5


 Acid wasn't discovered in Huxley's time. You are probably thinking of someone else. Huxley was also known as Darwin's Bulldog.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 1, 2011)

undertheice said:


> whether conscious or unconscious, the decision to believe or refuse the god myth and the religions of the world is a choice. doubt, since we lack any direct evidence of any god's existence, would seem only rational, but to claim a deity's existence or lack thereof goes beyond mere doubt.
> 
> claiming that it is impossible for you to believe in a god is one of those politically correct cop outs we use to deny our own culpability. saying "i was born this way" or "the world around me made me this way" display the sentiments of the self-professed victim-hood that denies the power of the human intellect. somewhere along the way you made a choice, the choice to embrace the truth as the vast majority of the population sees it or to press forward that niggling doubt and bring it out of the recesses of your mind.
> 
> what evidence? the most that any atheist can claim is that the lack of evidence has given them no reason to believe.


Exactly.







.....


----------



## beardo (Jul 1, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Acid wasn't discovered in Huxley's time. You are probably thinking of someone else. Huxley was also known as Darwin's Bulldog.


 Must have been his kid or grandkid then, real smart but weird and sickly I think from inbreeding and he tripped a lot.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 1, 2011)

beardo said:


> Must have been his kid or grandkid then, real smart but weird and sickly I think from inbreeding and he tripped a lot.


Aldous Huxley, his grandson and the author of _Brave New World _ I suspect. He got his wife to inject him with LSD when he was on his death bed.


----------



## Farfenugen (Jul 2, 2011)

I am my own god. And I know where I am going when I kick off this plane. I've no need ot cram it down anyone's throat or go around preaching to justify my beliefs or to garner new recruits in order to vindicate my beliefs. Some religions are mass hysteria, filled with all things nutjobbery, including torture, beheadings, honour killings and strapping a bomb to one's self in order to take out as many people just so they'll be at the front of the line when some desert wanderer hands out the 21 virgins (personally I'd rather have 2 experienced gals than a bunch of hopeless know-nothings). It's all a bunch of silly nonsense anyway. 

Thankfully I grew up with common sense parents, who left it up to us to figure out whatwherewhowhenwhy to believe in. 

bla bla bla amen & krishna or whatever you want to call it

time for a veil of nature's aether to inhabit my brain now


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 2, 2011)

I always found that pretty interesting, how the religious condemn sexual acts here on Earth but sexual gratification is one of the main motivations for belief. Hypocrites much? :/


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

Beardo, why no response to the claims that you inaccurately define atheism and agnosticism? You disappeared from this thread with no acknowledgement or rebuttal. I just hope you don't show up later in another thread claiming the same things about atheism and agnosticism as if you were never informed of the facts as others have done... UTI, are you listening?


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Beardo, why no response to the claims that you inaccurately define atheism and agnosticism? You disappeared from this thread with no acknowledgement or rebuttal. I just hope you don't show up later in another thread claiming the same things about atheism and agnosticism as if you were never informed of the facts as others have done... UTI, are you listening?


 My view and oppion and understanding of the term remains the same, I just didn't want to disrespect anyone or any thread that's not mine over a disagreement that is insignificant
I still maintain that an Atheist is someone who believes God does not exist.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> My view and oppion and understanding of the term remains the same, I just didn't want to disrespect anyone or any thread that's not mine over a disagreement that is insignificant
> I still maintain that an Atheist is someone who believes God does not exist.


Yet the point is that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how other people use the words and coming to a mutual understanding so the words make sense when they are used conversing with one another. I could believe the word _antagonist_ means something other than what everyone else thinks, but that is irrelevant when holding a discussion with others.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Yet the point is that it doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how other people use the words and coming to a mutual understanding so the words make sense when they are used conversing with one another. I could believe the word _antagonist_ means something other than what everyone else thinks, but that is irrelevant when holding a discussion with others.


 I believe you could be considered an antagonist.
An atheist is someone who does not believe their is a god, does not practice religion and does not believe their is proof of God, An atheist does not believe the Bible or other religions books are the word of god and does not believe profits or talking to God.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> My view and oppion and understanding of the term remains the same, I just didn't want to disrespect anyone or any thread that's not mine over a disagreement that is insignificant
> I still maintain that an Atheist is someone who believes God does not exist.


If we are to find common ground and understand each others positions, we must agree on what terms mean. It is the only way to have a meaningful debate. If those definitions are the ones you chose in your head then fine, but don't bring them to the table as if they have some sort of validity.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> If we are to find common ground and understand each others positions, we must agree on what terms mean. It is the only way to have a meaningful debate. If those definitions are the ones you chose in your head then fine, but don't bring them to the table as if they have some sort of validity.


 The definitions i'm using are also the ones in the dictionary and encyclopedia, you can call things whatever you want or define them however you wish, If you and your friends want to start calling fire homo magic then by all means go ahead just don't expect me to agree that that is what it is called. We really don't need to agree on anything if you don't want to, God knows best and all I can recomend is that you go with God.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> I believe you could be considered an antagonist.
> An atheist is someone who does not believe their is a god, does not practice religion and does not believe their is proof of God, An atheist does not believe the Bible or other religions books are the word of god and does not believe profits or talking to God.


So are you saying it is incorrect for me to label myself as an atheist since I don't make the claim that there is no god? I don't believe there is a god but I don't know if there are things that we cannot sufficiently examine and test, leaving the possibility for some sort of god wide open. I am clearly agnostic but I am not a theist, so I must be an atheist. How is this wrong?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> The definitions i'm using are also the ones in the dictionary and encyclopedia, you can call things whatever you want or define them however you wish, If you and your friends want to start calling fire homo magic then by all means go ahead just don't expect me to agree that that is what it is called. We really don't need to agree on anything if you don't want to, God knows best and all I can recomend is that you go with God.


Yet your dictionary and your encyclopedia gave definitions that agreed with us more than you yet you fail to acknowledge that.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So are you saying it is incorrect for me to label myself as an atheist since I don't make the claim that there is no god? I don't believe there is a god but I don't know if there are things that we cannot sufficiently examine and test, leaving the possibility for some sort of god wide open. I am clearly agnostic but I am not a theist, so I must be an atheist. How is this wrong?


 If you believe in God you will be saved and your right and will go to heaven. If you do not believe in God and believe their is no God and proof their is no God your Ahheist and If your not religious but are not sure and think their is potentally a God or that god can not be disproven you are Agnostic.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

So I guess being wrong does not matter to you.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So I guess being wrong does not matter to you.


 I guess you were unable to understand the definition of Atheist.
It was their, just because your reading comprehension skills are lacking does not mean I wish to debate the definition of atheist or weather or not your are an atheist or to discuss your eternal damnation.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

You're a fucking idiot. You post links that counter what you claim then accuse the opposition of not having reading comprehension. 

You still have not answered the question as to what you call a person that doesn't accept the claims that a god exists yet doesn't himself claim that a god doesn't exist. 
Pro Tip: It is not agnostic. 

As a side note - Stop using _their_ when you mean _there_.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So are you saying it is incorrect for me to label myself as an atheist since I don't make the claim that there is no god? I don't believe there is a god but I don't know if there are things that we cannot sufficiently examine and test, leaving the possibility for some sort of god wide open. I am clearly agnostic but I am not a theist, so I must be an atheist. How is this wrong?


This post spells it out clearly. 

beardo, this is the stuff that frustrates atheists and causes tension. You keep saying the same thing over, when someone tries to correct you, let you know the right answer so you will stop making the mistake, you're being stubborn and exclaiming you're still correct. It's OK to be wrong man, in fact, I LOVE being proved wrong! Why the hell would someone love to be proved wrong you ask? Because it lets me know what is right, so I no longer go on living as if I knew. Being wrong is acceptable, denying the truth when presented is wrong, and it's unacceptable.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This post spells it out clearly.
> 
> beardo, this is the stuff that frustrates atheists and causes tension.





mindphuk said:


> You're a fucking idiot. .


And this might cause tension between some people but I will use the power that God gave me and not feed into this, I am stronger than that. I will pray for you both.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You're a fucking idiot. You post links that counter what you claim then accuse the opposition of not having reading comprehension.
> 
> You still have not answered the question as to what you call a person that doesn't accept the claims that a god exists yet doesn't himself claim that a god doesn't exist.
> Pro Tip: It is not agnostic.
> ...


I answered what the person you describe would be called, I posted links that supported what I claim. If you do not like them or my interpretation of them then I am sorry if I have upset you and am glad you have a good life that allows you to worry about such trivial things. I wish you luck on your journey to inner peace.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> This post spells it out clearly.
> 
> beardo, this is the stuff that frustrates atheists and causes tension. You keep saying the same thing over, when someone tries to correct you, let you know the right answer so you will stop making the mistake, you're being stubborn and exclaiming you're still correct. It's OK to be wrong man, in fact, I LOVE being proved wrong! Why the hell would someone love to be proved wrong you ask? Because it lets me know what is right, so I no longer go on living as if I knew. Being wrong is acceptable, denying the truth when presented is wrong, and it's unacceptable.


 I have been wrong in the past. I was wrong about Bush getting a second term-Didn't think he would. I was wrong about the price of Silver- Still not 100$. If I am wrong about what an atheist is or isn't oh well. If I am wrong about God I die and don't go to Hell, If I am right I die and go to Heaven. And either way I am blessed with Heaven on earth.
If you are Right then you won't go to Hell-Good Luck


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

You are misunderstanding the definitions you yourself posted. 

It's not that you're right. It's that you_ think_ you're right, but you're not... Do you understand that?

What do you call someone who is agnostic, but not a theist who doesn't make the claim "there is no god"?

You either believe in God or not, theist or atheist.. show me the gray area.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You are misunderstanding the definitions you yourself posted.
> 
> It's not that you're right. It's that you_ think_ you're right, but you're not... Do you understand that?
> 
> ...


Reality is subjective, so isn't right and wrong.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You are misunderstanding the definitions you yourself posted.
> 
> It's not that you're right. It's that you_ think_ you're right, but you're not... Do you understand that?
> 
> ...


I would only consider someone who claims their is no God atheist.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> I have been wrong in the past. I was wrong about Bush getting a second term-Didn't think he would. I was wrong about the price of Silver- Still not 100$. If I am wrong about what an atheist is or isn't oh well. If I am wrong about God I die and don't go to Hell, If I am right I die and go to Heaven. And either way I am blessed with Heaven on earth.
> If you are Right then you won't go to Hell-Good Luck


If the amount of pain and suffering organized religion causes is worth your level of comfort, then hey, that's your own deal. The torment you will face when you finally realize a genuine god, if it exists, will send you to Hell for that will be great, I assure you. 

Personally, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror or sleep very well if I put my comfort before so many other peoples lives.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> I would only consider someone who claims their is no God atheist.


...and you would be dead wrong. There you have it folks.


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> I would only consider someone who claims their is no God atheist.





Padawanbater2 said:


> ...and you would be dead wrong. There you have it folks.


 *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
I hope your right and maybe atheists don't all deny God, I thought that was the one requirement to being an atheist but I've never claimed to be one so I never really looked into it.


----------



## wayno30 (Jul 5, 2011)

im gonna start worshiping the sun if thats ok with u guys ..........


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

At least the sun is real. Worship away


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> *Atheism* is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist
> I hope your right and maybe atheists don't all deny God, I thought that was the one requirement to being an atheist but I've never claimed to be one so I never really looked into it.


Of course not all atheists _deny_ the existence of a god. Most atheists simply have no reason to believe there is one, they haven't been convinced.


----------



## wayno30 (Jul 5, 2011)

thank u........


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

Just don't start with the "you have to believe this way or you're wrong!" nonsense...


----------



## beardo (Jul 5, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Of course not all atheists _deny_ the existence of a god. Most atheists simply have no reason to believe there is one, they haven't been convinced.





Padawanbater2 said:


> At least the sun is real.


Which one is it? ^^^
I kind of thought it was the other way around, That Atheists claimed to have reason to deny God


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> Which one is it? ^^^
> I kind of thought it was the other way around, That Atheists claimed to have reason to deny God


Some atheists do make that claim. But you can also be an agnostic atheist. Both are _atheists_, in that they don't believe god exists, one makes the claim "god does not exist" the other says "I don't believe one exists, but the possibility will always be there so I can't say for sure".


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 5, 2011)

beardo said:


> And this might cause tension between some people but I will use the power that God gave me and not feed into this, I am stronger than that. I will pray for you both.


well I'm sorry I get so exasperated but you clearly are ignoring what people are trying to tell you and repeating the same thing without actually answering the questions posed to you that are intended to help you understand... it's quite infuriating. Ignorance can be helped, you can't fix stupid. When you ignore everyone, including your own links, what the fuck am I supposed to think about your thought processes? 

Can you agree that a person is either a theist or an atheist? One either believes in a god or gods, or he doesn't. The first is a theist, the second is an a-theist. There is no middle ground. the terms atheist and theist cover every possible belief, either you do or you don't. You attempt to wedge agnosticism in there but it was pointed out and confirmed in your own choice of links that agnosticism is only about whether someone thinks that we can have knowledge about something, in this case god. 

Look up the word gnostic. Adjective: *Of or relating to knowledge*, esp. esoteric mystical *knowledge*. (from gnostikos, "learned", from Greek: &#947;&#957;&#8182;&#963;&#953;&#962; gn&#333;sis, *knowledge*) It has nothing to do with belief. 

As Heis pointed out, it is important to understand the terminology and come to an agreement, otherwise discussing any of these issues is impossible. You pointed out that I am antagonistic but if I continue to insist antagonist means good guy or hero, then your words do not have the meaning you intend when you call me antagonistic and we talk around each other not understanding either position. When using the term agnostic to discuss someone's belief about existence of a deity, you are using the term incorrectly. Unfortunately many people do, which is why you learned it that way. Time to unlearn an incorrect understanding if you wish to have a normal debate about or with atheists.


----------



## Nice Ol Bud (Jul 5, 2011)

I think if their was a "GOD", he would love us all equal..
No heaven, nor hell. Just a gigantic cycle.
If their was a GOD his conscienes level would be so Overrated that he wouldnt even want us worshipping him,
he would just want us to live our life and have fun with whom we know.
The idea of religion is insane in my factor.. I think its totally selfish to think us Humans have our own Leader..
people are blind, from all sorts of things. Life is honestly inexplainable..
I have no problem with people choosing who they want to be and having faith.. but to me its not about that..
Its about having fun in the mean time while your here. We are all EQUAL, I dont mind going to hell for not believing in god if their is one,
as long as I know someone has benefitted and learned from my mistakes..


----------



## beardo (Jul 6, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Some atheists do make that claim. But you can also be an agnostic atheist. Both are _atheists_, in that they don't believe god exists, one makes the claim "god does not exist" the other says "I don't believe one exists, but the possibility will always be there so I can't say for sure".





mindphuk said:


> well I'm sorry I get so exasperated but you clearly are ignoring what people are trying to tell you and repeating the same thing without actually answering the questions posed to you that are intended to help you understand... it's quite infuriating. Ignorance can be helped, you can't fix stupid. When you ignore everyone, including your own links, what the fuck am I supposed to think about your thought processes?
> 
> Can you agree that a person is either a theist or an atheist? One either believes in a god or gods, or he doesn't. The first is a theist, the second is an a-theist. There is no middle ground. the terms atheist and theist cover every possible belief, either you do or you don't. You attempt to wedge agnosticism in there but it was pointed out and confirmed in your own choice of links that agnosticism is only about whether someone thinks that we can have knowledge about something, in this case god.
> 
> ...


So pandawa has said I was at least half right by his own description. I was unaware of all the Aspects of Atheism and it's diffrent offshoots, subdivisons and hybreds- so mindphuck I stand by my conviction that what your describing as sounds like an Agnostic to me, and now pandawa seems to support my claim, Although I was unaware that what you are might be called an Agnostic Atheist, I didn't know they could go together but maybe they are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 7, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I always found that pretty interesting, how the religious condemn sexual acts here on Earth but sexual gratification is one of the main motivations for belief. Hypocrites much? :/


Asserting that this is a trait of "the religious" is no different than claiming atheists deny the existence of a god. In fact, this goes beyond that and is akin to claiming everyone who isn't Christian denies the existence of a god. You are talking about a radical, minor subset of one out of thousands of world religions. 

The last several pages of this thread which fell into nothing more than insult slinging though have slightly returned can be attributed to a characteristic of the English language - its mutability. Beyond any doubt, the classical definition of Atheist is one who denies the existence of a god, and this definition still exists in the Oxford English Dictionary. The definition has expanded to include the definitions that Pad, H, and MP are using, but that does _not_ render the old or the new definition invalid. Before any constructive discussion can take place, definitions of terms must be agreed upon. When the discussion falls to the point of debating the meaning of terms, I'm not exactly sure where to turn, other than:

Back on Topic...

I don't feel that anyone can truly "choose" a belief, regardless of what that belief may be.

When I first set out to make this post, I was thinking that the only thing we _can_ choose is what it is that we constitute as meaningful evidence toward a claim - i.e. I can "choose" whether or not to accept an image of Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich as being evidence that Jesus is the only path to the one true god. In fact, I can choose whether or not to accept this as a spiritually significant event, or dismiss it as pareidolia. 

If I saw this sandwich with Jesus imprinted on it and could clearly make out the image, but was unaware of the existence or the prevalence of pareidolia, I might be inclined to consider this a truly spiritually significant occurrence. If I was then presented with some information on pareidolia, It's logical that I might then make a determination that this is more likely pareidolia than our supposed Lord and Savior appearing in an exceptionally insignificant manner, and subjecting his own image to possibly being consumed by a toddler. There is also the possibility that I remained convinced that this was indeed Jesus appearing before me in a specific time of need.

In examining this train of thought, however, I came to the realization that even identifying what constitutes evidence would not be the result of a "choice" that I made. If I saw a picture of bigfoot and concluded that it was a man in a suit, or concluded that it was indeed bigfoot, neither of these would be choices. While some skeptics might argue that concluding the picture to be bigfoot would be due to a lack of critical thinking, when presented with a picture, the truth is that there may not be any evidence toward either direction and the only possible position to take is to not make any conclusion at all.

Let's assume that, within this picture, we cannot amass any evidence towards any of these conclusions. Whether I made no conclusion at all, concluded that the picture was of bigfoot, of a man in a suit, or photoshopped, if I had no evidence toward any of these, each one of these is a blief and I would not be "choosing" one over another. I could choose to say that it's bigfoot, but if I truly didn't feel there was enough evidence to make this conclusion, I wouldnt be choosing a belief, as I don't actually believe it.

One person may feel that crop circles are evidence of aliens. they may be 100% convinced. It wasn't their choice to believe that, they just do. They might then find out that there are people who routinely make crop circles with boards and ropes, and they might change their position to say that 100% of crop circles are man made. There is not enough evidence for either of these conclusions to be made. Changing their belief was not a choice that they made, it just happened when they were presented with new evidence.

I'm not aware of the mechanism within our minds that is responsible for what we believe to be true and what we believe to be false. I'm sure someone else is. What I _am_ aware of is that this is not something we can consciously control.(aside from certain methods that are used for special forces, etc to convince themselves of false information in the event of capture, but this is really a method of changing our subconscious, not a means of consciously choosing a belief)


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Asserting that this is a trait of "the religious" is no different than claiming atheists deny the existence of a god. In fact, this goes beyond that and is akin to claiming everyone who isn't Christian denies the existence of a god. You are talking about a radical, minor subset of one out of thousands of world religions.
> 
> The last several pages of this thread which fell into nothing more than insult slinging though have slightly returned can be attributed to a characteristic of the English language - its mutability. Beyond any doubt, the classical definition of Atheist is one who denies the existence of a god, and this definition still exists in the Oxford English Dictionary. The definition has expanded to include the definitions that Pad, H, and MP are using, but that does _not_ render the old or the new definition invalid. Before any constructive discussion can take place, definitions of terms must be agreed upon. When the discussion falls to the point of debating the meaning of terms, I'm not exactly sure where to turn, other than:
> 
> ...


a photo showing something your unsure abou and from a context you werent from, should never be the basis of forming a belief.
nothing wrong with "thats a cool pic" 



> Let's assume that, within this picture, we cannot amass any evidence towards any of these conclusions. Whether I made no conclusion at all, concluded that the picture was of bigfoot, of a man in a suit, or photoshopped, if I had no evidence toward any of these, each one of these is a blief and I would not be "choosing" one over another. I could choose to say that it's bigfoot, but if I truly didn't feel there was enough evidence to make this conclusion, I wouldnt be choosing a belief, as I don't actually believe it.


if you dont know the answers why draw solid conclusions?



> One person may feel that crop circles are evidence of aliens. they may be 100% convinced. It wasn't their choice to believe that, they just do. They might then find out that there are people who routinely make crop circles with boards and ropes, and they might change their position to say that 100% of crop circles are man made. There is not enough evidence for either of these conclusions to be made. Changing their belief was not a choice that they made, it just happened when they were presented with new evidence.


there is plenty of evidence to show humans make circles there is ZERO evidence that aliens make them...



> I'm not aware of the mechanism within our minds that is responsible for what we believe to be true and what we believe to be false. I'm sure someone else is. What I _am_ aware of is that this is not something we can consciously control.(aside from certain methods that are used for special forces, etc to convince themselves of false information in the event of capture, but this is really a method of changing our subconscious, not a means of consciously choosing a belief)


anyone who spends the time wondering if what they believe is true is capable of changing their belief. Anyone who is capable of looking at their evidence "in the light of day" is capable of such changes

i think for somepeople the problem is less "subconsciousness" and more they refuse to acknowledge that elephant sat in their head going over the "Facts"


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> a photo showing something your unsure abou and from a context you werent from, should never be the basis of forming a belief.
> nothing wrong with "thats a cool pic"
> 
> 
> ...



Al that being said, they are still not CHOOSING their beliefs. You believe something, or you don't. If you "choose" to believe something, that's called lying to yourself.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 8, 2011)

I choose to believe in evolution because the mountain of evidence is very convincing. I choose to believe einsteins theory of relativity is because the evidence is very convincing. Choosing to believe in something is not the problem. Choosing to believe in something with no evidence is.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I choose to believe in evolution because the mountain of evidence is very convincing. I choose to believe einsteins theory of relativity is because the evidence is very convincing. Choosing to believe in something is not the problem. Choosing to believe in something with no evidence is.


 What about Noahs ark? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the temple mount/ dome of the rock? what about pussy? Who but God could have made pussy? What about lightning and rain and LSD and Marasa?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 8, 2011)

beardo said:


> What about Noahs ark? Or the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the temple mount/ dome of the rock? what about pussy? Who but God could have made pussy? What about lightning and rain and LSD and Marasa?


I don't understand all the questions. Noah's ark is bullshit. The dead sea scrolls may exist, but I don't think their contents are all true because I have no reason to. 

Pussy could just exist. Just because it's good why does god get credit? 

Yes I believe in lighting and rain. Not sure what your point was. I also believe in LSD. Not familiar with marasa.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I don't understand all the questions. Noah's ark is bullshit. The dead sea scrolls may exist, but I don't think their contents are all true because I have no reason to.
> 
> Pussy could just exist. Just because it's good why does god get credit?
> 
> Yes I believe in lighting and rain. Not sure what your point was. I also believe in LSD. Not familiar with marasa.


 They found Noah's ark in Turkey on a mountain.
The scrolls were untouched for years their lagit and some of them were kept from the public so we won't know what they say.
Pussy makes people -it's a miracle, it's the center of the universe.
Lightning and rain are amazing clearly the work of God, Nothing could do that except God and HAARP
How could you not believe in LSD, it is Gods work and makes his other works evident- You should get familiar with Marasa eat a few if you can find it next time your on LSD


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 8, 2011)

beardo said:


> They found Noah's ark in Turkey on a mountain.
> The scrolls were untouched for years their lagit and some of them were kept from the public so we won't know what they say.
> Pussy makes people -it's a miracle, it's the center of the universe.
> Lightning and rain are amazing clearly the work of God, Nothing could do that except God and HAARP
> How could you not believe in LSD, it is Gods work and makes his other works evident- You should get familiar with Marasa eat a few if you can find it next time your on LSD


No they didn't.
Pussy isn't a miracle and it doesn't make people. Combining dna from sperm and eggs makes people. Other animals also have pussies. The sheer number of them in existence is proof that it isn't a miracle. Also the fact that we understand genetics and procreation enough to know how they are made. There is nothing unexplainable to be attributed to god.

Now I think you are just trolling. Lighting and rain are well understood.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> No they didn't.
> Pussy isn't a miracle and it doesn't make people. Combining dna from sperm and eggs makes people. Other animals also have pussies. The sheer number of them in existence is proof that it isn't a miracle. Also the fact that we understand genetics and procreation enough to know how they are made. There is nothing unexplainable to be attributed to god.
> 
> Now I think you are just trolling. Lighting and rain are well understood.


 You have obviously never ingested a large dose of liquid LSD or Jesus Juice as I like to call it and certainly never had any experience with Marasa- I would suggest both and it might help you to get closer to seeing and understanding your creator.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> No they didn't.















BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Noah shepherded them through the flood, two by two and ended up in Turkey.
That's what a group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers is claiming, after having found what it says are pieces of the religious icon's famed boat on Mount Ararat.
"It's not 100% that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9% that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a Hong Kong documentary filmmaker, told AFP.
Wing-Cheung, a member of the 15-member team from Noah's Ark Ministries International, said the structure in which they got the wood had several compartments that were possibly used to store animals.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I choose to believe in evolution because the mountain of evidence is very convincing. I choose to believe einsteins theory of relativity is because the evidence is very convincing. Choosing to believe in something is not the problem. Choosing to believe in something with no evidence is.


No you don't. These aren't choices you are making. I can *choose* to reply to this post or not. I can *choose* to take a drink of my water or not to. 

If it's a choice, then just for a minute - *choose* to believe in god or choose to believe that the earth is flat. You can't, because you won't actually be convinced. Just like you aren't *choosing* not to understand what me and Pad are saying, you just don't get it. It's not a choice.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

Belief is subconscious it is not a choice it's not an action it's not a decision.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

beardo said:


> BY MICHAEL SHERIDAN
> DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
> Tuesday, April 27, 2010
> 
> ...


a. That's not even a picture of the thing - the one they found is buried underground.

b. the entire basis of noahs ark literally happening and carrying 2 of every species is completely ridiculous for a nearly unlimited number of reasons. Please understand that mythology is not to be taken literally if you wish to retain a shred of credibility in further discussion


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> a. That's not even a picture of the thing - the one they found is buried underground.
> 
> b. the entire basis of noahs ark literally happening and carrying 2 of every species is completely ridiculous for a nearly unlimited number of reasons. Please understand that mythology is not to be taken literally if you wish to retain a shred of credibility in further discussion


Heres the real one if you wanted a picture [youtube]LjpeQU7GIZc[/youtube]
And the Ark carried a pair of each Species which spread after the flood and reproduced and evolved into all the species we have today. their would have been a pair of wolves that went on to create all the wolves foxes dogs and dingos


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

beardo said:


> reproduced and *evolved*


In a period of 4000 years? Biology fail



beardo said:


> their




Crap like this is further proof of my point. No one would actually *choose* to believe this. Belief is not a choice.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> No you don't. These aren't choices you are making. I can *choose* to reply to this post or not. I can *choose* to take a drink of my water or not to.
> 
> If it's a choice, then just for a minute - *choose* to believe in god or choose to believe that the earth is flat. You can't, because you won't actually be convinced. Just like you aren't *choosing* not to understand what me and Pad are saying, you just don't get it. It's not a choice.


wtf are you talking about? How could one ever come to a definitive conclusion about the shape of the earth without making a choice? Are you just born with it? The idea of a flat earth was with you since birth? 

No, I actively choose to believe in evolution and einsteins theory because it is the best possible option. The choice is pretty much made for me, I see no other option, so I hold those beliefs. I do not choose to believe in fairy tales.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

Ok, so you are really smart, why are you not a professor at harvard?





karri0n said:


> In a period of 4000 years? Biology fail
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 8, 2011)

And in the context of this thread I didn't "choose" to be an atheist. Atheist is the default position, I just didn't choose to believe in god. I could theoretically choose to believe in god or any number of things. I personally can't do that because I have a higher standard of proof that none of those things have met. That means of course that I would not be convinced.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

some of his theories are going to be discredited, but probably not accepted because people like you in a few upcoming years





guy incognito said:


> wtf are you talking about? How could one ever come to a definitive conclusion about the shape of the earth without making a choice? Are you just born with it? The idea of a flat earth was with you since birth?
> 
> No, I actively choose to believe in evolution and einsteins theory because it is the best possible option. The choice is pretty much made for me, I see no other option, so I hold those beliefs. I do not choose to believe in fairy tales.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm not sure how else I can explain it. I'll implore you to re-read Pad's original post. You aren't CHOOSING to believe this. Not belieiving them is not an option available to you - no matter how hard you tried to choose not to believe in evolution, you wouldn't be convinced. Sorry if I'm not explaining better.

Could you choose to believe that's bart in your avatar and not homer? If someone thought the dad from simpsons was named bart and the kid was named homer, did they *choose* to believe that? or are they just confused?

edit:

OK I re-read Pad's post, and saw that you were the first to reply. Your response changed after a different person said the same thing he did, albeit in a more verbose fashion.

So I guess you did *choose...* you chose to be a troll. Good on you I guess...


----------



## karri0n (Jul 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok, so you are really smart, why are you not a professor at harvard?


I didn't *choose* to become one.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

So, that made you choose atheist over all else... Right?


so this higher standard of proof you say you have, gives you the right to bash on others beliefs?

i see how you think... very "incognito"




guy incognito said:


> And in the context of this thread I didn't "choose" to be an atheist. Atheist is the default position, I just didn't choose to believe in god. I could theoretically choose to believe in god or any number of things. I personally can't do that because I have a higher standard of proof that none of those things have met.  That means of course that I would not be convinced.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

i see your humor. quite interesting... 




karri0n said:


> I didn't *choose* to become one.


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

karri0n said:


> In a period of 4000 years? Biology fail
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can get some very distinct characteristics in ten generations, why not more so in a few hundred generations?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

does anybody know what actual REAL dinosaur looks like?

Or an actual species that has evolved since the "dawn of time?" As in 4.5 billon years ago...


----------



## beardo (Jul 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> does anybody know what actual REAL dinosaur looks like?
> 
> Or an actual species that has evolved since the "dawn of time?" As in 4.5 billon years ago...


 alligators and turtles are dinosaurs, we have made extinct ones as clones from fossils like in jurassic park.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 8, 2011)

really? like 110% identical to them?





beardo said:


> alligators and turtles are dinosaurs, we have made extinct ones as clones from fossils like in jurassic park.


----------



## Carne Seca (Jul 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> does anybody know what actual REAL dinosaur looks like?
> 
> Or an actual species that has evolved since the "dawn of time?" As in 4.5 billon years ago...


Dinosaurs to birds is fairly well documented in the fossil record. 

The first evidence of life dates from 3.65 to 3.85 billion years ago.


----------



## dannyboy602 (Jul 8, 2011)

i know god exists. my conscious choice has nothing to do with his existance. but once in a long while, and i'm usually alone, i can hear him speak. in soft tones and whispers. and his message finds a place in my heart. and then i find it flows through me. it reveals itself when i relate to other human beings. 
but, and sadly, it only reachs some. the hurt, the lonely, the poor, the dieing and the children. they seem more able then most to hear his message. 
so then i am a conduit. a messenger. i don't spread god. i spread what he is.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 8, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> does anybody know what actual REAL dinosaur looks like?
> 
> Or an actual species that has evolved since the "dawn of time?" As in 4.5 billon years ago...


+rep to Urca, birds are the closest living thing to dinosaurs alive today. 

4.5 billion years is when the Earth formed.

Showing that you didn't already know these two things indicates to me that you haven't learned enough about either the theory of evolution or the big bang to rightfully accept them. So a question to you sir... are you satisfied, within yourself, dismissing explanations of ideas it took people years to formulate in support of ideas that make you feel comfortable? Be honest. 



beardo said:


> You can get some very distinct characteristics in ten generations, why not more so in a few hundred generations?


Micro evolution can/does happen after a certain amount of generations, but macro evolution, that is species to species transition, takes many more than that, thousands of generations. The time spans involved make it impossible. Think about it, if this were possible, as you're suggesting, then we would have witnessed house cats evolve over the same period of time into something completely new today. Remember, the ancient Egyptians, 2,000BC, 4,000 years ago, had already domesticated felines.  



beardo said:


> Belief is subconscious it is not a choice it's not an action it's not a decision.


+rep



dannyboy602 said:


> the hurt, the lonely, the poor, the dieing and the children. they seem more able then most to hear his message.


Ask yourself why this is the case.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

dude, you are just showing how fucking ignorant you are... how can you state things without knowing me personally? You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded, but your fucking ego dont let you see just how stupid you really are... 

I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible... I wrote a few reports on it and passed my classes, thats what worried me, passing, not what some stupid fucking atheist has to say... you seem soo intelligent, but you are very dumb... your logical thinking really fucking sucks ass bro and that is something you should really re evaluate... making assumptions about things you dont know just show off your stupidity...

Here is one for all you fucking God haters'...

So, you say science has proven things that have allowed you to choose to be atheist or agnostic... yes? Ok, so you are saying that if science says that something is not possible, you will most likely side with science, correct? 

Ok,, science has proven or have partially proven the events that lead to someone who has died for a few minutes and has debunked most aspects of it.... if you all know everything you should know what i am talking about...

SO, if an MD and his staff and countless other specialists have determined and are 100% sure that someone who broke their spine in several places will not walk for the rest of their lives, surely you will side with the specialists' and MDs right? and be honest...


How can you explain the few people that were told they were never going to walk again and begin to walk? hmmm? some cases the individual is a firm believer in God and praises Him for his blessings'. while some cases have been none believers, which after walking have now believed in God after their miraculous ability to walk again.. 


You know, once doctors say you spine is gone, it is gone... there is no surgery that can repair your spinal cord... what goes on? is it the forces of science working behiind the scenes? what causes these individuals to start walking or moving their limbs again? If science and medical specialists say, "no, you will not walk any longer" you are bound to a wheelchair for the rest of your life... then most certainly there is nothing you can about it for you atheist lovers, correct?

so what happens? is it your theory of evolution working here? repairing some mutation so to speak? 

have a crack at it... please, 






Padawanbater2 said:


> +rep to Urca, birds are the closest living thing to dinosaurs alive today.
> 
> 4.5 billion years is when the Earth formed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 9, 2011)

> * what goes on? is it the forces of science working behiind the scenes?*


Among all your childish and unjustified name calling, you demonstrate that you do not understand what science is. It is not a force. It is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What part of this do you have a problem with? Is it being systematic, being thorough and careful, or using consistent logic?



> *I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible*


Ahh so while you attack others logic, you admit that you will believe in god despite any evidence presented to you. How logical does it sound when someone ignores evidence? You apparently didn't stop to realize that evolution does not make any claims about god being real or fake. It simply explains how life evolved; evolution provides no proof against or for god.. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.



> *So, you say science has proven things that have allowed you to choose to be atheist or agnostic... yes? Ok, so you are saying that if science says that something is not possible, you will most likely side with science, correct? *


Science never says anything is impossible. 



> *Ok,, science has proven or have partially proven the events that lead to someone who has died for a few minutes and has debunked most aspects of it.... if you all know everything you should know what i am talking about...*


No one here has ever claimed to know everything, in fact I have no idea what this sentence means.



> *How can you explain the few people that were told they were never going to walk again and begin to walk? hmmm? some cases the individual is a firm believer in God and praises Him for his blessings'. while some cases have been none believers, which after walking have now believed in God after their miraculous ability to walk again.. *


How can you explain that this is the work of god? Are you guessing, or do you have reasonable proof? Do you automatically assign any event you can't understand to god without consideration?



> *You know, once doctors say you spine is gone, it is gone... there is no surgery that can repair your spinal cord... what goes on? is it the forces of science working behiind the scenes? what causes these individuals to start walking or moving their limbs again? If science and medical specialists say, "no, you will not walk any longer" you are bound to a wheelchair for the rest of your life... then most certainly there is nothing you can about it for you atheist lovers, correct?*


Show me a doctor that definitively says "You will nerve walk again". Doctors say it is unlikely you will walk again, while admitting the human body does many things we do not understand. Also, not all doctors are scientific. What you are really attacking here is medical practice, and not science.



> *so what happens? is it your theory of evolution working here? repairing some mutation so to speak? *


If you think evolution repairs injuries then these papers you wrote and that helped you pass your class, must not have been about evolution, because you seem to not understand even the slightest bit of the theory.

You speak from ignorance of how the world works and attack strawmen. Even if you did have something meaningful to say, it would be obscured by your propensity to insult those who think differently from you, and your apparent inability to consider your own thoughts. If you had any redeemable logical qualities, you would have not let yourself post such a stellar display of misinformed and embarrassingly shallow judgment.

I do not expect you to address these points, I expect another emotional outburst littered with name calling and devoid of any quality. Looking at your past posts in much of RUI, that seems to be your specialty.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 9, 2011)

Man.. I could respond back with nothing but ignorant attacks but that shit just isn't my style. You show yourself to be an ignoramus without me having to do anything. 

I made an active attempt to avoid sounding hostile in that last post, yet the first thing you do - when one of your oh so holy beliefs is questioned - is take offense. Grow up, learn something like an adult. Those religious books count on people like you having that _automatic_ reaction to your beliefs being questioned. It's how they keep the sheep in the flock. I'm trying to show you the door to the pasture and you're sitting in the corner of the barn with your hooves over your ears and your eyes closed. A man wouldn't be afraid to question the things he held to be most true. 



olylifter420 said:


> dude, you are just showing how fucking ignorant you are... how can you state things without knowing me personally? You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded, but your fucking ego dont let you see just how stupid you really are...


You asked if anyones seen something that's evolved "since the dawn of time 4.5 billion years ago". That's a question a person ignorant of the origins and history of life on Earth would ask. I don't have to know you personally to make that observation. 

Again, first thing you do is take offense...



olylifter420 said:


> I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible... I wrote a few reports on it and passed my classes, thats what worried me, passing, not what some stupid fucking atheist has to say... you seem soo intelligent, but you are very dumb... your logical thinking really fucking sucks ass bro and that is something you should really re evaluate... making assumptions about things you dont know just show off your stupidity...


It's clear at this point beyond any reasonable doubt that you do not understand the evidence and you don't know how to interpret it correctly. If you did, like I said before, there would be no questioing about it, it would be an automatic acceptance, just like you accept gravity. The evidence in itself is so broad you literally have to deny entire branches of established science to deny the theory of evolution.

Also, I have news for you, maybe you missed the recent headlines... You don't have to be an atheist to accept the theory of evolution. There are plenty of believers who accept the theory because they see it for the collection of scientific facts it is. 



olylifter420 said:


> Here is one for all you fucking God haters'...


Whatcha' got Santa Clause hater? 



olylifter420 said:


> So, you say science has proven things that have allowed you to choose to be atheist or agnostic... yes?


Uh, no actually.. I'm saying there hasn't been anything to support the idea there is a god. Not a single damn thing. But I won't ruin it for you... let's hear your example anyway... 



olylifter420 said:


> Ok, so you are saying that if science says that something is not possible, you will most likely side with science, correct?


I'll side with the evidence. Consequently, that's generally what science does. Holy shit right?!  



olylifter420 said:


> Ok,, science has proven or have partially proven the events that lead to someone who has died for a few minutes and has debunked most aspects of it.... if you all know everything you should know what i am talking about...


I can't really make out what you're trying to say here.. 



olylifter420 said:


> SO, if an MD and his staff and countless other specialists have determined and are 100% sure that someone who broke their spine in several places will not walk for the rest of their lives, surely you will side with the specialists' and MDs right? and be honest...


I would say the probability of that person walking again is low. Human beings cannot be 100% certain of anything in the existence we occupy. This line of logic treads on philosophical thinking that goes way beyond your head, I know that because I made the assumption based on your previous posts. You know I'm right, and you think that's bullshit. If I tried to explain 'why' to you, you wouldn't understand anyway, so we're just moving on..

Nothing is impossible, only improbable. 



olylifter420 said:


> How can you explain the few people that were told they were never going to walk again and begin to walk? hmmm? some cases the individual is a firm believer in God and praises Him for his blessings'. while some cases have been none believers, which after walking have now believed in God after their miraculous ability to walk again..


...wait... people can be wrong? Holy shit!! HUMANS CAN BE [email protected][email protected][email protected] OMFG!!!  



olylifter420 said:


> You know, once doctors say you spine is gone, it is gone... there is no surgery that can repair your spinal cord... what goes on? is it the forces of science working behiind the scenes? what causes these individuals to start walking or moving their limbs again? If science and medical specialists say, "no, you will not walk any longer" you are bound to a wheelchair for the rest of your life... then most certainly there is nothing you can about it for you atheist lovers, correct?
> 
> so what happens? is it your theory of evolution working here? repairing some mutation so to speak?
> 
> have a crack at it... please,


The individual Dr. is wrong, Einstein! Wtf? I can barely comprehend the logic you're attempting to use.. Some guy goes into the hospital with some spinal injury... the Dr. on staff at the time x-rays him and tells him he'll never walk again... 6 months later the dude's up and about! Praise be Jesus! He have been HEALED! All of science is DEBUNKED! The scientific revolution, modern medical science, the space program, antibiotics, condoms.. all garbage cause this one Dr. in this one hospital was wrong about this one guys spinal injury!! 

I AM A [email protected]! 

Fuck go back to school!


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible...


thanks for the signature


----------



## tehgenoc1de (Jul 9, 2011)

Yeah that about sums up the way stupid fuckers think.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

lmao!!!!! you guys are really funny!!!!!


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

what about tom cruise?






Padawanbater2 said:


> Man.. I could respond back with nothing but ignorant attacks but that shit just isn't my style. You show yourself to be an ignoramus without me having to do anything.
> 
> I made an active attempt to avoid sounding hostile in that last post, yet the first thing you do - when one of your oh so holy beliefs is questioned - is take offense. Grow up, learn something like an adult. Those religious books count on people like you having that _automatic_ reaction to your beliefs being questioned. It's how they keep the sheep in the flock. I'm trying to show you the door to the pasture and you're sitting in the corner of the barn with your hooves over your ears and your eyes closed. A man wouldn't be afraid to question the things he held to be most true.
> 
> ...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 9, 2011)

_What about_ Tom Cruise?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

i never said i did not believe in evolution, i see evolution as a series of adaptations that take place in order to increase survivability rate of a living organism...

the fact i do not accept it has nothing to do with my thoughts on the theory...

you just go ahead and keep talking like you are really smart... you know, one thing that i have learned over time is that you cannot judge a 'book' by its cover...

i really dont think i would survive with a mind like yours!






Padawanbater2 said:


> Man.. I could respond back with nothing but ignorant attacks but that shit just isn't my style. You show yourself to be an ignoramus without me having to do anything.
> 
> I made an active attempt to avoid sounding hostile in that last post, yet the first thing you do - when one of your oh so holy beliefs is questioned - is take offense. Grow up, learn something like an adult. Those religious books count on people like you having that _automatic_ reaction to your beliefs being questioned. It's how they keep the sheep in the flock. I'm trying to show you the door to the pasture and you're sitting in the corner of the barn with your hooves over your ears and your eyes closed. A man wouldn't be afraid to question the things he held to be most true.
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

what about the devil? everyone talks about God, so lets hear what you have to say about the devil as well... please, enlighten my vision!





Padawanbater2 said:


> _What about_ Tom Cruise?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

im glad i could help you in your retarded attempt of ridicule... 

you just cannot understand what im saying... you brain is too big~~





Luger187 said:


> thanks for the signature


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

gandolf is here, run~!!!





Heisenberg said:


> Among all your childish and unjustified name calling, you demonstrate that you do not understand what science is. It is not a force. It is a systematic way of carefully and thoroughly observing nature while using consistent logic to evaluate the results. What part of this do you have a problem with? Is it being systematic, being thorough and careful, or using consistent logic?
> 
> Ahh so while you attack others logic, you admit that you will believe in god despite any evidence presented to you. How logical does it sound when someone ignores evidence? You apparently didn't stop to realize that evolution does not make any claims about god being real or fake. It simply explains how life evolved; evolution provides no proof against or for god.. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what about tom cruise?


Man, you got us all hanging by a thread with this one. Please tell us the significance of Tom Cruise..... 

Does it has something to do with Mission Impossible?




olylifter420 said:


> what about the devil? everyone talks about God, so lets hear what you have to say about the devil as well... please, enlighten my vision!


If you go back and replace the "Devil" with "God". That is exactly what they have to say about him... 

Consider yourself Enlightened... You are Welcomed... +rep for me


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 9, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i never said i did not believe in evolution, i see evolution as a series of adaptations that take place in order to increase survivability rate of a living organism...
> 
> the fact i do not accept it has nothing to do with my thoughts on the theory...
> 
> ...





olylifter420 said:


> I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible...


you dont accept evolution, yet you believe in it?

the fact that you do not accept it has a lot to with with your thoughts on the theory.

you sure do like to rant about stuff


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 9, 2011)

and were not trying to ridicule you. you are not making a valid argument, and we are telling you. and your defense is that you believe in god. what kind of bullshit is that?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

Yea, alright dude! You hands down are the best... Im sorry for any inconvinience I may have caused you holyness!





Luger187 said:


> and were not trying to ridicule you. you are not making a valid argument, and we are telling you. and your defense is that you believe in god. what kind of bullshit is that?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 9, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Consider yourself Enlightened... You are Welcomed... +rep for me


 Agreed +rep


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 9, 2011)

You really hate Christians and anyone who has faith in the Lord dont you?





Luger187 said:


> and were not trying to ridicule you. you are not making a valid argument, and we are telling you. and your defense is that you believe in god. what kind of bullshit is that?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 9, 2011)

karri0n said:


> Back on Topic...





olylifter420 said:


> You really hate Christians and anyone who has faith in the Lord dont you?



Do you feel that you *choose* to believe in the power of Christ? 

Remember that by saying that you choose, you are implying that there is a choice. To determine if it's truly a choice, ask yourself this question, Would it be possible for you to not to believe in the power of Christ? Could you choose to wake up tomorrow and be certain that Jesus Christ has no power over the world or the people of today? If you couldn't do that, then it's not a choice.

For those who do not believe in any gods,

Could you choose to wake up tomorrow and be certain tht God has power over everything and everyone in the world? If you cannot do this, then you are not *choosing* not to believe in god.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Yea, alright dude! You hands down are the best... Im sorry for any inconvinience I may have caused you holyness!


now you are just being bombastic. if im wrong, point out what im wrong about. you arent an inconvenience. we are simply saying your reasons for not believing in evolution are kind of shaky



olylifter420 said:


> You really hate Christians and anyone who has faith in the Lord dont you?


i dont hate them. i just think they believe in something that isnt true. they take the word of the bible as truth, which i see as fucking ridiculous. they spread the word by putting non believers down and forcing children to believe. they believe they are right no matter what, and REFUSE to accept FACTUAL evidence presented to them.

a lot of religions do this, so it is not christianity alone that i am against. it is the belief in a god that contradicts itself through 
'its own' holy books. it is the systematic false teachings of human beings for private financial or political gain. it is the refusal of scientific knowledge in order to further its own interests.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> it is the systematic false teachings of human beings for private financial or political gain. it is the refusal of scientific knowledge in order to further its own interests.


What of the religions that no one serves to gain anything from - those that encourage personal worship, independent thought, and spiritual exploration? Those that see no reason not to accept scientific findings? Those with no centralized authority, or no authority whatsoever? You imply that modern religion exists only because people can exploit it for power - why is it that those which no one stands to gain anything from continue to exist and even flourish?


----------



## thc&me (Jul 10, 2011)

The human race is a curious creature. What we can't explain, we theorize. We cannot explain our own existence, therefore, we instinctively search for possibilities. Imagination is a wonderful thing. Here's an example of what I mean. Before our scientific understanding of the elements, geography and atmosphere, many early civilizations worshiped deities of the Sun, Sea, Wind, Lightning, Volcanoes, etc. Unexplained things that people were either in awe of or in fear of. And I can easily relate to the theory behind these beliefs. The Sun gives us light, it provides energy to our crops, it is essential.
Modern religion is quite different obviously, but how different. We know now, of course, that the sun is just a ball of gas and not worthy to be god-like, so we have now begun to theorize that god must be made in our own likeness. Man's vanity I suppose. I believe that we, like all living things, exist within the same circle of life. We are born, attempt to thrive at life and eventually wither and die. Seed to soil, so to speak. It is our adaptation and evolution as a species, which allows us to theorize at all, that really sets us apart from other species. Do we need to have a god to teach consciousness and behavior? I don't think so. Perhaps to keep us humble? Possibly. But religion is nothing more than theory. People are so naive.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 10, 2011)

thc&me said:


> We know now, of course, that the sun is just a ball of gas and not worthy to be god-like.


It gives us essential life, and along with the earth, is quite literally our creator, yet it should not be revered, respected, honored, nor should we be thankful of it? I can certainly agree with you - people are so naive.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

i never said you were wrong, i agree with everything you have to say, but i still choose to believe in God... I was raised with a strict set of morals and i will never give them up, no matter what you say... The way i was raised was probably very different then the way you were raised... that has a lot to do with the way a person think in my opinion... 

Why do you question what i believe in? i Dont question what you believe because i respect what you choose to do with your own life... Who am i to question what you believe in? Who are you to question what i believe in? 

Are you better then me because i believe in God? Am i better then you because you are an atheist? 

I dont go to church for that reason alone, financial gain... many dudes nowadays just build a big building and call it a church and just rob the people blind. I understand you because i know there are many people out there without direction, that just need someone or something to tell them what to do all the time.. 

I love science and I believe in God... 






Luger187 said:


> now you are just being bombastic. if im wrong, point out what im wrong about. you arent an inconvenience. we are simply saying your reasons for not believing in evolution are kind of shaky
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

it also provides us with a healthy dose of vitamin D





karri0n said:


> It gives us essential life, and along with the earth, is quite literally our creator, yet it should not be revered, respected, honored, nor should we be thankful of it? I can certainly agree with you - people are so naive.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

karri0n said:


> What of the religions that no one serves to gain anything from - those that encourage personal worship, independent thought, and spiritual exploration? Those that see no reason not to accept scientific findings? Those with no centralized authority, or no authority whatsoever? You imply that modern religion exists only because people can exploit it for power - why is it that those which no one stands to gain anything from continue to exist and even flourish?


i said a lot of religions do that, not all. i have no problem with religions that do not harm others. a religion doesnt need exploitation to exist and flourish. i was pretty much referring to the big religions that do exploit people. it is because of peoples strong belief in their religion that they refuse to accept facts. it is because of their strong beliefs that politicians will say christian things, just to get a vote. because they vote based on false beliefs, we may end up with bad people in our government, due to exploitation. it does affect all of our lives on a daily basis


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i never said you were wrong, i agree with everything you have to say, but i still choose to believe in God... I was raised with a strict set of morals and i will never give them up, no matter what you say... The way i was raised was probably very different then the way you were raised... that has a lot to do with the way a person think in my opinion...
> 
> Why do you question what i believe in? i Dont question what you believe because i respect what you choose to do with your own life... Who am i to question what you believe in? Who are you to question what i believe in?
> 
> ...


exactly. people raised under a certain religion are most likely bound to that religion for life. why? because theyve been taught it is the truth. they act like they are right no matter what, because they believe it is truth. at least when atheists do it, they have science to back them up. what do you have? a book written thousands of years ago. when i was a kid, i went to church too. but after about 6 years old i figured out it was a lie.

i question what you believe because you refuse to accept facts as facts because of your belief. you should question what i believe in. i do, so maybe you should question yourself too.

tell me, why do you believe in god? how do you love science, yet refuse to accept evolution? you said you wrote a paper on it, so what about it dont you like?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

I dont know about you lug, but i do listen to my parents... I was taught not to go against what they said or taught me because they are my parents. I love them and i have never been a dick with them like most people i know... On top of that i have some of the best most coolest parents someone can have... I had no reason to question anything they taught... Im glad you were able to debunk religion by the age of 6, you are probably a smart person... 

Dude, you and I are a world apart... I dont care to question what you believe in because i was taught to respect what people decide to do with their lives... If you want to be an atheist, all the power to you... You dont pay my bills and i dont need you, so i really dont bother to listen to what you have to say about my beliefs... Call them lies, i dont care. I stand by my beliefs till i die because i am committed to what i believe in... 


TEll me, do you have children? If you do, have you lost you first child, male?

I love science because of my career. I see how science can contribute to my benefit in my career... 

I never said i wrote about not liking it... It was an essay question for my exam

THis is my take on what you want to know...

I dont accept parts of evolution because i dont believe that the human body could just over a period of time, be able to have all these physiological processes and internal mechanisms... I question it because i know how the human body works internally and it just marvels me at how these processes are so complex... So complex, that i question parts of evolution.








Luger187 said:


> exactly. people raised under a certain religion are most likely bound to that religion for life. why? because theyve been taught it is the truth. they act like they are right no matter what, because they believe it is truth. at least when atheists do it, they have science to back them up. what do you have? a book written thousands of years ago. when i was a kid, i went to church too. but after about 6 years old i figured out it was a lie.
> 
> i question what you believe because you refuse to accept facts as facts because of your belief. you should question what i believe in. i do, so maybe you should question yourself too.
> 
> tell me, why do you believe in god? how do you love science, yet refuse to accept evolution? you said you wrote a paper on it, so what about it dont you like?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i do listen to my parents... I was taught not to go against what they said or taught me because they are my parents...


What if they were wrong? 



olylifter420 said:


> Dude, you and I are a world apart... I dont care to question what you believe in because i was taught to respect what people decide to do with their lives...


It's not about respecting what someone believes. It's about letting harmful beliefs continue to cause damage in the future. If you believe something that gives you comfort at the cost of someone else's life, liberty or happiness, then fuck you sir, you don't have the right to that belief, and you damn sure don't have a right to it if you don't have any evidence for it. 



olylifter420 said:


> I dont accept parts of evolution because i dont believe that the human body could just over a period of time, be able to have all these physiological processes and internal mechanisms... I question it because i know how the human body works internally and it just marvels me at how these processes are so complex... So complex, that i question parts of evolution.


If you knew a damn thing about anatomy you'd never say something so ignorant. This is a candid admission that you don't accept the theory of evolution because you don't understand it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

yea ok buddy!!! you are too right!

AND FUCK YOU TOO BITCH





Padawanbater2 said:


> What if they were wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 10, 2011)

> I dont accept parts of evolution because i dont believe that the human body could just over a period of time, be able to have all these physiological processes and internal mechanisms... I question it because i know how the human body works internally and it just marvels me at how these processes are so complex... So complex, that i question parts of evolution.


Translation = I personally can't understand this, so it can not be true. When my brain encounters something complex that I can not follow along with, I find comfort in assigning this complexity to god and dismissing it. I get upset when others do not do the same.




olylifter420 said:


> yea ok buddy!!! you are too right!
> 
> AND FUCK YOU TOO BITCH


I'm am sure god enjoys listening to your filthy insults from heaven. Interesting that your parents taught you to have such a foul and aggressive mouth, they must have been despicable people.

I will venture a guess and say that you are not actually religious at all, just simple minded. Your brain in fact can't understand religion any better than evolution, and is left living in a confused cesspool of of decaying intellect; swimming in the rotting remnants of mothers milk. But...that's just a guess.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

wow, now we got freud in here... pretty cool crowd if you ask me...

but yea, i know you are superior to me and my beliefs.. thats cool, i respect that... 

and my parents taught me not to let people talk to me the way you do, so if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle...

and if im simple so what, fuck you and your divine self, im happy with who i am and i doubt you are with yourself... im going to give a guess, i bet your a dude that sits at his pc all day and whacks to porn all day... your filled with these lies that you were given when you were a child and you pretty much hate anyone who believes in them... who made you king? 

i wont argue with you about what you want to say about me and what i think, i really could give a rats ass what you think... once you are able to produce two Olympic Athletes' then come and see me bro... TIll you do, fuck you too bitch




Heisenberg said:


> Translation = I personally can't understand this, so it can not be true. When my brain encounters something complex that I can not follow along with, I find comfort in assigning this complexity to god and dismissing it. I get upset when others do not do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

wow, now we got freud in here... pretty cool crowd if you ask me...

but yea, i know you are superior to me and my beliefs.. thats cool, i respect that... 

and my parents taught me not to let people talk to me the way you do, so if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle...

and if im simple so what, fuck you and your divine self, im happy with who i am and i doubt you are with yourself... im going to give a guess, i bet your a dude that sits at his pc all day and whacks to porn all day... your filled with these lies that you were given when you were a child and you pretty much hate anyone who believes in them... who made you hitler? 

i wont argue with you about what you want to say about me and what i think, i really could give a rats ass what you think... once you are able to produce two Olympic Athletes' then come and see me bro... TIll you do, fuck you too bitch




Heisenberg said:


> Translation = I personally can't understand this, so it can not be true. When my brain encounters something complex that I can not follow along with, I find comfort in assigning this complexity to god and dismissing it. I get upset when others do not do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

oh, and several national and state and collegiate champions...


----------



## thc&me (Jul 10, 2011)

I quite clearly stated that the sun was not "god-like", not that we shouldn't revere it. Some people are apparently naive and illiterate. We owe our own creation to that great ball of gas and I would in no way want to diminish its value to mankind. However, it clearly is not something of reason or intelligence.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

whats wrong with vitamin D?





thc&me said:


> I quite clearly stated that the sun was not "god-like", not that we shouldn't revere it. Some people are apparently naive and illiterate. We owe our own creation to that great ball of gas and I would in no way want to diminish its value to mankind. However, it clearly is not something of reason or intelligence.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I dont know about you lug, but i do listen to my parents... I was taught not to go against what they said or taught me because they are my parents. I love them and i have never been a dick with them like most people i know... On top of that i have some of the best most coolest parents someone can have... I had no reason to question anything they taught... Im glad you were able to debunk religion by the age of 6, you are probably a smart person...


thats a great way to live! just believe what youre told and everything will be okay. just because they are cool, that makes them smart and able to think critically, right? you should question EVERYTHING you are taught, no matter who it is being taught by



olylifter420 said:


> Dude, you and I are a world apart... I dont care to question what you believe in because i was taught to respect what people decide to do with their lives... If you want to be an atheist, all the power to you... You dont pay my bills and i dont need you, so i really dont bother to listen to what you have to say about my beliefs... Call them lies, i dont care. I stand by my beliefs till i die because i am committed to what i believe in...


im questioning your beliefs because you dont seem to know why you believe it. because you were raised that way isnt really a good reason. that just means you believed it without ever questioning it. and when someone else does, you act like we are bad for doing it.



olylifter420 said:


> TEll me, do you have children? If you do, have you lost you first child, male?


no i do not have kids. i dont see what that has to do with anything



olylifter420 said:


> I love science because of my career. I see how science can contribute to my benefit in my career...


so you dont really love science. you just use it to further your career.



olylifter420 said:


> I never said i wrote about not liking it... It was an essay question for my exam
> 
> THis is my take on what you want to know...
> 
> I dont accept parts of evolution because i dont believe that the human body could just over a period of time, be able to have all these physiological processes and internal mechanisms... I question it because i know how the human body works internally and it just marvels me at how these processes are so complex... So complex, that i question parts of evolution.


you dont really know how it works then. animals have a lot of the same processes that we have. just because it is a complexed process does not mean it just poofed into existence by god. why does it make more sense that god did it? we have tons of evidence that says humans didnt just appear the way we are today.

why would god give us an appendix?


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> wow, now we got freud in here... pretty cool crowd if you ask me...
> 
> but yea, i know you are superior to me and my beliefs.. thats cool, i respect that...
> 
> ...


so your parents taught you that anyone who questions your beliefs is a bad person and should be shunned? religious people are always happy in their little bubble. thats the way it works. you feel great because you believe in jesus and you will be saved in the end, so anything anyone says doesnt matter. even if it is facts, you will still bend your way around the truth by saying oh well i dont really believe in it because god told me not to


----------



## Brazko (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> it also provides us with a healthy dose of vitamin D


 A healthy dose up to 80-90% is provided via the "Sun"

Yes, you are closer to the truth than you may care to know.... Happy Sunday!! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Deficiency

Evolution
The photosynthesis of vitamin D evolved over 750 million years ago; the phytoplankton coccolithophore _Emiliania huxleyi_ is an early example. Vitamin D played a critical role in the maintenance of a calcified skeleton in vertebrates as they left their calcium-rich ocean environment for land over 350 million years ago.
Vitamin D can only be synthesized via a photochemical process so early vertebrates that ventured onto land either had to ingest foods that contained vitamin D or had to be exposed to sunlight to photosynthesize vitamin D in their skin to satisfy their body's vitamin D requirement


----------



## Brazko (Jul 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> If you believe something that gives you comfort at the cost of someone else's life, liberty or happiness, then fuck you sir, you don't have the right to that belief,





olylifter420 said:


> yea ok buddy!!! you are too right!
> 
> AND FUCK YOU TOO BITCH





Heisenberg said:


> I'm am sure god enjoys listening to your filthy insults from heaven. Interesting that your parents taught you to have such a foul and aggressive mouth, they must have been despicable people.


I personally believe 1 dumb Fuck deserves another. If the things we say on here is to be held accountable to our parents, then I will also venture in saying that we all have some descpicable dumb fuck parents as well..


----------



## Brazko (Jul 10, 2011)

thc&me said:


> I quite clearly stated that the sun was not "god-like", not that we shouldn't revere it. Some people are apparently naive and illiterate. We owe our own creation to that great ball of gas and I would in no way want to diminish its value to mankind. However, it clearly is not something of reason or intelligence.


Yes, you are correct.... it is not something of reason. To reason one must be able to reflect on itself. 

Thankfully we have our Savior the "Moon" for that purpose, but that is Monday's lesson


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 10, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I personally believe 1 dumb Fuck deserves another. If the things we say on here is to be held accountable to our parents, then I will also venture in saying that we all have some descpicable dumb fuck parents as well..


Only one of those two is claiming to have high morals and standards, which was supported by saying their parents taught them, making only one of them a hypocrite.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

yea, alright... im always wrong, no matter what i say...

say goodbye to the bad guy!!!!


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yea, alright... im always wrong, no matter what i say...
> 
> say goodbye to the bad guy!!!!


you havent really said anything. youre dodging questions and ranting about how were treating you bad


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

Don't listen to them Oly- their just the voices of temptation-the Devil, trying to persuade you-Be strong in your faith.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Don't listen to them Oly- their just the voices of temptation-the Devil, trying to persuade you-Be strong in your faith.


Ignorant theists; stupid and dangerous.. The mindset of a child, pathetic.

And just to be clear, you both have taken it to the point where nothing will change your mind, you've closed your mind to new evidence because it contradicts your faith. Another admission that you're too scared to ask what the truth actually is. If you knew the answers like you claim to, the questions would lead to the answers that convinced you and we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

We ask questions and all you have is faith. You ask questions and get answers, not lies. It's wrong, deep down, and you know it shouldn't be like this, you know the god you believe in wouldn't set up or support a system like this, and you're left with the question 'why?'... And you know why. You and oly need to man up, grow up, face reality and your own humanity for what it is. Nobody will save you but yourself.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Don't listen to them Oly- their just the voices of temptation-the Devil, trying to persuade you-Be strong in your faith.


Great advice. Ignore free inquiry and questioning. Don't let anyone challenge your world view. Anyone that doesn't speak from a faith-based point of view is being influenced by Satan. Keep believing in the devil and evil temptation.


But for god's sake, DON'T EVER VOTE!


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

Maybe God Created Man because people are happier and more fulfilled that way- Going to heaven is a good thing. It is a good feeling to know that you have a purpose in life and that God loves you and created you and gave Jesus so we could be saved and gave us some simple rules to live by. If that makes people happy why try to take their happyness from them why try to replace their fullfillment with emptyness?
What benifit is it for you to try to change someones perspective on the world? Isn't this talked about in the bible? Do not be unfaithful- seems like a recipie and i'm willing to follow it.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Maybe God Created Man because people are happier and more fulfilled that way- Going to heaven is a good thing. It is a good feeling to know that you have a purpose in life and that God loves you and created you and gave Jesus so we could be saved and gave us some simple rules to live by. If that makes people happy why try to take their happyness from them why try to replace their fullfillment with emptyness?
> What benifit is it for you to try to change someones perspective on the world? Isn't this talked about in the bible? Do not be unfaithful- seems like a recipie and i'm willing to follow it.


i dont understand how anyone could really believe that nonsense. of course it sounds good to go to heaven!
challenging your beliefs is to our benefit because humans dont need to believe in myths anymore. ignorance is a terrible disease...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

You all could keep running your mouths for all I care... I had a discussion with my professor, who has a phd in anthropology, so the rest of you who are hating, fuck off.

Its just funny how you want to establish superiority over people in this case me, that have different beliefs then yourself... Well im glad atheismgrants you that right, you can keep having fun trying to change my beliefs. 





Padawanbater2 said:


> Ignorant theists; stupid and dangerous.. The mindset of a child, pathetic.
> 
> And just to be clear, you both have taken it to the point where nothing will change your mind, you've closed your mind to new evidence because it contradicts your faith. Another admission that you're too scared to ask what the truth actually is. If you knew the answers like you claim to, the questions would lead to the answers that convinced you and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> We ask questions and all you have is faith. You ask questions and get answers, not lies. It's wrong, deep down, and you know it shouldn't be like this, you know the god you believe in wouldn't set up or support a system like this, and you're left with the question 'why?'... And you know why. You and oly need to man up, grow up, face reality and your own humanity for what it is. Nobody will save you but yourself.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 10, 2011)

have a good dose of fuckk you too!



QUOTE=mindphuk;5947535]Great advice. Ignore free inquiry and questioning. Don't let anyone challenge your world view. Anyone that doesn't speak from a faith-based point of view is being influenced by Satan. Keep believing in the devil and evil temptation.


But for god's sake, DON'T EVER VOTE!

[/QUOTE]


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i dont understand how anyone could really believe that nonsense. of course it sounds good to go to heaven!
> challenging your beliefs is to our benefit because humans dont need to believe in myths anymore. ignorance is a terrible disease...


 So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> have a good dose of fuckk you too!


There you go folks, the compassionate, tolerant Xian spreading his love... 


Oly, I don't think I have ever commented on any of your posts and this is how you introduce yourself to me? What goes around comes around, you will be seeing a bit more of me from now on. Don't say I never warned you.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> There you go folks, the compassionate, tolerant Xian spreading his love...
> 
> 
> Oly, I don't think I have ever commented on any of your posts and this is how you introduce yourself to me? What goes around comes around, you will be seeing a bit more of me from now on. Don't say I never warned you.


 You need Jesus.
[youtube]u2LvZd_9aMU[/youtube]


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 10, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You all could keep running your mouths for all I care... I had a discussion with my professor, who has a phd in anthropology, so the rest of you who are hating, fuck off.
> 
> Its just funny how you want to establish superiority over people in this case me, that have different beliefs then yourself... Well im glad atheismgrants you that right, you can keep having fun trying to change my beliefs.


what does your professor have to do with this? because you talked to him about evolution, you know enough to deny it? is that what youre saying?



beardo said:


> So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.


religious people never harm those that dont believe?
i dont do that because i dont kill people. but i do try to show them that they believe in myths. i try to show them the ignorance of their ways. yes, i know they will say i am ignorant. but they base that off a bunch of bullshit about what jesus said. i base my argument off scientific facts.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i dont kill people.


 Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> You need Jesus.
> [youtube]u2LvZd_9aMU[/youtube]



 a completely random video along with a completely random comment.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Completely random video for a completely random comment.


 He was Jesus-I don't find that random, listen to him, listen to his mom , check the birth records Jesus Christ Allin.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?


I wish I was as stoned as you.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> He was Jesus-I don't find that random, listen to him, listen to his mom , check the birth records Jesus Christ Allin.


Seriously no. I'm not going to watch a 40 minute video of Jerry Springer and some crazy guest because you wanted to make some obscure point about a comment I made to another poster.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Seriously no. I'm not going to watch a 40 minute video of Jerry Springer and some crazy guest because you wanted to make some obscure point about a comment I made to another poster.


 Ok so don't watch it, G.G. was Jesus and the Devil he was a second cumming of Jesus like an evil jesus like ying and yang- anyways why don't you try to bash believers of Gods word? I asked the other guy that. Why cant we just be left alone by you so we can obey God in peace and do good works and follow the 10 commandments and go to heaven? Keep your wicked tongue to yourself.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> If you believe something that gives you comfort at the cost of someone else's life, liberty or happiness, then fuck you sir, you don't have the right to that belief, and you damn sure don't have a right to it if you don't have any evidence for it.





Heisenberg said:


> Only one of those two is claiming to have high morals and standards, which was supported by saying their parents taught them, making only one of them a hypocrite.


Ok, I see your point, so let me reword to be specific. If you are claiming the expressive use of the word fuck as of having low morals and standards, then Pad just contradicted himself by using the word fuck because he feels his morals are technically of higher standards supported simply through the context of what he said. Oly may feel the exact same way about Pad's belief and see them as lesser standards of morality. Attempting to assign one's vocabulary as a form of lesser morality is subjective to individual opinion and only seen as such from your personal prespective. 

And this is where my point lies, both are claiming a belief in a better set of morals. To categorically choose 1 as not setting a precedent of better morals is hypocritcal to the fact of them both claiming higher standards and using the word fuck. My point is fuck is fuck, if they both chose to use it within their vocabulary standards of their better morals then fuck is fuck. 

If Pad said to Oly I love you man, then Oly said Pad I love you man, would that then equal out to them both having equal standards or Moral? Would you then say Oly your parents taught you good morality and standards? 

No point in attaching any said comments about parents to them when they cannot defend themselves. Oly made that claim so we can speculate on their morals but we can only personally judge Oly for what he is saying. Oly parents may feel he is using low standards of morality, however they are not here to comment on or defend themselves.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> Ok so don't watch it, G.G. was Jesus and the Devil he was a second cumming of Jesus like an evil jesus like ying and yang- anyways why don't you try to bash believers of Gods word? I asked the other guy that. Why cant we just be left alone by you so we can obey God in peace and do good works and follow the 10 commandments and go to heaven? Keep your wicked tongue to yourself.


If only you would do things in peace and left everyone alone, no one would bother you. Bring your shit out in public and people will ask you why you are holding a turd and no matter how much you clean and polish it, it will still be a steaming pile of shit to many folks.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> If only you would do things in peace and left everyone alone, no one would bother you. Bring your shit out in public and people will ask you why you are holding a turd and no matter how much you clean and polish it, it will still be a steaming pile of shit to many folks.


 That's cool I will be following the ten commandments I'm looking forward to heaven and in the meantime i'm enjoying my time on Gods great earth, I would recomend you do the same but if you don't want to go to heaven I can't force you only let you know that Jesus gives you that option, if you don't want to go then that helps my chances, I heard theirs limited seating and their might only be room for 144,000 people.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo, would you mind answering these questions?

-do you believe holding a belief that comforts you at the expense of others (if your beliefs are costly to others isn't the question, for this hypothetical, assume they are) is OK?

-how can you be sure that which contradicts or opposes your beliefs are the work of the devil?

-can you see how this kind of reasoning would ensure a person doesn't question the things they believe?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 10, 2011)

[youtube]yrbzc32peYM[/youtube]

Goodnight Everybody!!

edit: and Pad I'm not picking on you, just after these last few posts....whew!!


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> That's cool I will be following the ten commandments I'm looking forward to heaven and in the meantime i'm enjoying my time on Gods great earth, I would recomend you do the same but if you don't want to go to heaven I can't force you only let you know that Jesus gives you that option, if you don't want to go then that helps my chances, I heard theirs limited seating and their might only be room for 144,000 people.


From what I have read Jesus doesn't give me that option as I have denied the holy spirit (many times). Even if I ask for forgiveness now I can't be saved, oh woe is me. 

BTW, even recommending and letting me know about Jesus's options is NOT quietly observing your god or your 10 commandments in peace. 


[I see you haven't taken my suggestion and learned the difference between there/their and theirs/there's]


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> beardo, would you mind answering these questions?
> 
> -do you believe holding a belief that comforts you at the expense of others (if your beliefs are costly to others isn't the question, for this hypothetical, assume they are) is OK?
> 
> ...


 For sure, Holding your belief is ok because thats what is best for you and theirfore what God wants, Anything challenging Gods word is the work of the Devil trying to make you stray from Gods word. The lack of questioning and belief that any questioning is blasphomy is what makes it a perfect belief system.


----------



## keiserrott (Jul 10, 2011)

Not one to jump into a lot of controversy, I'd just like to drop a link I found helpful in my own personal search. 
God is simply, love.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> From what I have read Jesus doesn't give me that option as I have denied the holy spirit (many times). Even if I ask for forgiveness now I can't be saved, oh woe is me.
> 
> BTW, even recommending and letting me know about Jesus's options is NOT quietly observing your god or your 10 commandments in peace.
> 
> ...


 I might just have to knock on your door, faith without works is dead. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior. It's like A.A.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> I might just have to knock on your door, faith without works is dead. All you have to do is accept Jesus as your personal lord and savior. It's like A.A.


So your complaining about wanting to just be left alone to worship your god were really empty words and meant to engender sympathy and understanding but no one of your kind actually believes it because proselytizing is integrated into your belief system. Lying for Jesus noted.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So your complaining about wanting to just be left alone to worship your god were really empty words and meant to engender sympathy and understanding but no one of your kind actually believes it because proselytizing is integrated into your belief system.


 It is an essential part of the program.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

keiserrott said:


> Not one to jump into a lot of controversy, I'd just like to drop a link I found helpful in my own personal search.
> God is simply, love.


 Ray Charles is God!! 




[god is love, love is blind.....]


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 10, 2011)

beardo said:


> It is an essential part of the program.


 Right, we get it, you lied.


----------



## beardo (Jul 10, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Ray Charles is God!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 God is in all of us.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 11, 2011)

beardo said:


> Why cant we just be left alone by you so we can obey God in peace and do good works and follow the 10 commandments and go to heaven? Keep your wicked tongue to yourself.


You can't bring your beliefs to the table and then expect them to not be criticized. Again, religion is always the first to play the hurt card. What is the problem with examination and critical thought? How does being asked to explain your beliefs qualify as a wicked tongue? It seems you're being pretentiously sensational. Your brain has trained itself to allow any opposition to your beliefs to be thought of as the devils work so that it becomes easy for you to dismiss it. Classic cognitive dissonance. 



Brazko said:


> Ok, I see your point, so let me reword to be specific. If you are claiming the expressive use of the word fuck as of having low morals and standards, then Pad just contradicted himself by using the word fuck because he feels his morals are technically of higher standards supported simply through the context of what he said. Oly may feel the exact same way about Pad's belief and see them as lesser standards of morality. Attempting to assign one's vocabulary as a form of lesser morality is subjective to individual opinion and only seen as such from your personal prespective.
> 
> And this is where my point lies, both are claiming a belief in a better set of morals. To categorically choose 1 as not setting a precedent of better morals is hypocritcal to the fact of them both claiming higher standards and using the word fuck. My point is fuck is fuck, if they both chose to use it within their vocabulary standards of their better morals then fuck is fuck.
> 
> ...


The quote was meant to serve as an example. You are the one that assigned my comments to a specific incident. I was speaking of olys general theme of responding to genuine inquiry with abuse and hate, which is in contrast to what Jesus taught. Since he claims to have learned his religious morals from his parents, they must have taught him to be a hypocrite, which I find despicable.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

Oh noooo!!!!! So you guys who say you believe in sciene does that mean you are a scientologist? You know, those who worship tom cruise!






mindphuk said:


> There you go folks, the compassionate, tolerant Xian spreading his love...
> 
> 
> Oly, I don't think I have ever commented on any of your posts and this is how you introduce yourself to me? What goes around comes around, you will be seeing a bit more of me from now on. Don't say I never warned you.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

Its so funny how you dudes get so riled up and stuff! Trying to belittle people, you know, its sort of a hate crime if you ask me...

You claim that people force this info on you, yet I never told any of you to believe in anything... And you try and you try so hard to talk down on my beliefs, when I have nothing to say about yours.. 


And im assuming you think any anthropologist and the like who believe in God are stupid as well...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Its so funny how you dudes get so riled up and stuff! Trying to belittle people, you know, its sort of a hate crime if you ask me...
> 
> You claim that people force this info on you, yet I never told any of you to believe in anything... And you try and you try so hard to talk down on my beliefs, *when I have nothing to say about yours*..





olylifter420 said:


> I for one *jackass*, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible... I wrote a few reports on it and passed my classes, thats what worried me, passing, not what some* stupid fucking atheist* has to say... you seem soo intelligent, but *you are very dumb*... *your logical thinking really fucking sucks ass* bro and that is something you should really re evaluate... making assumptions about things you dont know just show off your *stupidity*...


Seems to me that you had plenty to say, and your language clearly indicates that you are trying to establish a superior position by insulting. How many of us have insulted you? It seems the faults you find in others are things you fail to notice about yourself, which is typical of a hypocrite.

Meanwhile you have provided nothing of substance for us to consider. You haven't made one single valid point or addressed points made to you beyond hostile beratement. You are unable to defend any single one of your statements, and somehow in your head that equates to us getting riled up and treating you unfairly. You don't even seem to possess to ability to express yourself clearly, so why we should we pay attention to anything you say?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 11, 2011)

karri0n said:


> I'm not sure how else I can explain it. I'll implore you to re-read Pad's original post. You aren't CHOOSING to believe this. Not belieiving them is not an option available to you - no matter how hard you tried to choose not to believe in evolution, you wouldn't be convinced. Sorry if I'm not explaining better.
> 
> Could you choose to believe that's bart in your avatar and not homer? If someone thought the dad from simpsons was named bart and the kid was named homer, did they *choose* to believe that? or are they just confused?
> 
> ...


Yes I understand what you are saying. After evaluating the evidence there is no way I could choose to not believe in evolution. Theoretically I could, and many people (especially in this thread) seem to be doing just that. Presented with undeniable evidence, yet still choose to not believe it. I personally could not choose it though.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

Who are you? What have you done to contribute to society? Hmmm,, fucking atheist? You all like to and critisize, ill give you something to talk about douche...
i could fucking careless what you have to say or think... Like I said b4 and ill say it again, I dont depend on your complex thinking and if im simple minded, have a simple minded fuck you...

you try and try to make me look like im wrong, your a fucking idiot! Yea, I always got shit to say, especially to none believers who think are soo perfect... You must thiink that you are, only God is perfect, you dont believe in God,.therefore you are perfect... 

You cant really say anything to the fact that I never forced anything you all and I never told you to believe in anything, but oh well, its a numbers thing, I know...



Heisenberg said:


> Seems to me that you had plenty to say, and your language clearly indicates that you are trying to establish a superior position by insulting. How many of us have insulted you? It seems the faults you find in others are things you fail to notice about yourself, which is typical of a hypocrite.
> 
> Meanwhile you have provided nothing of substance for us to consider. You haven't made one single valid point or addressed points made to you beyond hostile beratement. You are unable to defend any single one of your statements, and somehow in your head that equates to us getting riled up and treating you unfairly. You don't even seem to possess to ability to express yourself clearly, so why we should we pay attention to anything you say?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The quote was meant to serve as an example. You are the one that assigned my comments to a specific incident. I was speaking of olys general theme of responding to genuine inquiry with abuse and hate, which is in contrast to what Jesus taught. Since he claims to have learned his religious morals from his parents, they must have taught him to be a hypocrite, which I find despicable.


They must have but did they? Obviously you know Jesus didn't. Okay, I'm not going to try and defend Oly's action so I'll just leave my specific comments to this. I claim that Oly's parents did not teach him to be a hypocrite and are not despicable people because I do not know if they surely did teach him to act that way or if Oly is straying from what they taught. If Oly's parents decide to post here later to the board and demostrate the same kind of conduct then I will agree with your statement. 

However my statements about morals and standards remains the same. I have seen Atheist/Theists refer generally to each other as idiots, ignorants, dumb/jackasses, retards, stupid, etc... I have never thought to base that conduct on anything else but the person who have chosen to use that type of language. And that still doesn't equate to what their standards of morality may be. 

Are you actually meaning to say Oly is being abusive and hateful by his chosen words and he shouldn't because it's not right for him to do so, but others get a pass because it's right for them to do? 

If not, anytime someone chooses to use that type of verbage you should instantly stop them in their tracks and address their conduct as despicable as well. 

If so, you have a skewed sense of upholding boxed standards of morality to an individual or group. 

It's all fair in Love and Warfare

edit: and Entertaining 

also you can't trust everything Oly's said because I gave him a good answer to his question but have yet to recieve +rep for it... 

that is despicable!! lol


----------



## beardo (Jul 11, 2011)

beardo said:


> So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.





beardo said:


> Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?


 It's funny how no one would answer these questions


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

beardo said:


> It's funny how no one would answer these questions


There is no other way to answer that question but like this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong#Death_Toll

*International Reception*
*Western governments and human rights organizations have expressed condemnation for the suppression in China and greeted Falun Gong with qualified sympathy.**[177]** Since 1999 Members of the United States Congress have made public pronouncements and introduced several resolutions in support of Falun Gong.**[1]** Most recently, House Resolution 605 called for "an immediate end to the campaign to persecute, intimidate, imprison, and torture Falun Gong practitioners," said that Chinese authorities have devoted extensive time and resources over the past decade to distribute "false propaganda" about the practice worldwide, and expressed sympathy to persecuted Falun Gong practitioners and their families.**[178]**[*


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Who are you? What have you done to contribute to society? Hmmm,, fucking atheist? You all like to and critisize, ill give you something to talk about douche...
> i could fucking careless what you have to say or think... Like I said b4 and ill say it again, I dont depend on your complex thinking and if im simple minded, have a simple minded fuck you...
> 
> you try and try to make me look like im wrong, your a fucking idiot! Yea, I always got shit to say, especially to none believers who think are soo perfect... You must thiink that you are, only God is perfect, you dont believe in God,.therefore you are perfect...
> ...


again, you get angry and yell at us. you have pretty much proven yourself wrong. there is no post you made on this thread that gives validity to your statements. we all doubt you know much, if anything, about evolution. you said you know enough about evolution to deny it, then later you said you just answered an essay question about it. you also said you dont believe in evolution because you believe in god and the bible. how is that not plugging your ears and closing your eyes? you are deliberately ignoring facts because you are blinded by a holy book. we are not surprised though, as most religious people are this way.

now i will wait for your rant about how i am a stupid atheist...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

what does your logical thinking have to do with you being an atheist? It was not in reference to your beliefs... stupid fucking atheist doesnt say anything about your beliefs and it was not aimed at you or at anyone... Dumb? Since when was dumb a very bad word? Stupidity, well you just showed it again...

WHy should i provide something to you if i am not arguing about my beliefs with you? You are the ones who think your atheist thoughts should be enforced on all of us, you should really see the whole picture...

You do get all riled up! YOu cant say you havnt... YOu find it hard to deal with a Christian like me... YOu are so used to forcing your beliefs on the rest of us, that you forget about what you are doing... You are smart enough to understand what i am talking about, if you dont, well thats your problem...

You are so busy calling me a hypocrite, but what are you? 





Heisenberg said:


> Seems to me that you had plenty to say, and your language clearly indicates that you are trying to establish a superior position by insulting. How many of us have insulted you? It seems the faults you find in others are things you fail to notice about yourself, which is typical of a hypocrite.
> 
> Meanwhile you have provided nothing of substance for us to consider. You haven't made one single valid point or addressed points made to you beyond hostile beratement. You are unable to defend any single one of your statements, and somehow in your head that equates to us getting riled up and treating you unfairly. You don't even seem to possess to ability to express yourself clearly, so why we should we pay attention to anything you say?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

You all still havnt answered my question, you all think anthropologists' and the like who believe in God are stupid...

Well, stupid questions get stupid answers! Thats all i have to say about what you are seeking...






Luger187 said:


> again, you get angry and yell at us. you have pretty much proven yourself wrong. there is no post you made on this thread that gives validity to your statements. we all doubt you know much, if anything, about evolution. you said you know enough about evolution to deny it, then later you said you just answered an essay question about it. you also said you dont believe in evolution because you believe in god and the bible. how is that not plugging your ears and closing your eyes? you are deliberately ignoring facts because you are blinded by a holy book. we are not surprised though, as most religious people are this way.
> 
> now i will wait for your rant about how i am a stupid atheist...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 11, 2011)

You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.

You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

you really are funny dude, you are still my brother and i care for you... I understand your racial hatred, it is not your fault though... What is the percentage of atheists? How many billions of them are there? Who asked you for any help? I enjoy open discussions, but not with you... You resort to racial hatred and discrimination towards me... and still you cannot answer what i asked about the scientists' who have given you the reasons to talk down on my beliefs are also Christians and believe in God...


Oh and I use slip ons for your information... You know those crocs, 






Padawanbater2 said:


> You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.
> 
> You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> You all still havnt answered my question, you all think anthropologists' and the like who believe in God are stupid...
> 
> Well, stupid questions get stupid answers! Thats all i have to say about what you are seeking...


i dont think theyre ALL stupid. the ones that believe because they were taught to believe, i think are stupid. the ones that can legitimately argue their points and defend their beliefs, i respect. there are not many like that though...

why cant an archaeologist be religious? that doesnt make sense to me. it seems you think if someone believes in evolution, god is out of the picture. thats not true at all



olylifter420 said:


> you really are funny dude, you are still my brother and i care for you... I understand your racial hatred, it is not your fault though... What is the percentage of atheists? How many billions of them are there? Who asked you for any help? I enjoy open discussions, but not with you... You resort to racial hatred and discrimination towards me... and still you cannot answer what i asked about the scientists' who have given you the reasons to talk down on my beliefs are also Christians and believe in God...
> 
> 
> Oh and I use slip ons for your information... You know those crocs,


hahahahahahaha how is that racist? you are ignorant. look at the way you are acting to criticism

edit: wait a minute... did you just say padawans information comes from secretly christian scientists? scheming to trick us atheists?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

criticism? what are you talking about? lol!!!!

you are really funny!

i wish we could take a class together... 





Luger187 said:


> i dont think theyre ALL stupid. the ones that believe because they were taught to believe, i think are stupid. the ones that can legitimately argue their points and defend their beliefs, i respect. there are not many like that though...
> 
> why cant an archaeologist be religious? that doesnt make sense to me. it seems you think if someone believes in evolution, god is out of the picture. thats not true at all
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.
> 
> You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.


 I remember sitting on the livingroom floor at grandma's house watching Jimmy Swaggart. He at one point was talking about how we are straying from the word of God and falling in love with watching t.v., technologies, and something else along those lines. But I recall thinking to myself aren't you on t.v. now every morning? It can't be that bad then could it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

Yes you do, i think you feel they are all stupid because of the degree they hold and what they believe in...

Atheists know about respect? Wow!

That is the message you have been relaying all this time>... But anyone who believes in God according to you, do not know shit about evolution>>>

You are still my brother and i care for you...





Luger187 said:


> i dont think theyre ALL stupid. the ones that believe because they were taught to believe, i think are stupid. the ones that can legitimately argue their points and defend their beliefs, i respect. there are not many like that though...
> 
> why cant an archaeologist be religious? that doesnt make sense to me. it seems you think if someone believes in evolution, god is out of the picture. thats not true at all
> 
> ...


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Yes you do, i think you feel they are all stupid because of the degree they hold and what they believe in...
> 
> Atheists know about respect? Wow!
> 
> ...


what we are saying is evolution is fact. you cannot deny it, unless you are ignorant to the facts. if you look at the evidence, it is plain as day that evolution occurs. there are entire fields of study on it. it is wrong to say evolution is false based on lack of evidence because we have tons of it.
now, if you want to believe that god started the process, and evolution continued that process, good for you. it does not discredit god, it merely enhances our ability to see how god REALLY makes the planet work. god made the planet, right? we are studying the planet, and this is what we find. so whats the problem?
since we KNOW it happens, why is it okay to discredit god's work, based on a 2000 year old book written by tribesman? 

as for your comment about respect, youre the one who used this emoticon 
religious people are the ones who disrespect atheists most of the time. atheists point out flaws in their logic, and the religious resort to attacks because they cant defend their own beliefs. all youve been doing is spewing attacks and jibberish


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 11, 2011)

Brazko said:


> They must have but did they? Obviously you know Jesus didn't. Okay, I'm not going to try and defend Oly's action so I'll just leave my specific comments to this. I claim that Oly's parents did not teach him to be a hypocrite and are not despicable people because I do not know if they surely did teach him to act that way or if Oly is straying from what they taught. If Oly's parents decide to post here later to the board and demostrate the same kind of conduct then I will agree with your statement.
> 
> However my statements about morals and standards remains the same. I have seen Atheist/Theists refer generally to each other as idiots, ignorants, dumb/jackasses, retards, stupid, etc... I have never thought to base that conduct on anything else but the person who have chosen to use that type of language. And that still doesn't equate to what their standards of morality may be.
> 
> ...


Of course his parents didn't necessarily teach him to be a hypocrite. I was being facetious in order to point out that, when your behavior comes under attack, saying your parents taught you, as if that somehow makes it right, begs the question whether or not they agree with his hypocritical stance and propensity to respond with abusive hate. Oly was insinuating that his parents taught him the right way while atheist's parents did not. Naturally, as I and many other atheists have religious parents, this is an absurd premise, and I was simply trying to showcase that absurdity. Once a person reaches adulthood they must take responsibility for their actions, and not blame (or credit) their parents. Not to mention that emotions and morals play no part in evaluating the claim of a deity, or that none of us suggested he give up his morals.



olylifter420 said:


> i agree with everything you have to say, but i still choose to believe in God... *I was raised with a strict set of morals* and i will never give them up, no matter what you say... *The way i was raised was probably very different then the way you were raised... that has a lot to do with the way a person think in my opinion... *


When I do give him a serious and considerate resonse, he replies with,


olylifter420 said:


> gandolf is here, run~!!!


And when others have given insightful responses,


olylifter420 said:


> Yea, alright dude! You hands down are the best... Im sorry for any inconvinience I may have caused you holyness!





olylifter420 said:


> You really hate Christians and anyone who has faith in the Lord dont you?


When faced with reason he sidesteps with sarcasm and fails to address the actual points. He takes a hostile and abusive position on the subject of atheism while maintaining that he doesn't have anything to say and we should treat him as if he is simply being a quiet religious believer. He tries to frame our responses as if our motivation is simply to feel superior, which allows him to dismiss the logic contained within. He holds others to a standard he is not willing to live up to himself, which makes him a hypocrite. 



olylifter420 said:


> I dont know about you lug, but i do listen to my parents... *I was taught not to go against what they said or taught me because they are my parents. * I love them and i have never been a dick with them like most people i know... On top of that i have some of the best most coolest parents someone can have... * I had no reason to question anything they taught.*..


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I personally believe 1 dumb Fuck deserves another. If the things we say on here is to be held accountable to our parents, then I will also venture in saying that we all have some descpicable dumb fuck parents as well..


I was being facetious but somehow that was overlooked as well. It is absurb. So my point was not to charge such comments to people who are not present to defend themselves.The remarks were inflammatory and we all know such remarks will fuel anger in most cases as in dealing with any kind of attacks on family will do. Holding a blind eye to that is being a hypocrit to that fact as well.

And I never made a claim that you all did suggest him give up his morals or it had some bearing on claims of a deity. You suggested that his remarks were not of high morality and standards. I've only commented that his remarks is of no bearing of his principles of morality and there is no way at this time to prove his parents approved of such commentary.

We intervened into a country's civil war because of the morality of the war being made.
We didn't intervene because they were killing each other. 

Now is Killing each other the moral thing to do? 

edit: its a fight and there are no rules to survival except for the ones here on RiU, 

he is doing no different than what anybody else has opted to do in their survival.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 11, 2011)

It doesn't matter with people like that. He doesn't know how to react to people questioning his beliefs, he's been conditioned to automatically take offense. Even when anybody is simply asking a damn question. I hate to be so frank, but fuck those people, the world could do with less of them. They're mindless drones walking around with the switch turned off, no amount of reason, facts, logic, NOTHING will amount to anything. All they care about is their faith, their comfort, theirs theirs THEIRS! Dumb ass religious people are some of the worst kind in my book, not to be confused with regular religious people. They're selfish, dangerous and ignorant.


----------



## VILEPLUME (Jul 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It doesn't matter with people like that. He doesn't know how to react to people questioning his beliefs, he's been conditioned to automatically take offense. Even when anybody is simply asking a damn question. I hate to be so frank, but fuck those people, the world could do with less of them. They're mindless drones walking around with the switch turned off, no amount of reason, facts, logic, NOTHING will amount to anything. All they care about is their faith, their comfort, theirs theirs THEIRS! Dumb ass religious people are some of the worst kind in my book, not to be confused with regular religious people. They're selfish, dangerous and ignorant.


I agree with you. I am a Christian and I hate dumb Christians as well. 2 out of 3 Christians have never read the bible and I think a lot of those people would be surprised if they did. I remember reading it for the first time and finding out that after the flood Noah planted grapes then later made wine and got drunk and naked, some how that part of the story doesnt make it into the children's teachings.

For me personally, I think there is too much evidence to not think there is a God and that Jesus never existed. But that is me personally and I don't push that belief on others, and I agree that no one should get upset for thinking differently.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It doesn't matter with people like that. He doesn't know how to react to people questioning his beliefs, he's been conditioned to automatically take offense. Even when anybody is simply asking a damn question. I hate to be so frank, but fuck those people, the world could do with less of them. They're mindless drones walking around with the switch turned off, no amount of reason, facts, logic, NOTHING will amount to anything. All they care about is their faith, their comfort, theirs theirs THEIRS! Dumb ass religious people are some of the worst kind in my book, not to be confused with regular religious people. They're selfish, dangerous and ignorant.


 
Well I've expressed to you in the past that you all have more patience and leniency than I have. If productive conversation seems impossible just provide information without the personal dialogue. This may be to Oly's point as he feels you are trying to convince him of something he doesn't wish to believe in. At this point just simply provide information and they can accept it or not, nothing there to argue about especially if constructive dialogue has been demostrated to be futile...

I tried sitting and just giving resourceful information to a friend and he told me it looked cartoonish/joke. He couldn't accept what I was telling him as serious and I could see him starting to tear up from anger. At that point there is nothing you can do, if they want to know more they will seek you out..


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 11, 2011)

Some advice for oly:

[video=youtube;svwGRJA28lY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY[/video]


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Irony: Those that don't seek out God accept the pitfalls of their humanity justified through religion. Those who choose to seek out God grow closer to their creator and they no longer accept the pitfalls of their religion.... I just made that shit up but I'm sure it's been said before...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Atheists know about respect?


i couldn't say this better than this bloke so imagine its me saying it instead 

[youtube]sSYEkQjJ-Yc[/youtube]


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

WOWOOOHHH!!!!! you really know how to multi quote... Does that come with being an atheist? 

Sticks and stones might hurt, but your words never will,LOL!!!

And give your parents a big Fuck you too, for me, as you have done the same to mine...





Heisenberg said:


> Of course his parents didn't necessarily teach him to be a hypocrite. I was being facetious in order to point out that, when your behavior comes under attack, saying your parents taught you, as if that somehow makes it right, begs the question whether or not they agree with his hypocritical stance and propensity to respond with abusive hate. Oly was insinuating that his parents taught him the right way while atheist's parents did not. Naturally, as I and many other atheists have religious parents, this is an absurd premise, and I was simply trying to showcase that absurdity. Once a person reaches adulthood they must take responsibility for their actions, and not blame (or credit) their parents. Not to mention that emotions and morals play no part in evaluating the claim of a deity, or that none of us suggested he give up his morals.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> WOWOOOHHH!!!!! you really know how to multi quote... Does that come with being an atheist?


it comes with a willingness to learn...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

LOL, that really makes me laugh... ID rather be a full retard then be some atheist prick!!!! I dont know how i would live with myself knowing that i stand to crumble everyones beliefs because they are not like my own... fucking retarded if you ask me...

the ones that need the advice are your kind... Tell them to stop blaming all true believers and their beliefs for your fucked up childhood... It is not my fault you had a suck ass childhood, God knows who to bless, and apparently He knew you all would be the bad apples, so He granted you what you call a fucked up childhood, where you learn to hate these beliefs and principles and begin to blame everyone else for your misery...

I just hope that amongst all of you, can you find compassion for each other, because your sorry ass rants on here are pathetic! 

I cant wait for the next retard to blow their horn at me... ill be here all day...

i dont give up on things as easily as you all do... 

you have shown us how easily you change your mind and decide to shorthand yourselves.... I know, not many will understand what i am writing, obviously you wont look past what is best for yourself in this argument so you wont care to understand what i am writing about...

say all you want... im listening...





guy incognito said:


> Some advice for oly:
> 
> [video=youtube;svwGRJA28lY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY[/video]


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

a willingness to learn and harbor that knowledge to use against others with different beliefs? WOw,, thats some learning!!!!

Irony is that, these guys just keep staying blind! They probably dont have mirrors in their houses or they look the other way...

I dont kwow when in this thread i tried forcing my beliefs on anyone in here... I never said, follow the word of God or you will go to hell... I never tried preaching to these fools...

And all they have done is rant about my beliefs and how i should change them because if not that means i am a retard? Really, what the fuck? 

Who are the ones forcing their beliefs on who? Not me...

I could care less if people want to follow me or not... If you show me that you do, then i will continue, if you show that you dont, then i respect that and i will let live your life just the way you were living before i met you..

Unlike these idiots that dont get it, that i do believe evolution, but i also know that through God was evolution able to manifest itself... These fools are just that, fools, a flock of sheep wondering without a herder. 

oh well, if that how they want to live their life, so be it, i dont care... I respect them being an atheist, but when they start to attack about my beliefs, i will not back down, and its best if i could see these douche bags in person to see what they really are...




ginjawarrior said:


> it comes with a willingness to learn...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

totally fucking bias jackass, if you know, a biased opinion does not really carry any value at all, so again, a stupid response...

and to top it all off, his fucking accent sucks and is quite annoying... stupid old fuck, what ive give to bash his face...( oh no, did i just say that) (i can imagine what you fucks thought of to say after reading that)



ginjawarrior said:


> i couldn't say this better than this bloke so imagine its me saying it instead
> 
> [youtube]sSYEkQjJ-Yc[/youtube]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> a willingness to learn and harbor that knowledge to use against others with different beliefs? WOw,, thats some learning!!!!
> 
> Irony is that, these guys just keep staying blind! They probably dont have mirrors in their houses or they look the other way...
> 
> ...


no one hunted you down, no one came to you door with this you came to this thread and you got Discussion...

playing the slapped queen and pretending your persecuted doesnt look too good 

i thought your parents taught you not to be a fragile flower?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> totally fucking bias jackass, if you know, a biased opinion does not really carry any value at all, so again, a stupid response...
> 
> and to top it all off, his fucking accent sucks and is quite annoying... stupid old fuck, what ive give to bash his face...( oh no, did i just say that) (i can imagine what you fucks thought of to say after reading that)


lol tell you what i'll memorise that speech for you and the day we meet i will put on my most condescending "british accent" (i do sport a terribly good one you know) and i will repeat it just for you 

and i think its a very fitting video


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

yea, if you dont, then you are a pussy!!!! 





Padawanbater2 said:


> You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.
> 
> You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

you blood brits and your fish n chips shit!!! i bet you got some fucked up teeth too!

and again, you dont have anything good to say, dudes totally biased, so your thoughts dont count!





ginjawarrior said:


> lol tell you what i'll memorise that speech for you and the day we meet i will put on my most condescending "british accent" (i do sport a terribly good one you know) and i will repeat it just for you
> 
> and i think its a very fitting video


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

ahhh, exhaling in disbelief... again, a stupid atheist that has his head so far up his ars that he cant see nothing but shit...




ginjawarrior said:


> no one hunted you down, no one came to you door with this you came to this thread and you got Discussion...
> 
> playing the slapped queen and pretending your persecuted doesnt look too good
> 
> i thought your parents taught you not to be a fragile flower?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

judging by the video, im going to assume most of the douches in here are white?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

all of you all claim to be so smart, but what you all have failed to realize is that all you are saying is very biased...Bias shit dont work and is not a valid discussion...

so thanks


----------



## serioussquirrel (Jul 11, 2011)

As far as I care, the missing link was aliens end of story. How does that make you feel?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> judging by the video, im going to assume most of the douches in here are white?


up untill this moment in the thread i didnt think our "color" had anything to do with thread

but yeah being ginja im also pretty damn white

but anyway back to the slapped routine you got going there the moment anyone making you think for a second about your beliefs. whats that about?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> all of you all claim to be so smart, but what you all have failed to realize is that all you are saying is very biased...Bias shit dont work and is not a valid discussion...
> 
> so thanks


do not not quite see where on the scale of bias'edness you might be sitting??

just wondering like


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

serioussquirrel said:


> As far as I care, the missing link was aliens end of story. How does that make you feel?



it very much could have been aliens but even they would have had to evolved first to get to a stage where they were capable of getting us started


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

"Biased thought can lead to very big mistakes." 




ginjawarrior said:


> do not not quite see where on the scale of bias'edness you might be sitting??
> 
> just wondering like


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

yea, its called scientology, lol





ginjawarrior said:


> it very much could ha
> 
> 
> 
> ve been aliens but even they would have had to evolved first to get to a stage where they were capable of getting us started


----------



## Cid6.7 (Jul 11, 2011)

I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - this is a somewhat new kind of religion. Albert Einstein


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yea, its called scientology, lol



scientology is a different kettle of fish i dont know anyone who believes in that to deride

just a shame they dont smoke pot


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

has the missing link been discovered yet?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

so your saying they believe in tom cruise?





ginjawarrior said:


> scientology is a different kettle of fish i dont know anyone who believes in that to deride
> 
> just a shame they dont smoke pot


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> so your saying they believe in tom cruise?


apparently they believe in all sort of shit i just have never been able to pin one down to ask him about it.

you should download their "instruction manuals" they're great they did have em over at wiki leaks


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

wow, wikileaks!! never been there


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

sooo whats all this jumping about moaning about people shattering your beliefs in a thread that you came to voluntarily?

why you worried is faith such a fragile thing that it can be broken so easily by some random stranger's on the internet?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

what has broken? i stilled asked if the missing link has been found?




ginjawarrior said:


> sooo whats all this jumping about moaning about people shattering your beliefs in a thread that you came to voluntarily?
> 
> why you worried is faith such a fragile thing that it can be broken so easily by some random stranger's on the internet?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what has broken? i stilled asked if the missing link has been found?


which one were you looking for? they've found plenty


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

tell you what heres the best one they've found


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

WOW, you are pretty smart! you found a strand of DNA, then they are right, signs of intelligence can be found in the simplest of organisms





ginjawarrior said:


> tell you what heres the best one they've found


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> WOW, you are pretty smart! you found a strand of DNA, then they are right, signs of intelligence can be found in the simplest of organisms



you know what dna is yet your asking about a missing link?


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

oly... you are really showing everyone how ignorant you are. calling people stupid atheists and shouting obscenities wont get you anywhere in life. what is wrong with challenging your beliefs? are you afraid you might be wrong? if not, why dont you just have a decent conversation with us? so far you havent countered any of our arguments. if you are right, you should be able to show us why you are. if not, why do you believe in it yourself?

please actually answer my questions this time

BTW, there isnt really such a thing as a missing link in evolution. every single time we find new fossils, that creates two new gaps that were not there before. people will always say there is a missing link because we havent found every fossil that has ever existed. we can never find everything, and there will always be questions. but the least you could do is actually look at the evidence, and not base your decision to believe it or not from your holy book. base your decision on EVIDENCE, which there is plenty of


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> WOW, you are pretty smart! you found a strand of DNA, then they are right, signs of intelligence can be found in the simplest of organisms


who said signs of intelligence are in the simplest of organisms? wtf?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?




Luger187 said:


> who said signs of intelligence are in the simplest of organisms? wtf?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

what questions? If you were not smart enough you would have understood my point of view already.... I never said no, evolution does not exist, did I? All i said is i choose not to accept it before my faith... 

and there is a missing link between the last found hominid and us, humans... that is the missing link i am talking about...

Just Dawson and Woodward in 1912, who decided to create a fake discovery of the "missing link." They created a skull that had both human and ape characteristics, but when further investigations were done, they discovered that they were false and a hoax! 

That is the missing link that i need... 




Luger187 said:


> oly... you are really showing everyone how ignorant you are. calling people stupid atheists and shouting obscenities wont get you anywhere in life. what is wrong with challenging your beliefs? are you afraid you might be wrong? if not, why dont you just have a decent conversation with us? so far you havent countered any of our arguments. if you are right, you should be able to show us why you are. if not, why do you believe in it yourself?
> 
> please actually answer my questions this time
> 
> BTW, there isnt really such a thing as a missing link in evolution. every single time we find new fossils, that creates two new gaps that were not there before. people will always say there is a missing link because we havent found every fossil that has ever existed. we can never find everything, and there will always be questions. but the least you could do is actually look at the evidence, and not base your decision to believe it or not from your holy book. base your decision on EVIDENCE, which there is plenty of


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?


no. that has nothing to do with evolution


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

alright, if you say so... Then how did they know what to eat or what not to eat? How did they know where to hide and where not to hide? How were they able to survive so long if not for some level of intelligence?

Did mother nature take them by the hand all the way through?




ginjawarrior said:


> no. that has nothing to do with evolution


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 11, 2011)

Why do you people continue to engage this troll? It's obvious he's not interested in anything anyone says, whether it is the truth or not. He's here because he thinks he's funny and can make fun of atheists although the majority of his posts merely display that he's mentally incapable of having a rational discussion. Quit posting and he'll have no one to play with.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 11, 2011)

You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

WHat, who said i was funny? I never claimed that i was funny! What the fuck?

im not out to make fun of atheists' either! Gosh, where are you getting this from dude? 

I see that you all dont care to bother to answer some of the questions i have asked all along, but that is ok, i dont hate you all like you hate me...

I think guys are a cool bunch... SOrta like the brady bunch!






mindphuk said:


> Why do you people continue to engage this troll? It's obvious he's not interested in anything anyone says, whether it is the truth or not. He's here because he thinks he's funny and can make fun of atheists although the majority of his posts merely display that he's mentally incapable of having a rational discussion.  Quit posting and he'll have no one to play with.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 11, 2011)

I like the way you think... Are all atheists' pricks and dick heads like you or are all dick heads and pricks atheists'?

both seem to have the same motives in life... belittle people they dont agree with...





Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I see that you all dont care to bother to answer some of the questions i have asked all along,


^^^^
This = Ironic


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?


intelligence isnt necessary for evolution. bacteria evolve



olylifter420 said:


> what questions? If you were not smart enough you would have understood my point of view already.... I never said no, evolution does not exist, did I? All i said is i choose not to accept it before my faith...
> 
> and there is a missing link between the last found hominid and us, humans... that is the missing link i am talking about...
> 
> ...


what do you mean by you do not accept evolution? youve seen the evidence, but choose to ignore it because the bible has contradictions to it?

ok so if we found that missing link, would you not say we need another fossil to show the new missing link? people have been doing this for many years. like i said before, any new evidence discovered only creates more gaps, which anti-evolutionists claim are evidence of evolutions faults.

of course people are going to make hoaxes to make a profit. thats what some humans do


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 11, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> well if organisms evolve, are they not an intelligent organism?





olylifter420 said:


> I like the way you think... Are all atheists' pricks and dick heads like you or are all dick heads and pricks atheists'?
> 
> both seem to have the same motives in life... *belittle people they dont agree with*...


that is what you have been doing. actually you just did it in the first sentence of this quote


----------



## brett11253 (Jul 11, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Why do you people continue to engage this troll? It's obvious he's not interested in anything anyone says, whether it is the truth or not. He's here because he thinks he's funny and can make fun of atheists although the majority of his posts merely display that he's mentally incapable of having a rational discussion. Quit posting and he'll have no one to play with.


 They all believe in it because they are scared to oppose it.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 11, 2011)

Oly,

Do you *choose* to believe in God? If it were a choice, then you could choose not to. Could you possibly choose to be certain that there is no god?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 11, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?


I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?

Let's see what a quick google search brings up..... 


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


*Arguments for the existence of God*

*The **cosmological argument** argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.*
*The **teleological argument** argues that the **universe's order** and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.*
*The hypothesis of **Intelligent design** proposes that certain features of the universe and of **living things** are the product of an **intelligent**cause**.**[18]** Its proponents are mainly **Christians**[19]** and **Jews**[20]**.*

*The **ontological argument** is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.**[21]**Avicenna**,**[22]**[23]**St. Anselm of Canterbury** and **Alvin Plantinga** formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.**[21]*
*The **argument from degree**, a version of the ontological argument posited by **Aquinas**, states that there must exist a being which possesses all properties to the maximum possible degree.*
*Arguments that a non-physical quality observed in the universe is of fundamental importance and not an **epiphenomenon**, such as **Morality** (**Argument from morality**), **Beauty** (**Argument from beauty**), **Love** (**Argument from love**), or **religious experience** (**Argument from religious experience**), are arguments for **theism** as against **materialism**.*
*The **anthropic argument** suggests that basic facts, such as humanity's existence, are best explained by the existence of God.*
*The **moral argument** argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.*
*The **transcendental argument** suggests that **logic**, **science**, **ethics**, and other serious matters do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.*
*The **will to believe doctrine** was **pragmatist** philosopher **William James**' attempt to prove God by showing that the adoption of theism as a hypothesis "works" in a believer's life. This doctrine depended heavily on James' **pragmatic theory of truth** where beliefs are proven by how they work when adopted rather than by proofs before they are believed (a form of the **hypothetico-deductive method**).*
*The **argument from reason** holds that if, as thoroughgoing naturalism entails, all human thoughts are the effect of a physical cause, then there is no reason for assuming that they are also the consequent of a reasonable ground. Knowledge, however, is apprehended by reasoning from ground to consequent. Therefore, if naturalism were true, there would be no way of knowing it&#8212;or anything else not the direct result of a physical cause&#8212;and one could not even suppose it, except by a fluke.*
*[**edit**] Arguments from historical events or personages* 



*See also: **Anecdotal Evidence*

*Judaism** asserts that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at **the Exodus** and the giving of the **Ten Commandments** in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.*
*The argument from the **Resurrection of Jesus**. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God's existence.**[24]** This is one of several arguments known as the **Christological argument**.*
*Islam** asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the **Qur'an**, vindicates its divine authorship, and thus the existence of a God.*
*The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints**, also known as **Mormonism**, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ and angels to **Joseph Smith** and others and subsequent finding and translation of the **Book of Mormon** establishes the existence of God.*
*[**edit**] Hindu arguments*

*Hindus** argue that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of **karma**. In a commentary to **Brahma Sutras** (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, **Adi Sankara**, an **Indian philosopher** who consolidated the doctrine of **Advaita Vedanta**, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like **adrsta**&#8212;an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result&#8212;by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (**Ishvara**).**[25]*
*A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.**[26]** Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.**[27]** Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.*
*The **Nyaya** school, one of six orthodox schools of **Hindu philosophy**, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;**[28]** it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.**[28]** This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of **Vedanta**.**[28]*

*[**edit**] Inductive arguments* 



*Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through **inductive reasoning**.*

*Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of **faith** is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the **Scottish** statesman **Arthur Balfour** in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in **France** by **Ferdinand Brunetière**, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?**[29]*
*[**edit**] Arguments from testimony*

*See also: **Anecdotal Evidence* 



*Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of certain witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific **revealed**religion**. **Swinburne** argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.**[30]*

*The **witness argument** gives credibility to personal **witnesses**, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the **argument from miracles** which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.*
*The **majority argument** argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God's existence.*
*[**edit**] Arguments grounded in personal experiences* 


*See also: **Anecdotal Evidence*

*An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. **Paul of Tarsus**, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to **Damascus**. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called "**Born-Again Christians**".*
*The **Scottish School of Common Sense** led by **Thomas Reid** taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because **common sense** obliges people to accept them.*
*The **Argument from a Proper Basis** argues that belief in God is "properly basic"; that it is similar to statements like "I see a chair" or "I feel pain". Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.*
*In **Germany**, the School of **Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi** taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, **reason**, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person's consciousness and unites them to one another.**[31]** God's existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like **Immanuel Kant**, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.*
*In Emile, **Jean-Jacques Rousseau** asserted that when a person's understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people's hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the **soul**.*
*The same theory was advocated in Germany by **Friedrich Schleiermacher**, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.**[32]*
*Many modern **Protestant** theologians follow in Schleiermacher's footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.*
*Modernist Christianity** also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one's subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself. In condemnation of this view the **Oath Against Modernism** formulated by **Pius X**, a **Pope** of the **Catholic Church**, says: "Deum ... naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor." ("I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of **creation**, as the cause is known through its effects.")*
*Pascal's Wager** (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher **Blaise Pascal** that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.*
*Brahma Kumaris** religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant **Lekhraj Kripalani** (1876&#8211;1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him. **[33]**[34*



karri0n said:


> Back on Topic...


 

I do not choose to believe in God. Maybe there is only evidential information provided in contexts that you are capable of comprehending that impedes you to not believe in God. However what you are capable of comprehending has no bearing on the evidence that I am able to comprehend that facilitates my belief in God. Your absence is my absence. 

I'm also rational enough to know there are rational arguments against the existence of a God/god. If I wished to know them, I'm rational enough to seek them out. If I then wanted to discuss my rationality of thought compared with other rational arguements, I would then lay out what rational arguements I had, so others could discuss the rationality of my thinking. But if you just want rational arguements there are plenty provided above you could choose from.

I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...

Please note as well that I do not find all arguements above as rational to my understanding, however, they are rational arguements others have presented no less....


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...
> 
> ..


If I understand correctly, you are asserting that it's a problem in defining just what a god is. I absolutely agree with this, and feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties. There is, unfortunately, a very large population that has been told that interpreting mythology as metaphor(its intended purpose) is blasphemous.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

karri0n said:


> If I understand correctly, you are asserting that it's a problem in defining just what a god is. I absolutely agree with this, and feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties. There is, unfortunately, a very large population that has been told that interpreting mythology as metaphor(its intended purpose) is blasphemous.


Your understanding is correct. I know a stance may be made to say defined terms are all we have and should be defined as such. However we must use the defined as a means to understanding the gray in between. 

The gray never appears definable by any definition and there is no black to white without the gray in between.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

If the missing link was found then i would most certainly applaud the find... IT would not change my beliefs but i would feel more comfortable accepting the entire process of evolution. 

So what is an intelligent organism?

ANd i choose not to adhere to logical discussion rules here because we have differing point of views and no true education is taking place or one concrete point will not be establish... Although, the same discussion taking place here, i was able to have with my professor... That discussion was very productive and educational... What you all have to say and question, i really do not care for and to satisfy your need to make fun of people, fuck off fucking atheists! LOL>>>>

However, if any of you have a degree in anthropology or the like and have commented on here, i will consider your opinions if you care to share your degrees.

I choose to believe in God because i want to, I had wondering thoughts like you all atheists', but i found that life without direction was boring... I felt that not believing in anything really was not a life i wanted to live... I also found that during that time, i was more miserable and unhappy then ever. Then i found out that my faith in God is above all else... My life is so much better now that my faith is stronger then ever... SO i really dont care what you question about my beliefs... I think i have shared with you more then i would like to, but i want you all to keep feeling superior to me and making your atheist statements at me...






Luger187 said:


> intelligence isnt necessary for evolution. bacteria evolve
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> If the missing link was found then i would most certainly applaud the find... IT would not change my beliefs but i would feel more comfortable accepting the entire process of evolution.


You're either lying or haven't gone two searches deep into Google to find the answer of "the missing link!". At least you were honest in saying that you _STILL _wouldn't accept it and it wouldn't change your beliefs, but why wouldn't you accept the truth? Why would you believe the god you believe created the universe and everything in it (which includes your intellect) would want you to lie to yourself? Don't you think he's going to know you're attempting to lie and bypass the system you believe he's set up? Has this question again gone way over your head? Are you just going to throw out more attacks with nothing to offer? 



olylifter420 said:


> ANd i choose not to adhere to logical discussion rules here because we have differing point of views and no true education is taking place or one concrete point will not be establish..


..which would be the point of adhering to the rules and guidlines of logic. 

You say one thing, I say one thing, you don't follow the rules and instead just go "blah blah blah!" with your hands over your ears and closed eyes, we get nowhere fast. Check back the last 6 or 7 pages for a fine example of that. All you do is blab on about being attacked, being persecuted. 



olylifter420 said:


> I choose to believe in God because i want to, I had wondering thoughts like you all atheists', but i found that life without direction was boring...


You're ignorant. You don't choose beliefs. I've literally face-palmed multiple times while responding to you.. Are you a grown adult person? I'm very curious how you live your day to day life.. This is stuff I learned at the very beginning of life.. On top of it is the anger issue. Anything that differs from your own POV is wrong! Violence is the answer. You're a weak human being with a weak mind, you can't defend your thoughts or actions with words and it humiliates you, as it should. You should be ashamed for holding the beliefs you've expressed. Go pick on little kids or weaker people than you. No amount of physical harm you cause will fill the void that's left over after everything's all said and done and you still can't answer to yourself why you believe some of the crazy shit you do, your only answer is because a book told you to, and that same book told you it was right, which in the end, is the worst face palm of all.

So yeah, at least you're left with that. 



olylifter420 said:


> I felt that not believing in anything really was not a life i wanted to live... I also found that during that time, i was more miserable and unhappy then ever. Then i found out that my faith in God is above all else... My life is so much better now that my faith is stronger then ever... SO i really dont care what you question about my beliefs... I think i have shared with you more then i would like to, but i want you all to keep feeling superior to me and making your atheist statements at me...


Translation: "the fact this fake phoney shit makes me feel comfortable being an asshole and gives me a fake phoney justification (whether I even understand what the fuck this means or not) so I can sleep at night is more important than anyone else's life, liberty or happiness." 

Go fuck yourself oly. If nothing else, I'm sure you'll understand that much. 

 Have a pleasant night.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

Pad, I don't think oly is the best person to seek answers from. He's stumbled upon religion without understanding what it is, so there is a poor chance you will gain any understanding from him. He has proven this with all his responses, which aren't likely to change. He doesn't even understand what we mean when we say ignorant, he sees it as an insult. How can you communicate with that level of under education? It's like trying to explain to a child that the big bright ball of light in the sky is actually a giant nuclear furnace that builds hydrogen into helium. The child doesn't know what words like hydrogen and nuclear mean, so there is no way he can possibly go on to make a connection. He is not capable of seeing it as anything other than a ball of light, nor is he capable of explaining to you why he doesn't see it your way. Oly is not a child, so it is unlikely his basic comprehension skills will improve. Whether someone takes this position with god or the sun, is it really a religious position? Oly is both willfully and incidentally ignorant, and happy about it. Your words will never mean anything other than atheist superiority to him, and you will gather no valid insight from engaging him. The good news is that people such as him don't amount to much in life, and he probably doesn't vote or try to influence political policy. When someone demonstrates they are a lost cause (incapable of comprehensive discussion) it is best to leave them be and let them circle the drain. It is your thread, but I don't see the value in your exchanges. Even religious people that might be reading this thread know better than him. I think it's important to send the message that, if you can't defend your beliefs (or even express them clearly in olys case) you DO NOT get to bring them to the table and participate in discussion with the adults. Unless of course you simply enjoy poking a retard with a stick.

People with his outlook and conduct make me angry too, but I realized a few years ago that those sort of people are not likely to be part of your circle of acquaintances. I used to leave the house with an angry sour attitude aimed at religious people, but in actuality most of them don't mind questioning their beliefs and assigning reason, as invalid as it may be. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back. This in no way excuses them for their erroneous conclusions and their tendency to push and judge; I am just saying that neither do they deserve such level of hostility. When you do encounter a worthless position such as olys, it does no good to attack it as it does not represent the typical catalyst responsible for religion. The best thing you can do is to promote awareness and education and encourage critical thought, which of course I see you do a lot. It's a long slow process but one that is likely to, eventually, be productive. These are the things I would have told my younger, angrier self, and I say them to you not out of concern for oly, but because I think you might benefit from a different perspective. I still tend to be inflammatory and offensive at times, but I do so while promoting doubt, and not just to point fingers and insult. If you turn on the God channel in my house, within 10 minutes I will be so angry at their manipulative promotion of self serving illogic I might break the TV, but again, I find those are not the same people I see going to church, and not all religious people are affiliated.

In short, I am suggesting you should save your contempt for those who deserve it (sheep mentality vs child mentality) and shape it into a more piercing and impressionable tool.

Here's a quote that in no way pertains to anything I've just expressed,

I have no room in my heart for compassion
If you piss me off I will quickly start smashin'
Your pleas for reason are simply pathetic
Why waste my words when my fists are poetic

- Beefcake the Mighty

[video=youtube;y-rxFGqseIs]http://youtu.be/eMUoN61HE3M[/video]

I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I HATE you, I HIT you. I BEAT YOU TO DEATH.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)




----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?
> 
> Let's see what a quick google search brings up.....
> 
> ...


I stopped reading this post about half way through, but as far as I can see there is not a single rational reason in that list.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

WTF @ RIU for that triple post


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

WTF @ RIU for that triple post


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You are a perfect example of the disgusting pieces of shit organized religion produces. Can't think for yourself. Can't accept criticism. Can't defend your beliefs. Can't have an adult conversation. Always resorts to violence first. Always takes offense. Doesn't care to understand science yet uses it's applications on a daily basis. Takes EVERYTHING for granted. Is content living in ignorance. I'd be amazed if you could tie your fucking shoes man.
> 
> You, and the millions of retards like you, are the reason the rest of us have to deal with so much unnecessary shit. One day the day will come where most of us on the other side stop giving a fuck about picking you idiots up by your belt buckle to join us and let you destroy the self righteous Christian society you've created. We'll be nowhere to found for help when you need it.


Are you Atheists working on ways to eliminate us? I'm sure you are. Elitist scum.


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> It's funny how no one would answer these questions







Originally Posted by *beardo*  
So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.






Originally Posted by *beardo*  
Why don't you? Why not? Don't you think they would taste good?



No one seems to want to touch on this or give any answers, but this might highlight why we need God.


----------



## Dankster4Life (Jul 12, 2011)

OLYLIFTER...............

GO THE FUCK AWAY!!!!!

YOU HAVE SCREWED THIS THREAD BIG TIME!

If 10 mutha fuckas tell ya yer a horse......get a bag of oats.........can you understand the simplicity of that statement??????I know your all super smart and shit cause your in school an all but damn dude!!!!!

I'm going back ta where i left off.Good stuff in here fellas....keep it up.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Originally Posted by *beardo*
> So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.
> 
> 
> ...


I don't smash the skull of people that disagree with me because I have respect for other people and know that it would be wrong. If you need god to tell you not to do shit like that you are a terrible, disgusting, worthless human being and the world would be better off without you. I know how to behave like a decent human being without being tricked or coerced by fear.


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I don't smash the skull of people that disagree with me because I have respect for other people and know that it would be wrong. If you need god to tell you not to do shit like that you are a terrible, disgusting, worthless human being and the world would be better off without you. I know how to behave like a decent human being without being tricked or coerced by fear.


 What is a human being? Is that something God created in his image? Or an animal like a monkey that has evolved to become the dominant species? What is respect? Is that an invention or our mind or our socitey or our parents or government? What is wrong? what makes something wrong?


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> What is a human being? Is that something God created in his image? Or an animal like a monkey that has evolved to become the dominant species? What is respect? Is that an invention or our mind or our socitey or our parents or government? What is wrong? what makes something wrong?


a human is an ape-like animal that has become the dominant species. if god created us in his image, we would all look the same. but there are people born with all kinds of crazy diseases. extra limbs, lack of limbs, mental/physical handicaps, etc. if we are so perfect, why does this happen? is god punishing them? why would he punish someone who hasnt even had a chance to understand who or what they are yet? and if he does, why do you worship him if you know he does this?
science has an explanation for these things, do you?

respect is different in many cultures. some think its disrespectful to show the bottom of your feet, or show just the middle finger at someone. other cultures wouldnt even notice that you did that action. so it all depends on what society you were raised in, and how they behaved.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Pad, I don't think oly is the best person to seek answers from. He's stumbled upon religion without understanding what it is, so there is a poor chance you will gain any understanding from him. He has proven this with all his responses, which aren't likely to change. He doesn't even understand what we mean when we say ignorant, he sees it as an insult. How can you communicate with that level of under education? It's like trying to explain to a child that the big bright ball of light in the sky is actually a giant nuclear furnace that builds hydrogen into helium. The child doesn't know what words like hydrogen and nuclear mean, so there is no way he can possibly go on to make a connection. He is not capable of seeing it as anything other than a ball of light, nor is he capable of explaining to you why he doesn't see it your way. Oly is not a child, so it is unlikely his basic comprehension skills will improve. Whether someone takes this position with god or the sun, is it really a religious position? Oly is both willfully and incidentally ignorant, and happy about it. Your words will never mean anything other than atheist superiority to him, and you will gather no valid insight from engaging him. The good news is that people such as him don't amount to much in life, and he probably doesn't vote or try to influence political policy. When someone demonstrates they are a lost cause (incapable of comprehensive discussion) it is best to leave them be and let them circle the drain. It is your thread, but I don't see the value in your exchanges. Even religious people that might be reading this thread know better than him. I think it's important to send the message that, if you can't defend your beliefs (or even express them clearly in olys case) you DO NOT get to bring them to the table and participate in discussion with the adults. Unless of course you simply enjoy poking a retard with a stick.
> 
> People with his outlook and conduct make me angry too, but I realized a few years ago that those sort of people are not likely to be part of your circle of acquaintances. I used to leave the house with an angry sour attitude aimed at religious people, but in actuality most of them don't mind questioning their beliefs and assigning reason, as invalid as it may be. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back. This in no way excuses them for their erroneous conclusions and their tendency to push and judge; I am just saying that neither do they deserve such level of hostility. When you do encounter a worthless position such as olys, it does no good to attack it as it does not represent the typical catalyst responsible for religion. The best thing you can do is to promote awareness and education and encourage critical thought, which of course I see you do a lot. It's a long slow process but one that is likely to, eventually, be productive. These are the things I would have told my younger, angrier self, and I say them to you not out of concern for oly, but because I think you might benefit from a different perspective. I still tend to be inflammatory and offensive at times, but I do so while promoting doubt, and not just to point fingers and insult. If you turn on the God channel in my house, within 10 minutes I will be so angry at their manipulative promotion of self serving illogic I might break the TV, but again, I find those are not the same people I see going to church, and not all religious people are affiliated.
> 
> ...


I hear you Heis, and you're right. This shit gets everyone nowhere. I made a few civil attempts in the beginning with oly but eventually just gave up. It was a mistake to take the hostile route of engagement, I admit. 

Thanks for your post, I hope to one day get past the frustration. 

It doesn't matter how much you try to help someone if they don't want to listen.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I stopped reading this post about half way through, but as far as I can see there is not a single rational reason in that list.


I could care less. He asked a question. I gave him the information he sought. If you cared to know the rational of what others thought, you would have read it throughout as well. I did. I found Rational reasons and Irrational reasons. 

I also understand the concept of Rational and it doesn't encompass only your prespective of what rationality is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational

You may find it Rational to stick a Dick up your ass. I may find that to be Irrational.

Please, I employ you...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> It doesn't matter how much you try to help someone if they don't want to listen.


Exactly, but thats what I said a few posts ago... Oh, I'm a believer. Hands over Ears/Eyes...

Hypocrite - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite

That is why Oly doesn't respect nothing you have to say. This isn't the first time he has engaged your posts.




Brazko said:


> I tried sitting and just giving resourceful information to a friend and he told me it looked cartoonish/joke. He couldn't accept what I was telling him as serious and I could see him starting to tear up from anger. At that point there is nothing you can do, if they want to know more they will seek you out..


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

I believe in life. I dont believe we were put here but created here. Just like the green plants we all have come to love an enjoy. This is why most, if not close to all scientists dont' have a religion. They know, or seem to think they know, how life was created: As a single celled organism. But lets face it, im no scientist but believe how they do. Have since i was a child. Karma is my religion, the old "do to others what you want done to you" addage has a lot to do with how well you want your life to be in the outcome. Make more people smile around you and you're more likely to smile as well.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Perhaps this is a better way to phrase the question I asked to get rid of some of the confusion;

Are there any reasons that would convince a rational person God exists? 

This is a little bit different, as the reasons one might have for justifying their belief may seem rational _to them_, but that wouldn't make _them_ any more or less rational to everyone else. Those beliefs may(and does) lead a person to do some pretty irrational things making them an irrational person. 

One final point to ice this cake... can a believer say the same thing about science?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I could care less. He asked a question. I gave him the information he sought. If you cared to know the rational of what others thought, you would have read it throughout as well. I did. I found Rational reasons and Irrational reasons.
> 
> I also understand the concept of Rational and it doesn't encompass only your prespective of what rationality is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational
> 
> ...


He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Exactly, but thats what I said a few posts ago... Oh, I'm a believer. Hands over Ears/Eyes...
> 
> Hypocrite - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
> 
> That is why Oly doesn't respect nothing you have to say. This isn't the first time he has engaged your posts.


I don't understand this post.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Perhaps this is a better way to phrase the question I asked to get rid of some of the confusion;
> 
> Are there any reasons that would convince a rational person God exists?
> 
> ...


I think the only way someone like me would think god exists is if somebody floated into air, or walked on water and seperated seas in front of me like the bible makes it out. And thats a good question. I've asked some here (mormons) and they get mad! Red in the face even. Seems the can judge me with no problem, but when i simply ask of their faith they flip the script!


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.


I provided a worldly view answer. It wasn't my personal answer to the question. If you don't like it go edit wiki and submit a new definition for the world to accept. If you read what I did say, then you would see that to comprehend the others rationality, one must first engage each others reasoning of rationality. And rationality doesn't mean it must encompass that which I see as rational. I could be wrong about Santa. So tell me why you see it as irrational.

Because you didn't recieve any Santa gifts as a Kid. Sorry, I did....

You living fantasy dude and you argue fantasy.

You argue as an Adult and Think like a child... That is irrational..



Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't understand this post.


I honestly didn't expect you to. It was quite confusing wasn't it.. but I'll explain. You ignored what I said which was the exact same thing Heis said but you acknowleged him telling you the same thing I said. Unless you just missed my post all together that I quoted you on.. However, you are accusing Oly of having his eyes/ears closed when you are offering information to him. You just did the same thing. Unless you missed the post I just quoted you on.. then my mistake.. it's all good


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> One final point to ice this cake... can a believer say the same thing about science?


Yes, one can say the same thing about science. Einstein was ridiculed for being irrational about his theories. Just as past and present theories by Scientist are found to be of irrational degrees. 

Before you Ice a Cake, you have to bake One first..


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

@brazko, that's a good one stating you received santa gifts as a kid. I did too, however dont believe in god. I only celebrate xmas now for tradition's sake and to pass to my children what my parens passed on to me.  

(i know u werent talking to me, im just in a talkative mood) lol


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I provided a worldly view answer. It wasn't my personal answer to the question. If you don't like it go edit wiki and submit a new definition for the world to accept. If you read what I did say, then you would see that to comprehend the others rationality, one must first engage each others reasoning of rationality. And rationality doesn't mean it must encompass that which I see as rational. I could be wrong about Santa. So tell me why you see it as irrational.
> 
> Because you didn't recieve any Santa gifts as a Kid. Sorry, I did....
> 
> ...


I did read what you wrote:



Brazko said:


> I could care less. He asked a question. I gave him the information he sought. If you cared to know the rational of what others thought, you would have read it throughout as well. I did. I found Rational reasons and Irrational reasons.
> 
> I also understand the concept of Rational and it doesn't encompass only your prespective of what rationality is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational
> 
> ...


That is what I disagree with, and I don't think you do understand the concept of rational. My perspective and your perspective are irrelevant. You can't just make up a reason that is not based on logic and say it's rational to YOU. 

I don't care if you received gifts that had a tag from santa. Using that information to get to the conclusion that santa is real is NOT rational regardless of whether you personally believe it to be sufficient or not.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

bigbillyrocka said:


> @brazko, that's a good one stating you received santa gifts as a kid. I did too, however dont believe in god. I only celebrate xmas now for tradition's sake and to pass to my children what my parens passed on to me.
> 
> (i know u werent talking to me, im just in a talkative mood) lol


Ok Santa.., Now what god do you not want me to believe in?


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

But santa is real. Think back to when you were a kid when you still believed, it felt great right? Makes me smile to this day, Even though we clearly know as adults he is not. This is the premise of believer's in all forms of believing.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

You can believe in satan if you like? He's the least judgemental.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> That is what I disagree with, and I don't think you do understand the concept of rational. .


No, read and comprehend the full definition and concept of what rationality is. I think you don't understand rationality. 

Answer this: Do you find it rational to stick a Dick up your Ass? 

Please answer this question...


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> No, read and comprehend the full definition and concept of what rationality is. I think you don't understand rationality.
> 
> Answer this: Do you find it rational to stick a Dick up your Ass?
> 
> Please answer this question...


If hes gay, of course it would be rational. Good trick question there. Not saying hes gay of course.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> No, read and comprehend the full definition and concept of what rationality is. I think you don't understand rationality.
> 
> Answer this: Do you find it rational to stick a Dick up your Ass?
> 
> Please answer this question...





> *ra·tion·al*
> 
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;ræ&#643;
> 
> ...


Do I find it rational to stick a dick up MY ass? No. You are mixing subjective feelings with objective facts though.

Is it rational to eat a banana? Depends on many subjective factors. Do you like the taste of bananas? Do you have other food sources to get nutrients from or do you rely on bananas for some specific nutrient? Based on these factors you can reason one way or another, just like sticking a dick up your ass.

Do bananas exist? This is objective and has a correct answer. There is no way you could justify an answer that bananas do not exist while still remaining rational.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

bigbillyrocka said:


> But santa is real. Think back to when you were a kid when you still believed, it felt great right? Makes me smile to this day, Even though we clearly know as adults he is not. This is the premise of believer's in all forms of believing.


Big Billy.. I comprehend everything you are saying, and yet you have the slightest clue I think as to what I am saying (I think but consider the fact of you probably joshing me ). Even after I have displayed it right before your eyes. But that is the premise of all small minds shared alike, belief or lack of.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/joshing


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

bigbillyrocka said:


> I think the only way someone like me would think god exists is if somebody floated into air, or walked on water and seperated seas in front of me like the bible makes it out. And thats a good question. I've asked some here (mormons) and they get mad! Red in the face even. Seems the can judge me with no problem, but when i simply ask of their faith they flip the script!


Aaah, OK, so basically you're saying if the laws of physics as you understand them to work were broken?

When I've asked people this and when I used to ask myself this, I'd come up with a similar type answer, but then I gave it a little thought and figured out it's pretty much the same exact line of reasoning as people who believe in ghosts. There's a thread on here somewhere that talks all about this, basically, why go from "OK, the laws of physics are broken, I see someone floating through the air.." to "... so God exists!"? There's no connection from premise A. -broken laws of physics to conclusion C. -God exists. There needs to be something in slot 'B' to connect the two or else you might as well be saying "laws of physics broken... ... bannana cucumber wallet" or "laws of physics broken... ... lamp doorbell pictureframe"... 

I think I'd have to see with my own two eyes and hear with my own ears God himself explain our existence to believe it's true. I think a god with the amount of power one would require to perform that task wouldn't give any amount of consideration to blind faith, if it did it would most certainly frown upon it. 



Brazko said:


> I provided a worldly view answer.


gi's post addresses this well. You can be objectively irrational about things, your acknowledgment of it isn't required. 

If you believe in Santa Clause based off the evidence of you having received gifts during Christmas time as a child, then that's an irrational belief. You have no evidence to support that conclusion and there are much more likely alternative ones. To dismiss the evidence in support of what you may or may not want is a completely irrational position to take. 



guy incognito said:


> He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.





Brazko said:


> I honestly didn't expect you to. It was quite confusing wasn't it.. but I'll explain. You ignored what I said which was the exact same thing Heis said but you acknowleged him telling you the same thing I said. Unless you just missed my post all together that I quoted you on.. However, you are accusing Oly of having his eyes/ears closed when you are offering information to him. You just did the same thing. Unless you missed the post I just quoted you on.. then my mistake.. it's all good


What information has oly provided? Highlight it please. 



Brazko said:


> Yes, one can say the same thing about science. Einstein was ridiculed for being irrational about his theories. Just as past and present theories by Scientist are found to be of irrational degrees.
> 
> Before you Ice a Cake, you have to bake One first..


What kinds of irrational beliefs is science responsible for? (I'm not talking about individual scientists, I'm talking about science as a whole)


----------



## VILEPLUME (Jul 12, 2011)

Back to the OP original question about a choice.

I agree with you that the way we are brought up does give us a "conditioning" before we hit adulthood. I was brought up that weed was a horrible thing and it is against the law, but looked how that turned out lol 

I've studied many faiths, been to many different denominations' churches, mosques, temples, etc. I have even lived with Tibetan monks in north west china! 

I think that everyone in life hits an age where they explore and find their belief. Many people today base a belief on its people, but as human beings, there are always the ones that f*ck it up for the rest. Its like the saying, "you can do 99 things right, but people will always talk about the 1 thing you did wrong". 

I also use to work in T.V and the amount of B.S spilled by every station is heart wrenching. We had a saying at our station, "if it bleeds, it leads". They dont care if the truth on a story is 100% accurate, only if it gets them views. A lot of garbage today is about celebrities/people in the spot light, who the f*ck gives a sh*t about celebrities? Seriously? Someone told me the other day that Kate Middleton's dress caught some wind and u could see her ass! Really? People care about stupid sh*t like that? 

Wow, I guess this thread does make u angry lol.

Anyways, regarding the OP again. Our minds cannot not comprehend something being made out of nothing, it goes against how matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet here we are and here is the universe. The only thing I can comprehend is that there is a power that can create something out of nothing, but that power has always been there(it hurts your head when you think about it too much lol)

I do believe in what the bible says, I have done my research and found too much evidence not to believe in it(Dead sea scrolls, over 20,000 known manuscripts that document the New Testament).

So OP, you wanted to know what I believe in and why, so there ya go.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

@pad, very good point you present there. Without a connection theres simply nothing to base it on. or off for that matter!


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Do I find it rational to stick a dick up MY ass? No. You are mixing subjective feelings with objective facts though.


I'm not mixing anything subjective with objective you are. I'm giving you the total encompassed meaning and concept of rational..

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

*Rationality* is the exercise of reason, in philosophy. It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It also refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons for belief, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used in the specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology and political science. A *rational* decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. The term "*rationality*" is used differently in different disciplines.


Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and the making of several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.


Rationality doesn't just encompass your own worldly view of what's rational.

Get over it.. OmfG


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think the term "rational" is completely subjective and up to each persons personal view. We have definitions for words. You may believe in santa, and you may believe that to be a rational decision based on reason and logic, but you would be wrong. You cannot provide any rational reasons to believe in santa claus. A belief in santa is necessarily irrational by definition.


No, you just don't understand what santa claus is. Disbelief in santa claus is irrational. Over ten million google results show that the concept of Santa Claus does indeed exist. It took me 0.07 seconds to find this information.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

Rationality is also called common sense in some inner circles of the world.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> gi's post addresses this well. You can be objectively irrational about things, your acknowledgment of it isn't required.
> 
> If you believe in Santa Clause based off the evidence of you having received gifts during Christmas time as a child, then that's an irrational belief. You have no evidence to support that conclusion and there are much more likely alternative ones. To dismiss the evidence in support of what you may or may not want is a completely irrational position to take.


No, GI didnt address anything.... And you all are slowww. That's the only advice I know for sure Oly was correct about. Please don't think yourselves as to be better equiped to handle life with your assumed ability to think logically and reasonably.. 





Padawanbater2 said:


> What information has oly provided? Highlight it please.


I didn't say Oly, I said me... Ears/Eyes closed.. ref #201






Padawanbater2 said:


> What kinds of irrational beliefs is science responsible for? (I'm not talking about individual scientists, I'm talking about science as a whole)


Science as a whole includes the scientists that bring about the science. If there are no Scientists then there is no science to claim. If there is no science to claim then we are still stuck with the humans who are observing and making assertments of what already is. And it's not science..


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

i like alot of the stuff you say Braz, keep it up.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> No, GI didnt address anything.... And you all are slowww. That's the only advice I know for sure Oly was correct about. Please don't think yourselves as to be better equiped to handle life with your assumed ability to think logically and reasonably..
> 
> I didn't say Oly, I said me... Ears/Eyes closed.. ref #201
> 
> Science as a whole includes the scientists that bring about the science. If there are no Scientists then there is no science to claim. If there is no science to claim then we are still stuck with the humans who are observing and making assertments of what already is. And it's not science..


You guys make a lot of assumptions. Who said they're better equiped to handle life because they think logically and reasonably? Why can't we ever be on the same teams, why's it always gotta be so adviserial? 

The short version is this; atheists think believers make bad choices. The bad choices they make are heavily influenced by the things they believe that cannot be substantiated in reality, they must take them on faith. The atheist believes this is selfish and that believers do not have a right to subjugate non believers with the problems that arise because of their beliefs for the sake of their comfort. 

Science is a systematic way of evalutaing the evidence. That's it. It is a tool. It has no agenda, no bias. Religion on the other hand..

The challenge stands - What kinds of irrational beliefs is science (not scientists)responsible for?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I'm not mixing anything subjective with objective you are. I'm giving you the total encompassed meaning and concept of rational..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational
> 
> ...


Even by your own definition is requires reason. You must exercise reason.

"*It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately"

I think this statement is wrong. Simply deriving a false conclusion after considering something deliberately does NOT mean it is rational, or the thought process was rational.

By your flawed logic any conclusion anyone ever comes to is rational. 
*


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

karri0n said:


> No, you just don't understand what santa claus is. Disbelief in santa claus is irrational. Over ten million google results show that the concept of Santa Claus does indeed exist. It took me 0.07 seconds to find this information.


Stop being disingenuous, you knew exactly what I meant. No one is claiming the concept of santa or god doesn't exist.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Stop being disingenuous, you knew exactly what I meant. No one is claiming the concept of santa or god doesn't exist.


No one is being disingenuous. It's you who didn't understand what WE meant. It's not My or Braz's fault you don't understand in what capacity things like gods or santa claus exist. Neither of us have made the claim that santa claus as a singular physical entity literally flies to millions of houses dropping presents. Things such as gods, santa claus, and other mythical beings have considerably more power than they would ever have if they were constrained to a physical form.

See:


Brazko said:


> I find rationality in the belief of Santa Claus, you find irrationality in the belief of Santa Claus. The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...





karri0n said:


> I....feel that once people can get past their understanding of deities as sky wizards that literally exist on this plane, a much better understanding can be reached between all parties.


Braz is 100% correct - fundamentalist atheists truly do spend their time with their eyes and ears closed...


----------



## tomcatjones (Jul 12, 2011)

@Padawanbater2


What kinds of irrational beliefs is science responsible for? (I'm not talking about individual scientists said:


> nearly everything in science "as a whole" was wrong once and has been replaced with better evidence and harder facts or altered to account for the new research.
> 
> it is self correcting. and structured
> 
> NOT dogmatic and faith driven


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You guys make a lot of assumptions. Who said they're better equiped to handle life because they think logically and reasonably? Why can't we ever be on the same teams, why's it always gotta be so adviserial?
> 
> The short version is this; atheists think believers make bad choices. The bad choices they make are heavily influenced by the things they believe that cannot be substantiated in reality, they must take them on faith. The atheist believes this is selfish and that believers do not have a right to subjugate non believers with the problems that arise because of their beliefs for the sake of their comfort.
> 
> ...


Here's the short short short version.. You think believers make bad choices. I think people make bad choices.. See the difference...

What kind of irrational beliefs have been put forth by science.. I don't know Pad, the science has always been correct in the past. The science is always right and never clouded by the Scientist interpetation of the information put forth because it stood alone as scientific fact even if the interpation made was based on incomplete information. Good Grief, but hey I'll tickle your fancy..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

tomcatjones said:


> @Padawanbater2
> 
> nearly everything in science "as a whole" was wrong once and has been replaced with better evidence and harder facts or altered to account for the new research.
> 
> ...


And this is a correct assertment. Science is not some independent self aligned being of correct righteousness. If science never existed that same independent self aligned quality of correctness would remain. The only thing that changes is the interpretation made by those who attempt to explain that which already is. I'm now considering the ability of such a person like Pad incapable of holding the capacity think clearly and unbiased. Oh, that what they say about everybody else that's not Atheist...3%


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

karri0n said:


> No one is being disingenuous. It's you who didn't understand what WE meant. It's not My or Braz's fault you don't understand in what capacity things like gods or santa claus exist. Neither of us have made the claim that santa claus as a singular physical entity literally flies to millions of houses dropping presents. Things such as gods, santa claus, and other mythical beings have considerably more power than they would ever have if they were constrained to a physical form.
> 
> See:
> 
> ...


Yes YOU are being disingenuous. When I claim santa does not exist and a belief in him is irrational it is very clear what I mean. 



> *San·ta Claus*
> 
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#712;sæn
> 
> ...


That is the literal definition from a dictionary, and that is exactly what I meant, which is exactly why I used the word. The concept, or spirit, or idea of santa is NOT what I meant. If I meant that I would have specifically stated it instead of using the words I did use.



> *dis·in·gen·u·ous*
> 
> &#8194; &#8194;/&#716;d&#618;s
> 
> ...


You taking the word "santa" and changing the meaning into the "concept of santa" is absolutely disingenuous. 

The same thing goes for unicorns. A belief in unicorns is irrational, despite the fact that a google search of unicorn brings back over 65 million hits.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Man you must be retarded! It is so stupid how you all think to know how i am in person... Assumptions get you nowhere and i really dont care what you have to say either... to me you are just the same as any other atheist that has attacked me for my beliefs... You are right about giving you the shirt off my back if you needed it or i would stop and give you a ride or help you change a flat tire on the side of the road if you needed assistance... Judging by your beliefs, i think you would need assistance in changing tires, i think i spend to much of your time hating people like me although, you dont know me... that is ok because that demonstrates the thinking capability you are capable of...

j





Heisenberg said:


> Pad, I don't think oly is the best person to seek answers from. He's stumbled upon religion without understanding what it is, so there is a poor chance you will gain any understanding from him. He has proven this with all his responses, which aren't likely to change. He doesn't even understand what we mean when we say ignorant, he sees it as an insult. How can you communicate with that level of under education? It's like trying to explain to a child that the big bright ball of light in the sky is actually a giant nuclear furnace that builds hydrogen into helium. The child doesn't know what words like hydrogen and nuclear mean, so there is no way he can possibly go on to make a connection. He is not capable of seeing it as anything other than a ball of light, nor is he capable of explaining to you why he doesn't see it your way. Oly is not a child, so it is unlikely his basic comprehension skills will improve. Whether someone takes this position with god or the sun, is it really a religious position? Oly is both willfully and incidentally ignorant, and happy about it. Your words will never mean anything other than atheist superiority to him, and you will gather no valid insight from engaging him. The good news is that people such as him don't amount to much in life, and he probably doesn't vote or try to influence political policy. When someone demonstrates they are a lost cause (incapable of comprehensive discussion) it is best to leave them be and let them circle the drain. It is your thread, but I don't see the value in your exchanges. Even religious people that might be reading this thread know better than him. I think it's important to send the message that, if you can't defend your beliefs (or even express them clearly in olys case) you DO NOT get to bring them to the table and participate in discussion with the adults. Unless of course you simply enjoy poking a retard with a stick.
> 
> People with his outlook and conduct make me angry too, but I realized a few years ago that those sort of people are not likely to be part of your circle of acquaintances. I used to leave the house with an angry sour attitude aimed at religious people, but in actuality most of them don't mind questioning their beliefs and assigning reason, as invalid as it may be. Most of them would give you the shirt off their back. This in no way excuses them for their erroneous conclusions and their tendency to push and judge; I am just saying that neither do they deserve such level of hostility. When you do encounter a worthless position such as olys, it does no good to attack it as it does not represent the typical catalyst responsible for religion. The best thing you can do is to promote awareness and education and encourage critical thought, which of course I see you do a lot. It's a long slow process but one that is likely to, eventually, be productive. These are the things I would have told my younger, angrier self, and I say them to you not out of concern for oly, but because I think you might benefit from a different perspective. I still tend to be inflammatory and offensive at times, but I do so while promoting doubt, and not just to point fingers and insult. If you turn on the God channel in my house, within 10 minutes I will be so angry at their manipulative promotion of self serving illogic I might break the TV, but again, I find those are not the same people I see going to church, and not all religious people are affiliated.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Even by your own definition is requires reason. You must exercise reason.
> 
> "*It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately"*
> 
> ...


Stop REd/Blue highlighting words that mean nothing absence of the whole. It's right there in black/white and it's not my definition. Go, edit wiki so that the rest of the world gets it right by your standards of the word. 



karri0n said:


> fundamentalist atheists truly do spend their time with their eyes and ears closed...





guy incognito said:


> Yes YOU are being disingenuous. When I claim santa does not exist and a belief in him is irrational it is very clear what I mean.
> 
> That is the literal definition from a dictionary, and that is exactly what I meant, which is exactly why I used the word. The concept, or spirit, or idea of santa is NOT what I meant. If I meant that I would have specifically stated it instead of using the words I did use.
> 
> ...


This is just Hot ass Smoke because you have been the only one being disengenuous. We both comprehend what you are saying but no one asserted such a thing but you. and it was clearly noted in the original post before you asserted such a thing. 



> The only difference will entail our comprehension of who we take Santa Claus to be...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

dude, if you dont like what i am posting, then dont read it! YOu dont see me asking these people to leave... i like to know the way they think... I think it is evolution taking place... A breed evolving into the biggest bunch of hate driven people determined to undermine others beliefs and bash them in, sort of like the nazi's... 





Dankster4Life said:


> OLYLIFTER...............
> 
> GO THE FUCK AWAY!!!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

until some more qualified Atheist of logic and Reason come along, here's a choice I've decided to make....


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> until some more qualified Atheist of logic and Reason come along, here's a choice I've decided to make....


That's pretty obviously photoshopped.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

ahh, yeskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-asskiss-ass, you all tend to back each other up, while i have no one... pretty nice way of forcing things upon someone, dont you think...

you have no reason to be upset... no one told you to hate Christians and their beliefs now did they? 

Yea you found as a kid that God doesnt exist, good for you boy genius... LEave it at that! Who cares what other people think and what they believe in?

Obviously you do! I could care less if you said that your god was a fucking guitar or whatever else you guys like... On the contrary, i would support you for what you believe in and help in anyway to get you closer to your beliefs...

thats me, but you, you really want to hurt people with hatred driven ridicule...





Padawanbater2 said:


> I hear you Heis, and you're right. This shit gets everyone nowhere. I made a few civil attempts in the beginning with oly but eventually just gave up. It was a mistake to take the hostile route of engagement, I admit.
> 
> Thanks for your post, I hope to one day get past the frustration.
> 
> It doesn't matter how much you try to help someone if they don't want to listen.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

couldnt of said it any better braz





Brazko said:


> Exactly, but thats what I said a few posts ago... Oh, I'm a believer. Hands over Ears/Eyes...
> 
> Hypocrite - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrite
> 
> That is why Oly doesn't respect nothing you have to say. This isn't the first time he has engaged your posts.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Stop REd/Blue highlighting words that mean nothing absence of the whole. It's right there in black/white and it's not my definition. Go, edit wiki so that the rest of the world gets it right by your standards of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Blue highlighting was by wiki, red was by me. The words do not mean nothing in absence of the whole, they are a fundamental part of the definition both by your wiki definition and the definitions I posted from the dictionary. I'm not really sure why I should edit the wiki when I already have already posted multiple dictionary references. The only reason I disagree with the wiki is if it is in fact chopped into parts and is taken out of context, such as the second line of the definition -

"*It is the manner in which people derive conclusions when considering things deliberately. It also refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons for belief, or with one's actions with one's reasons for action.*"

Which when taken out of context seem to confirm what you are saying. Once you add in the other highlighted parts (about the exercise of reason) and take the definition as a whole I don't see how you can make your claims.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I could care less if you said that your god was a fucking guitar


That would be fucking SWEEET

something like this:
View attachment 1687706


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

ok boy genius, explain how a whole heap of things that have taken place in the past centuries and were deciphered in the scripture of the Bible?  is that just a coincidence?  

answer this question,

Can you begin to write a book and predict what will happen 3000 years from now and be accurate at your prophecy? 

I dont know if you can, but i really doubt it...   






Padawanbater2 said:


> Perhaps this is a better way to phrase the question I asked to get rid of some of the confusion;
> 
> Are there any reasons that would convince a rational person God exists?
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

karri0n said:


> That's pretty obviously photoshopped.


I'm not sure of your meaning, but No, it's not my hand... It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand.  No need to grab a phone or camera to post a picture of my hand when a millisec google search could provide the same results.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> ok boy genius, explain how a whole heap of things that have taken place in the past centuries and were deciphered in the scripture of the Bible?  is that just a coincidence?
> 
> answer this question,
> 
> ...


What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

maybe cause you lack common sense!  

That is what i have begun to see is that you by yourself have zero common sense or that atheists' as whole lack common sense...  i think it is the first one... Not all atheists' are dicks like you, so it would be wrong for me to ASSUME all atheists' lack common sense...

I dont think blaming atheists' as whole just because of you is right... that is what i have learned from this discussion...





Padawanbater2 said:


> I don't understand this post.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I'm not sure of your meaning, but No, it's not my hand... It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand.  No need to grab a phone or camera to post a picture of my hand when a millisec google search could provide the same results.


It's not anyone's real hand, either. All the lines and such are drawn on in some kind of image manipulation program.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in.  Wiki has a page for our use of the term.

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



> In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms, it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771). Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, "rationalism" is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic (skeptical)cdlarify interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Rationalism as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic. *Rationalism should not be confused with rationality*.


Even wiki states that our context of rationality should not be confused with the rationality you linked to.  When one sees toys appear on Christmas morning, he believes in Santa because of Empiricism.  He believes what he sees and is presented with.  When one applies reason to this belief and wonders how Santa can manage to visit every house in the world in one night, he is being rational.  He is engaging in critical thinking.  Skeptics incorporate both an empirical and rational view.

Yes it's true that a person can use whatever world view they have to rationalize things.  In this context it means to lie to yourself as a method of cognitive dissonance reduction.  When someone says they believe in Santa because he shows up with presents every year and they don't want to jeopardize that by questioning it, they are rationalizing, but not being rational.

If you are upset that Pad listened to my appeal and not yours, when they both essentially said the same thing, then perhaps you should construct a better argument instead of faulting Pad.  You seem to be discounting his contempt, while I suggested he simply find a more effective(refined) and less strenuous way to apply it.  The reasoning behind religious beliefs and the level of influence it has over our lives is contemptible, but that contempt can be constructive instead of alienating.  Note that belief in bigfoot does not evoke the same level of contempt, because bigfoot believers do not judge or push or attempt to influence political and public policies.  They simply try to get their information out there while continuously searching for more answers.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Are you Atheists working on ways to eliminate us? I'm sure you are. Elitist scum.


This is an absurd premise and intended solely to provoke anger.  What do you hope to gain by starting this line of inquiry?  What is your motivation for posting here if not to simply cause rancorous grief?  At least oly, while being hypocritical and disrespectful, is pure in his intent.  You seem to exhibit nothing but malicious spite.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

I dont wish to engage in an educational discussion with you because of the way you assume things...  assumptions are what you look retarded... 


you would know about the big fuck up of the alchemists' back in the early 1400-1700's, who tried to make gold out of nothing, you should know this blunder, you are or should i say should be very smart!  

It is funny how you love science yet you either refuse to accept al-chemistry or you too stupid to understand it... 




Padawanbater2 said:


> Aaah, OK, so basically you're saying if the laws of physics as you understand them to work were broken?
> 
> When I've asked people this and when I used to ask myself this, I'd come up with a similar type answer, but then I gave it a little thought and figured out it's pretty much the same exact line of reasoning as people who believe in ghosts. There's a thread on here somewhere that talks all about this, basically, why go from "OK, the laws of physics are broken, I see someone floating through the air.." to "... so God exists!"? There's no connection from premise A. -broken laws of physics to conclusion C. -God exists. There needs to be something in slot 'B' to connect the two or else you might as well be saying "laws of physics broken... ... bannana cucumber wallet" or "laws of physics broken... ... lamp doorbell pictureframe"...
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

oh, and this im just trying to keep my post count going up...  I want reach 1000 by the end of the day...  think i can make it?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

it is promise!!! duhhh





Heisenberg said:


> This is an absurd premise and intended solely to provoke anger.  What do you hope to gain by starting this line of inquiry?  What is your motivation for posting here if not to simply cause rancorous grief?  At least oly, while being hypocritical and disrespectful, is pure in his intent.  You seem to exhibit nothing but malicious spite.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> It's being presented as imagery for the purpose at hand.





karri0n said:


> It's not anyone's real hand, either. All the lines and such are drawn on in some kind of image manipulation program.


I thought it was a cool pic.. I started to use this one.. It was never a matter of me attempting to use something of a realistic nature.. 
​ edit: I also wanted to state a good eye of observance as well. It is a drawing by an artist and not a computer drawing. Here's a link to some more of her drawings. 


http://www.queeky.com/gallery/image/naattlii-0




http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KJkIb2rBxOrS8APWSJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBpc2VvdmQ2BHBvcwM3BHNlYwNzcgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1j8viegdm/EXP=1310530934/**http%3a//images.search.yahoo.com/images/view%3fback=http%253A%252F%252Fimages.search.yahoo.com%252Fsearch%252Fimages%253Fp%253Dtalk%252Bto%252Bthe%252Bhand%2526ei%253DUTF-8%2526fr%253Dyfp-t-701%26w=480%26h=480%26imgurl=images4.cpcache.com%252Fproduct%252F515851814v1_480x480_Front.jpg%26rurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.cafepress.com%252F%2btalk_to_the_hand_bb_smiley_throw_pillow%252C515851814%26size=30KB%26name=Talk%2bto%2bthe%2bHand...%26p=talk%2bto%2bthe%2bhand%26oid=68d9df90b2cd536aa18184017a7bfb25%26fr2=%26no=7%26tt=551000%26sigr=12bulo6gm%26sigi=11puml1v6%26sigb=12li9h5od%26.crumb=67vFnUDB.76





Heisenberg said:


> Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in.  Wiki has a page for our use of the term.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
> 
> ...


Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize.  And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer. 

It's not an Upset thing to my personal satisfaction, its being a hipocrit thing. You are now stating that he should continue pressing forth in a different manner, where as I said he should do the same thing. It's no matter of constructing a better arguement for him. He could either accept me telling him to stop dialoguing the way he was doing and just provide information or not. You told him the exact same thing. I didn't discount his efforts and gave an account of a similar situation when I was discussing matters with someone of the same nature.  Did you read what I said, obviously you did and you see that I was not discounting but agreeing with his statment and giving him the same advice you later gave. It was a point to display to him the nature of being a hipocrit as he points out to Oly to which he feels he has been doing which essentially/technically is the same thing he's done.  Ignoring information. I even took in account of him missing it and being my mistake to accuse him of such if he did, but clearly you can see for yourself that you are acknowledging it and not him. He was and still is confused as to what I'm talking about. Hypocrit


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

he has instant teleportation like Goku and Gohan





Heisenberg said:


> Braz, you used an explanation of rational that is not meant for the context we use it in.  Wiki has a page for our use of the term.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

WOW, i wont even bother to go into it with you on that,, just to see how much of a hypocrite you are is despicable... what you say about me, in reality everyone on here attacking me is doing the same damn thing...





guy incognito said:


> What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I thought it was a cool pic.. I started to use this one.. It was never a matter of me attempting to use something of a realistic nature..
> ​
> 
> 
> ...


I second that FACT!


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> it is promise!!! duhhh


this made me laugh pretty good


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I'm didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.


No it wasn't.



Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?


To which you responded with the list of arguments that attempt to rationalize the existence of god.

I do not think their rationale is rational. Your rationale should have good sound reasoning underlying your conclusion, by definition. Attempting to rationalize something does not mean all the assumptions are actually rational. That was my understanding of it.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> WOW, i wont even bother to go into it with you on that,, just to see how much of a hypocrite you are is despicable... what you say about me, in reality everyone on here attacking me is doing the same damn thing...


fine, i will ask it

What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?

nobody is attacking you. you think you are being attacked because we are questioning your beliefs. would you be attacking us if you were asking questions about what we believe?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

I've already answered this in the post you just quoted.
Reading is Fundamental. The ability to Comprehend even more so.



guy incognito said:


> No it wasn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.
> 
> It's not an Upset thing to my personal satisfaction, its being a hipocrit thing. You are now stating that he should continue pressing forth in a different manner, where as I said he should do the same thing. It's no matter of constructing a better arguement for him. He could either accept me telling him to stop dialoguing the way he was doing and just provide information or not. You told him the exact same thing. I didn't discount his efforts and gave an account of a similar situation when I was discussing matters with someone of the same nature. Did you read what I said, obviously you did and you see that I was not discounting but agreeing with his statment and giving him the same advice you later gave. It was a point to display to him the nature of being a hipocrit as he points out to Oly to which he feels he has been doing which essentially/technically is the same thing he's done. Ignoring information. I even took in account of him missing it and being my mistake to accuse him of such if he did, but clearly you can see for yourself that you are acknowledging it and not him. He was and still is confused as to what I'm talking about. Hypocrit


I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. It seemed you were attacking his contempt, while I was suggesting he incorporate some tact. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle. 

So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.

The overall point that is seeming to be expressed in the last few pages of this thread is, maximizing the rationality of the greatest numbers of our fellow citizens is not necessarily the best way to maximize their (and our) well-being. While there is some truth to this statement, I do not see it as reason to accept erroneous conclusions and put them on the same level as truth. To risk making a slippery slope argument, the people in the matrix were pretty content, it was great for their well-being.


"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." 
- Philip K. Dick


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I've already answered this in the post you just quoted.
> Reading is Fundamental. The ability to Comprehend even more so.


Yes but my original objection was never how a believer went about rationalizing the belief, it was that the rationales are not rational. I am familiar with most of the rationalizations, though I think that term is a misnomer because they are actually irrational.


----------



## bigbillyrocka (Jul 12, 2011)

cant we all just agree to disagree?


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Originally Posted by *beardo*
> So why not attempt to smash in the skull of any one who disagrees? maybe you could eliminate religious belief that way? Don't they kill flaun gong members in China and harvest their organs? I think China banned religion or has their own state religion.
> 
> 
> ...





guy incognito said:


> He asked a question and you provided an unsatisfactory answer. .


 No answers?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> No answers?



Because they are stupid questions. Religion has nothing to do with people not being cannibals, nor does it prevent people from being violent towards those they disagree with. In fact, fundamentalist religious fanatics are the ones who are often seen smashing in the heads of those that disagree with them. This happens to this very day by christians, jews, and muslims alike. This is, in fact, one thing that can *not[/i] be said about atheists.*


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.
> 
> So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.


There is no confusion and I didn't leave any room for it. Post #201. I wrote it, you have read it, and several others possibly. I gave him advice and information on how to deal with people. The same advice you just gave and acknowleged as me giving him the same. Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle. It's giving him a perspective outside of his own. If me giving him a alternate prespective outside of his own accounts for dismissal of the fact of him doing the same thing, then that's being a Hypocrite as well.

Oly may be dismissive of the information giving by Pad because he ultimately holds a viewpoint opposite of Pad. The same thing could be applied to Pad in said situation. Ignoring what I said and being dismissive of it as if I never said it.

Please, tell me how I'm being confusing?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

bigbillyrocka said:


> cant we all just agree to disagree?


The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that forum debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

yes, that is how you would take it. first off i would not question what you believe in because i respect your decision... If you were able to decide what you wanted to do with your life and how you want to live it, fine by me. I dont pay your bills and you dont pay mine, so why should we question what each of us believe in?

and it is an attack because i disagree with most of you on here that have been ATTACKING me for my beliefs and what i post... It seems that nothing i post will make any sense to, you are insaciatable and are just waiting to see what i post and how you can make it look dumb...

thats cool with me, i dont care... *you are free to do as you please and if making fun of me and my beliefs and attacking me for them makes you feel good, by all means do it *





Luger187 said:


> fine, i will ask it
> 
> What specifically was predicted that came true and has been deciphered from the bible?
> 
> nobody is attacking you. you think you are being attacked because we are questioning your beliefs. would you be attacking us if you were asking questions about what we believe?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

finally you say something that correct!

good job

you finally see why i am just posting things to irritate any atheist out there waiting to attack





Heisenberg said:


> The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

finally you say something that correct!

good job

you finally see why i am just posting things to irritate any atheist out there waiting to attack





Heisenberg said:


> The point of debate is to find common ground and learn more about the others position. If both sides start in the same place, and use the same logic, then they both should reach the same conclusions. When this doesn't happen, we debate to find out why. The problem is that debate rarely gets past the point of agreeing on mutually accepted logic and terms, and both sides simply become more entrenched in their point of view.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

really? 

when you stop believing in reality, it tends to stick around

phillip K. vagina





Heisenberg said:


> I see. Perhaps you weren't trying to discount his contempt, but your argument left room for it to be interpreted that way. It seemed you were attacking his contempt, while I was suggesting he incorporate some tact. You seem to depend a lot on people inferring your points from your examples, and it can seem ambiguous to those who don't understand your angle.
> 
> So to clear up confusion, and I know you've already stated this, but exactly what information is Pad ignoring? How exactly is he being hypocritical. What standards is he holding others to that he is not living up to himself? I am not necessarily saying you're wrong, just asking you to be more concise.
> 
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yes, that is how you would take it. first off i would not question what you believe in because i respect your decision... If you were able to decide what you wanted to do with your life and how you want to live it, fine by me. I dont pay your bills and you dont pay mine, so why should we question what each of us believe in?
> 
> and it is an attack because i disagree with most of you on here that have been ATTACKING me for my beliefs and what i post... It seems that nothing i post will make any sense to, you are insaciatable and are just waiting to see what i post and how you can make it look dumb...
> 
> thats cool with me, i dont care... *you are free to do as you please and if making fun of me and my beliefs and attacking me for them makes you feel good, by all means do it *



you need to man up a little bit there if you think questions and words are an attack on your faith

when you post you invite people to answer/question your posts 

dont get in a hissy fit when they do, if you want to stand tough (like you said your parents told you to)


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Thank you, but it is this that these people do not see themselves... they see that as me being ignorant... pretty stupid if you ask me...






Brazko said:


> There is no confusion and I didn't leave any room for it. Post #201. I wrote it, you have read it, and several others possibly. I gave him advice and information on how to deal with people. The same advice you just gave and acknowleged as me giving him the same. Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle. It's giving him a perspective outside of his own. If me giving him a alternate prespective outside of his own accounts for dismissal of the fact of him doing the same thing, then that's being a Hypocrite as well.
> 
> Oly may be dismissive of the information giving by Pad because he ultimately holds a viewpoint opposite of Pad. The same thing could be applied to Pad in said situation. Ignoring what I said and being dismissive of it as if I never said it.
> 
> Please, tell me how I'm being confusing?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

i am, what i am doing now is just letting them speak their mind... then i post something that will make them hate me more...

it is like arguing with a drunk in here... 

if this was a classroom setting, it would be different.. as this is not a higher education forum, i lost all interest to "seem smart enough" to compete with these guys...





ginjawarrior said:


> you need to man up a little bit there if you think questions and words are an attack on your faith
> 
> when you post you invite people to answer/question your posts
> 
> dont get in a hissy fit when they do, if you want to stand tough (like you said your parents told you to)


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> There is no confusion and I didn't leave any room for it. Post #201. I wrote it, you have read it, and several others possibly. I gave him advice and information on how to deal with people. The same advice you just gave and acknowleged as me giving him the same. Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle. It's giving him a perspective outside of his own. If me giving him a alternate prespective outside of his own accounts for dismissal of the fact of him doing the same thing, then that's being a Hypocrite as well.
> 
> Oly may be dismissive of the information giving by Pad because he ultimately holds a viewpoint opposite of Pad. The same thing could be applied to Pad in said situation. Ignoring what I said and being dismissive of it as if I never said it.
> 
> Please, tell me how I'm being confusing?


Heh, maybe I am just stoned but I find this confusing. "Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle".

But re-reading your #201 post I see that you were indeed saying the same things I later did. I still don't see how him not acknowledging you while later acknowledging me makes him a hypocrite. It may make him inconsistent, or perhaps he missed the post, but it doesn't qualify as holding others to a standard that he does not live up to himself. Or am I again confusing your points? Are you saying that he too occasionally ignores information while simultaneously accusing others of doing it? Is ignoring someones opinion of your conduct the same as ignoring evidence of fact? I really don't care if oly ignores my opinion of his behavior, the contempt comes from his promotion of ignoring flaws in his evaluation of reality, whether those flaws be unawareness, inconsistencies, or negligence.

And yes we are all flawed, including pad and including myself. The difference comes from those who try to improve on their flaws, and those who embrace and promote them to others for the sake of their own comfort.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

what do you mean by this? Do you mean literally there are Christians and other devoted religious people out their bashing heads in and eating people?

why hasnt this been on the news?





karri0n said:


> Because they are stupid questions. Religion has nothing to do with people not being cannibals, nor does it prevent people from being violent towards those they disagree with. In fact, fundamentalist religious fanatics are the ones who are often seen smashing in the heads of those that disagree with them. This happens to this very day by christians, jews, and muslims alike. This is, in fact, one thing that can *not[/i] be said about atheists.*


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i am, what i am doing now is just letting them speak their mind... then i post something that will make them hate me more...
> 
> it is like arguing with a drunk in here...
> 
> if this was a classroom setting, it would be different.. as this is not a higher education forum, i lost all interest to "seem smart enough" to compete with these guys...


more derision than hate IMO

you know what got them started tho?

i'll give you a hint... no one hunted you down....


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

if you dont care, then why do you continue to debate about it? Pretty stupid if you ask me!

meaning that since i am a Christian and he is an atheist, our points of view will always be different

So are you saying that Goku and Gohan are not like Santa? NOOOOOOO


Heisenberg said:


> Heh, maybe I am just stoned but I find this confusing. "Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle".
> 
> But re-reading your #201 post I see that you were indeed saying the same things I later did. I still don't see how him not acknowledging you while later acknowledging me makes him a hypocrite. It may make him inconsistent, or perhaps he missed the post, but it doesn't qualify as holding others to a standard that he does not live up to himself. Or am I again confusing your points? Are you saying that he too occasionally ignores information while simultaneously accusing others of doing it? Is ignoring someones opinion of your conduct the same as ignoring evidence of fact? I really don't care if oly ignores my opinion of his behavior, the contempt comes from his promotion of ignoring flaws in his evaluation of reality, whether those flaws be unawareness, inconsistencies, or negligence.
> 
> And yes we are all flawed, including pad and including myself. The difference comes from those who try to improve on their flaws, and those who embrace and promote them to others for the sake of their own comfort.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)

bigbillyrocka said:


> cant we all just agree to disagree?


Ned: Well, I guess this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree.
Skinner: I don't agree to that.
Edna: Neither do I!


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

i will return the favor, i did not hunt them down either...





ginjawarrior said:


> more derision than hate IMO
> 
> you know what got them started tho?
> 
> i'll give you a hint... no one hunted you down....


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> if you dont care, then why do you continue to debate about it? Pretty stupid if you ask me!
> 
> meaning that since i am a Christian and he is an atheist, our points of view will always be different
> 
> So are you saying that Goku and Gohan are not like Santa? NOOOOOOO


I do care to point it out, I don't care if you ignore it. You can conduct yourself in which ever manner you choose, but it detracts from your credibility and in this sense does you a disservice. When someone chooses to be abusive and hypocritical, they give up any merit their opinion might have held.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i will return the favor, i did not hunt them down either...


lol how about you stop acting like a slapped dragged queen just because people are talking to you in a thread you came to about "beliefs"? 

the "internet tough guy act" just doesnt hide that fact


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

you said it best... 


and i really dont think i will rely on these posts for a job... i dont care if they carry value or not, i know that on a public forum like this, all there is are opinions... and varying ones at that... especially when it comes to Religion and evolution...





Heisenberg said:


> I do care to point it out, I don't care if you ignore it. You can conduct yourself in which ever manner you choose, but it detracts from your credibility and in this sense does you a disservice. When someone chooses to be abusive and hypocritical, they give up any merit their opinion might have held.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

wow, you know what a slapped dragged queen looks like?

why do you think i am a tough guy? 

are you a tough guy?



ginjawarrior said:


> lol how about you stop acting like a slapped dragged queen just because people are talking to you in a thread you came to about "beliefs"?
> 
> the "internet tough guy act" just doesnt hide that fact


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 12, 2011)




----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> yes, that is how you would take it. first off i would not question what you believe in because i respect your decision... If you were able to decide what you wanted to do with your life and how you want to live it, fine by me. I dont pay your bills and you dont pay mine, so why should we question what each of us believe in?
> 
> and it is an attack because i disagree with most of you on here that have been ATTACKING me for my beliefs and what i post... It seems that nothing i post will make any sense to, you are insaciatable and are just waiting to see what i post and how you can make it look dumb...
> 
> thats cool with me, i dont care... *you are free to do as you please and if making fun of me and my beliefs and attacking me for them makes you feel good, by all means do it *


how can you respect my beliefs if you dont ask why i made those decisions? asking questions and debating is how we learn about eachothers point of view. also, you may hold information that i dont have, and vice versa.

so because we disagree with you, asking questions is considered an attack on your beliefs? i dont even know what you believe yet. again, we are not attacking your beliefs. we are asking questions so that we know what your beliefs are, and WHY you believe them. so far youve been sarcastic a lot and said we are stupid atheists. we are not afraid of you questioning our beliefs.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> wow, you know what a slapped dragged queen looks like?
> 
> why do you think i am a tough guy?
> 
> are you a tough guy?


lol yeah i know enough to know they act like right little bitches when they've been slapped thats why i drew the comparison .......

no i think your an "internet tough guy"

and i havent been the one threatening here....


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


>


lol i know i know sometimes things need to be said tho


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Yes but my original objection was never how a believer went about rationalizing the belief, it was that the rationales are not rational. I am familiar with most of the rationalizations, though I think that term is a misnomer because they are actually irrational.


That was not the question posed though, and to your point I also inferred the people involved argue their rational to the others rational to determine the rationality of their thinking. Pad never gave any rational information of his own arguement to confer the rational thinking of others. He asked do they have rational reasons or Are they just irrational. Go back and slowly read what I said. Two or Three times if it helps. 

Big Billy gave info towards his rationality towards Santa. We agreed upon Santa. I then went on to ask him about what god does he not want me to believe in? Is this so confusing? I'm inferring his ability of rational thinking compared to my rational thoughts. We may both agree or not on the rational or irrational, however, we were able to take in account what the other is thinking to determine the rationality of said subject.

Nobody every suggested anything outside of two people discussing their meaning and comprehension of whatever to decide the rationality of it. Please tell me who have continued to suggest or imply anything other than that. 



Heisenberg said:


> Heh, maybe I am just stoned but I find this confusing. "Me stating a viewpoint that Oly may be holding possibly due to the same fact of him feeling that Pad is doing the same thing isn't twisting the angle".
> 
> But re-reading your #201 post I see that you were indeed saying the same things I later did. I still don't see how him not acknowledging you while later acknowledging me makes him a hypocrite. It may make him inconsistent, or perhaps he missed the post, but it doesn't qualify as holding others to a standard that he does not live up to himself. Or am I again confusing your points? Are you saying that he too occasionally ignores information while simultaneously accusing others of doing it? Is ignoring someones opinion of your conduct the same as ignoring evidence of fact? I really don't care if oly ignores my opinion of his behavior, the contempt comes from his promotion of ignoring flaws in his evaluation of reality, whether those flaws be unawareness, inconsistencies, or negligence.
> 
> And yes we are all flawed, including pad and including myself. The difference comes from those who try to improve on their flaws, and those who embrace and promote them to others for the sake of their own comfort.


I'm sorry if what I say is confusing to some. So I set examples that people can actively relate too. This is why I have little patience or leniency talking to people. If you choose to speak like an adult be expected to have an understanding as an adult. If you don't understand something thats over your head, don't imply. Just say please tell me in simplier terms that I can understand. I don't mind. But if I say something and you just keep going on towards left field with something (ball of light vs hydrogen/helium) I can't help but look at you in the same light as you may choose to look at others.

And maybe you are just stoned because you said to me I may have been confusing him with my angle and there was no other angle except for me citing Oly's perspective. This is the only place I see where confusion could have taking place and even if it did it bears no matter on the fact. 





Brazko said:


> Well I've expressed to you in the past that you all have more patience and leniency than I have. If productive conversation seems impossible just provide information without the personal dialogue. This may be to Oly's point as he feels you are trying to convince him of something he doesn't wish to believe in. At this point just simply provide information and they can accept it or not, nothing there to argue about especially if constructive dialogue has been demostrated to be futile...
> 
> I tried sitting and just giving resourceful information to a friend and he told me it looked cartoonish/joke. He couldn't accept what I was telling him as serious and I could see him starting to tear up from anger. At that point there is nothing you can do, if they want to know more they will seek you out..


So the extent of being a hypocrite is predicated on the extremity of the situation and not the fact of. So being a hypocrite is o.k. as long as you are being a hyocrite in a minor way. You can shoe shine this all you want but being a Hypocrit is being a Hypocrit.. And it was never about his opinion of standards it was about his actions. If you ignore and dismiss information then actively take part in accepting someone else's information that can be speculated over for particular reasons especially if the exact same information was giving before. You stand judgement of being a Hypocrit. Oly said he has discussed this with his professor and was willing to listen but declined any reason to listen to Pad. He has been called a hypocrit in his actions for doing so along with other reasons. Does this not fit the bill of the exact same thing Pad has just done. 

I already acknowledged the fact of him possibly missing the post. We are 3-4pages down the road and he still is missing it. 

Watch how easy this is... 

Pad: I'm not a hypocrit Braz, I didn't see your post or the one after. 

Braz: My bad bro, no problem, sorry for calling you a hypocrit. 

Actions have spoken louder than words though.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

because that aint none of my business... i dont see why dont understand why i respect what you decide to do with your life... braz is able to why cant you?

it has gone from my beliefs to how i think, i would take that as an attack, yes i would... and using one of my opinions as your signature is also an attack on me... you are trying to show the rest of riu just how stupid i am in your eyes by what i said... that is an attack...


you are being sarcastic with that, but i do have information you do not have, but do not wish to share it with you... for what, so you can make fun of what i think? 


why do my beliefs matter so much to you? YOu already know my religion, so with that simple fact, you already disagree with me from the get go, so i see no point in exchanging ideologies with you... 



Luger187 said:


> how can you respect my beliefs if you dont ask why i made those decisions? asking questions and debating is how we learn about eachothers point of view. also, you may hold information that i dont have, and vice versa.
> 
> so because we disagree with you, asking questions is considered an attack on your beliefs? i dont even know what you believe yet. again, we are not attacking your beliefs. we are asking questions so that we know what your beliefs are, and WHY you believe them. so far youve been sarcastic a lot and said we are stupid atheists. we are not afraid of you questioning our beliefs.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

It was the OP's decision to derail the train... Are we now working on short term memory lapses? 

The short attention span explains a lot now  



Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?





guy incognito said:


>


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

you know what ive been wondering lately, are there any rational reasons to be an atheist or are all atheists irrational?

please, anyone


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

is it rational to think all animals are atheists or do animals have beliefs as well?

and i mean animals as in non human, for all you smart asses


----------



## Omgwtfbbq Indicaman (Jul 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> how can you respect my beliefs if you dont ask why i made those decisions? asking questions and debating is how we learn about eachothers point of view. also, you may hold information that i dont have, and vice versa.
> 
> so because we disagree with you, asking questions is considered an attack on your beliefs? i dont even know what you believe yet. again, we are not attacking your beliefs. we are asking questions so that we know what your beliefs are, and WHY you believe them. so far youve been sarcastic a lot and said we are stupid atheists. we are not afraid of you questioning our beliefs.


I'll attack them, if the beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny, what's the point in going on believing them. to feel better? make the cruel reality a little easier for our feeble minds to handle? people can always use drugs to escape, or get used to it.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

yea, whatever diabeto said...





Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> I'll attack them, if the beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny, what's the point in going on believing them. to feel better? make the cruel reality a little easier for our feeble minds to handle? people can always use drugs to escape, or get used to it.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> because that aint none of my business... i dont see why dont understand why i respect what you decide to do with your life... braz is able to why cant you?
> 
> it has gone from my beliefs to how i think, i would take that as an attack, yes i would... and using one of my opinions as your signature is also an attack on me... you are trying to show the rest of riu just how stupid i am in your eyes by what i said... that is an attack...
> 
> ...


hahahahahaha
having what YOU SAID in my signature is not an attack. that is showing others what you believe.

i think its sad that you automatically assume we are trying to put you down for asking questions. it makes debate with you impossible because you refuse to question your own beliefs. if you dont question them HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT?! if you question them, and they prove to be true, more power to you. but to just believe it because thats the way you were raised is PURE IGNORANCE. 

your beliefs matter to me because its a debate about beliefs. and you probably vote, which affects my life. but you seem to think that asking questions is somehow us trying to put you down. we have ZERO problem with you questioning our beliefs. and you have no problem shouting insults about how we are stupid atheists. but it hurts your feelings when we ask questions, so we are not allowed to? thats bullshit.

just because i disagree with you does not mean i wont listen to you. and now you are refusing to talk about your beliefs because you think we are going to just shoot you down. how am i supposed to know what you believe if you havent even told me?

if your beliefs are so great, why dont you share them with us? if you really believe them, you would never be embarrassed to tell them to others


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

Omgwtfbbq Indicaman said:


> I'll attack them, if the beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny, what's the point in going on believing them. to feel better? make the cruel reality a little easier for our feeble minds to handle? people can always use drugs to escape, or get used to it.


if a belief cant be held up to scrutiny, it probably shouldnt be believed. yes, people get a sense of satisfaction when they believe they are right, whether they are or not. when religious beliefs come into question, they tend to act like oly. dodging questions, being sarcastic, making insults, making excuses for why they wont answer questions, etc. but they fail to realize that makes them a lot less believable because other people see right through that


----------



## drew420fuckyou (Jul 12, 2011)

Not an athiest. And glad I'm not. Not a Christian, or really any religion although I respect the teachings of Jesus and try to live by some of the principles of both him and Buddha. I have seen and felt and thought more than enough that it makes sense for there to be a god and an afterlife. All life forms I have seen seem to have a sort of life force and greater consciousness which is reinforced by near death experiences, and the fact that materialism is just lacking something. And something/someone had to make the universe. Matter can't come from nowhere.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 12, 2011)

Shit, this thread made my afternoon. Better than trash tv! Thanks guys (oly and beardo in particular)


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

I think it's funny that Atheists refuse to discuss why they don't openly support the killing of the followers of God and why they want to get gay married and why they don't eat people.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

Brazko said:


> So the extent of being a hypocrite is predicated on the extremity of the situation and not the fact of. So being a hypocrite is o.k. as long as you are being a hyocrite in a minor way. You can shoe shine this all you want but being a Hypocrit is being a Hypocrit.. And it was never about his opinion of standards it was about his actions. If you ignore and dismiss information then actively take part in accepting someone else's information that can be speculated over for particular reasons especially if the exact same information was giving before. You stand judgement of being a Hypocrit. Oly said he has discussed this with his professor and was willing to listen but declined any reason to listen to Pad. He has been called a hypocrit in his actions for doing so along with other reasons. Does this not fit the bill of the exact same thing Pad has just done.
> 
> I already acknowledged the fact of him possibly missing the post. We are 3-4pages down the road and he still is missing it.
> 
> ...


I apologize for not acknowledging your advice on post #201, I should have, I always regret engaging with idiots over the internet. Nobody ever wins and I end up with a more sour taste in my mouth than when I started. I just got sidetracked by the insane amount of stupid coming from oly's posts, being _nice_ wasn't what I was interested in. There are certain people I know from this forum whose opinions I value, when they say something I know they've given it serious thought and based on previous conversations I already know it's coming from an educated, logical standpoint. That's not to say yours isn't, just that serious consideration is given and I like to respond in acknowledgment when I see someone make a post like that.

I disagree with you that I'm being hypocritical. 

I am completely open and willing to hear oly's stance on his beliefs, he's already admitted he fears judgment from the rest of us, which would seem like a normal reaction for a person who feels simple questions are offensive would have. But he's proven himself incapable of doing that in a rational, calm, level-headed manner. 

Not sure why a person would make a post in a thread about beliefs if they didn't want to talk about them...?


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Did I ask you to show everyone else what I think? Or did someone ask how I think? Of course, you dont see it as an attack because you are the one who thinks im stupid cause of my beliefs, so you see no malintent with it... I never said my beliefs were so great, hypocrite, you are the one claiming to better then me cause of them... Now who is the one with "great beliefs?"

Like I said retard, I dont care to share anything with you cause of you! If you were a classmate of mine, then yeah, fuck it, I would love to share.my thoughts with you, but you are not... Call it an excuse, I call it avoiding an empty discussion with an atheist who only thinks to their advantage...


You are not open to a good discussion with me.cause of what you think of me(which I dont care) already. 

How many times have you refused to accept my answer to your question? 


ill get back when im on my laptop, im not done



Luger187 said:


> hahahahahaha
> having what YOU SAID in my signature is not an attack. that is showing others what you believe.
> 
> i think its sad that you automatically assume we are trying to put you down for asking questions. it makes debate with you impossible because you refuse to question your own beliefs. if you dont question them HOW DO YOU KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT?! if you question them, and they prove to be true, more power to you. but to just believe it because thats the way you were raised is PURE IGNORANCE.
> ...


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think it's funny that Atheists refuse to discuss why they don't openly support the killing of the followers of God and why they want to get gay married and why they don't eat people.


No atheist I know supports the killing of the followers of God. 

I want to see equal opportunities given to all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation. 

I don't eat people because cows and chickens taste amazing!

In all seriousness, if these are real questions you actually had and aren't just exaggerating your position a little bit, you can always educate yourself, hope is never lost.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Also, why have you all ignored my other question I posted?

I see how you atheists on here think, very educated, hypocrites


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 12, 2011)

Lmao, you dont think killing Gods followers is right, yet you live to crumble their beliefs! Fucking hypocrite! Open your eyes retard, all the stupid is your brain





Padawanbater2 said:


> No atheist I know supports the killing of the followers of God.
> 
> I want to see equal opportunities given to all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> ...


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think it's funny that Atheists refuse to discuss why they don't openly support the killing of the followers of God and why they want to get gay married and why they don't eat people.


I'll give this a shot. While I may disagree with your beliefs, I still respect your right to believe whatever you want. That's more than I can say for religious crusaders who HAVE killed others for not believing. I think gay people should be able to get married if they want to. They are not harming anyone by getting married. On the other hand, homosexuals HAVE been killed in the name of the lord because the bible says it's wrong LuLz. I am not a cannibal because I have an abundant source of food. And I think it's strange lol.  There are tribes however who do eat humans. They BELIEVE that eating their enemy gives them strength. 

What say you, beardo?


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> No atheist I know supports the killing of the followers of God.
> 
> I want to see equal opportunities given to all human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation.
> 
> ...


 What about Bill Gates?- why don't you support it? what if it could help you either economically or socially 
Isn't marriage religious?
What do people taste like? How do you know their not way better than cows or chickens? why not find out? maybe they could sell it at the store.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 12, 2011)

Beardo, I mean no offense, but have you ever been classified as clinically insane?


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> Beardo, I mean no offense, but have you ever been classified as clinically insane?


 I never heard that one I heard pshycotic and ADHD and paraniod schizo and conservitive and manic depressive, they wouldn't give me social security because I told them I rap for money and that it's a job and they said that since I work I dont get social security and they didn't care I don't get a check.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Lmao, you dont think killing Gods followers is right, yet you live to crumble their beliefs! Fucking hypocrite! Open your eyes retard, all the stupid is your brain


No, you just think that's what questioning someones beliefs is, when in reality there is no harm in asking questions about what someone believes in a *public* thread (I made) you *voluntarily* entered. 



beardo said:


> What about Bill Gates?- why don't you support it? what if it could help you either economically or socially
> Isn't marriage religious?
> What do people taste like? How do you know their not way better than cows or chickens? why not find out? maybe they could sell it at the store.


Rofl! What is up with your obsession with Bill Gates beardo? 

If there are atheists out there who support killing anyone, they're fuckin' nuts bro! It's got absolutely nothing to do with atheism. 

Marriage is a legal union, not religious. Atheists can get married, can they not?

I don't know what people taste like, I've never eaten anyone. I'd imagine something similar to any other primate. I don't _actually_ eat people for many reasons. I'd have to find someone to kill to eat, actually kill them, then actually eat them.. Couldn't do any of those tasks. There are better alternatives. Whether I completely understand why or not, I find it to be off putting. Similar to eating cow brains, lengua, snake, insects, ect. Not saying in a survival situation I _couldn't _do it, just that I wouldn't eat human meat on a regular basis. 

Point you're trying to make is...?


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Did I ask you to show everyone else what I think? Or did someone ask how I think? Of course, you dont see it as an attack because you are the one who thinks im stupid cause of my beliefs, so you see no malintent with it... I never said my beliefs were so great, hypocrite, you are the one claiming to better then me cause of them... Now who is the one with "great beliefs?"
> 
> Like I said retard, I dont care to share anything with you cause of you! If you were a classmate of mine, then yeah, fuck it, I would love to share.my thoughts with you, but you are not... Call it an excuse, I call it avoiding an empty discussion with an atheist who only thinks to their advantage...
> 
> ...


incase you havent noticed, quoting what others have said in signatures is pretty common. are you embarrassed others know you believe in god now?

i love how you are playing the victim here. you are not a victim, so stfu

you claim to not want to share your thoughts because we will attack you. why would we attack you for sharing your thoughts? there are other people in this thread who claimed to believe in a god, and gave their reasons why. they were not attacked at all. as long as you state your position clearly, we can debate it. obviously you cant because in most of your posts you are calling people names and insulting them. YOU are the one who is attacking others. do i bitch and complain when you attack me? no

why do you think im some demon that will jump on your back because you believe in god? oh thats right! because im an atheist!


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Also, why have you all ignored my other question I posted?
> 
> I see how you atheists on here think, very educated, hypocrites


your question doesnt deserve a response because you act like a child.



olylifter420 said:


> Lmao, you dont think killing Gods followers is right, yet you live to crumble their beliefs! Fucking hypocrite! Open your eyes retard, all the stupid is your brain


debunking religion is not the same as murder. open your eyes retard!

btw, thanks for the new sig


----------



## Xeno420 (Jul 12, 2011)

I like this whole thread ^_^

If God, the Angels and the heavens were well before Satan, why did He/She/It create it then. God is supposed to be Alfa and Omega. Nothing is supposed to be impossible for God, so I guess He/She/It knew that the whole thing would come crashing down. It's been written in Revelation in Western Religion and there are certain Helter Skelter assholes waiting for the Rapture to happen, there are other HS assholes making it happen. Religion is nothing but conspiracy for the powers to maintain those powers while everyone follows blindly.


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> No, you just think that's what questioning someones beliefs is, when in reality there is no harm in asking questions about what someone believes in a *public* thread (I made) you *voluntarily* entered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Gates wants us to stop breathing- and he is putting huge money into vaccinating people and talking about lowering population.
What do you think the military is for? I know their are supposed religious people at all ranks but I view the war machine as a Godless one with no true men of God at it's head.
Marriage is legal and religious it is done by a preist in a church united in the eyes of God- I believe in gay legal partnership if they are unable to quit being gay and have the gay gene or whatever but leave the Religious the term marriage and the use of preists and churches. Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Eating people could reduce world hunger and remedy over population It could reduce prison populations and health care costs. People probably taste diffrent from primates because of less excercise and a diffrent diet.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Gates wants us to stop breathing- and he is putting huge money into vaccinating people and talking about lowering population.
> What do you think the military is for? I know their are supposed religious people at all ranks but I view the war machine as a Godless one with no true men of God at it's head.
> Marriage is legal and religious it is done by a preist in a church united in the eyes of God- I believe in gay legal partnership if they are unable to quit being gay and have the gay gene or whatever but leave the Religious the term marriage and the use of preists and churches. Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
> Eating people could reduce world hunger and remedy over population It could reduce prison populations and health care costs. People probably taste diffrent from primates because of less excercise and a diffrent diet.


bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations. 
religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god

marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
gay people cannot quit being gay by choice. otherwise the thousands of christian gay people would switch to straight and get on with their lives. they cant, so they live in torment, torn between their religious views and their sexuality. 
what you are proposing is a separate but equal society, based on religious and anti-homosexual views. what gives you the right to be legally married, but an atheist is not? that is the government establishing a religion. 
would you be okay with them saying only muslims are allowed to be married now? and the christians have to go through a different legal process? that is essentially what you are doing, except you give your own religion the advantage. i wonder why...

we are not going to start eating humans man. stop talking about it please


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations.
> religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god
> 
> marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
> ...


 [youtube]EyOww-9xo_0[/youtube][youtube]JaF-fq2Zn7I[/youtube]
Zero Co2 means 0 people


----------



## Brazko (Jul 12, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> I apologize for not acknowledging your advice on post #201, I should have, I always regret engaging with idiots over the internet. Nobody ever wins and I end up with a more sour taste in my mouth than when I started. I just got sidetracked by the insane amount of stupid coming from oly's posts, being _nice_ wasn't what I was interested in. There are certain people I know from this forum whose opinions I value, when they say something I know they've given it serious thought and based on previous conversations I already know it's coming from an educated, logical standpoint. That's not to say yours isn't, just that serious consideration is given and I like to respond in acknowledgment when I see someone make a post like that.
> 
> I disagree with you that I'm being hypocritical.
> 
> ...


I never disallowed the fact of you overlooking it. I was replying to posts and before I could throw them up we skipped 1 or 2 pages from where I left off, so I understood the fact if you did. I only based the accusation on the principle of you intentionally doing so and if the case was you didn't then I can't say you were a hypocrite for not doing so and apologize for the implication. I know you are not implying my post didn't come from thoughtful reasoning, but don't automatically assume anybody words without serious consideration. It doesn't matter what they have said in the past, so it shouldn't just be taken for granted that it is what it should be. 

I don't have the exact same freedoms of discussion that many on this board have so me advertising the private schools I've attended of my discipline and education threatens my privacy and security. I have multiple diplomas in the fields of Science and hold multiple National and State licensures. It's not a matter of gloat or prominence for me. I simply care about but my security and livelyhood more. But being educated and holding a previous logical standpoint you agreed with doesn't mean their next standpoint on a subject will be correct also, they are human and still prone to misjudgement and mistakes, including me. Maybe I'm just being over analytical with words, but again this appears to me to be the same thing Oly is accused of because he automatically accepts the foundation of something that he has found security in as well. Meh, anyway 

Like I said, its all good bro and no ill feelings were held towards it and I apologize.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Gates wants us to stop breathing- and he is putting huge money into vaccinating people and talking about lowering population.


That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm not interested in hearing about this in this thread. If you start a new one about it, I'll check it out and post, but lets just try to stay on topic. 

The point I believe you were making was "he's an atheist, he does this thing that's really bad, so atheism is bad" which is invalid from the start. It's the same as the Hitler argument I've seen a million times. Hitler was an atheist > Hitler was bad > atheism is bad!. This is a fallacy of logic, if you don't understand why or need me to be more clear, ask.



beardo said:


> What do you think the military is for? I know their are supposed religious people at all ranks but I view the war machine as a Godless one with no true men of God at it's head.


The US military is made up of nearly 100% Christians. It is, essentially, an exclusively religious institution. Atheists cannot be as easily manipulated as religious people can be. Atheists hold no hope for an afterlife, if we die in battle "protecting" our country, that's all she wrote. Furthermore, it's very tough to convince an atheist to go murder another person he's never met before because his government told him to. When there's a cause, or some sense of universal justice being served, warfare and all it entails becomes second nature.



beardo said:


> Marriage is legal and religious it is done by a preist in a church united in the eyes of God- I believe in gay legal partnership if they are unable to quit being gay and have the gay gene or whatever but leave the Religious the term marriage and the use of preists and churches. Atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.


It can be legal and religious or just legal and not religious. It is primarily a legally binding contract between two people for tax purposes. 

Any consenting adults should be able to marry if they want to.



beardo said:


> Eating people could reduce world hunger and remedy over population It could reduce prison populations and health care costs. People probably taste diffrent from primates because of less excercise and a diffrent diet.


I think it's morally wrong to eat people unless they die of natural causes and consent to being eaten after they've passed. Then it'd probably be pretty gross. If I ate someone I'd want the prime cut off the prime calf, some nice lean 25 year old, not some 95 year old who just lost a bout with cancer.. 

Humans aren't supposed to eat each other, and not for religious reasons.


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> bill gates does not want you to stop breathing. you have a problem with him spending millions of his own money to vaccinate africans? show me where he said he wants to lower populations.
> religious people have just as much of an ability to kill a man as does an atheist/agnostic. believing in god does not suddenly give one the ability to be more humane. actually, history shows that the religious are WAY more violent because they can easily be talked into killing/torturing in the name of god
> 
> marriage can be without a priest. you can go to the office and file paperwork, and bam youre married.
> ...


 Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
> Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.


how do you know people choose to be gay? source?
no, marriage is not only a religious practice anymore. it is now a societal norm which most people do, whether they are religious or not. marriage is not a right only allowed by you

i will watch those videos in a few


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
> Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.


Why would it be wrong if I chose to be gay? This is a serious question, what would entail "choosing" to be gay? Would simply kissing another man be enough or would I have to take it further? What if I had a crush on another guy but have never had any physical contact? 

Show me where the marriage police wrote down that it's only between religious heterosexual people.


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> how do you know people choose to be gay? source?
> no, marriage is not only a religious practice anymore. it is now a societal norm which most people do, whether they are religious or not. marriage is not a right only allowed by you
> 
> i will watch those videos in a few


 I'm not gay but can chose to be if I feel like it, Other people have the gay in them their born gay-even some straight men have the gay gene but fight their urge and do not commit gay acts.
I just say the word marriage is associated with God.
Why can't I go to a gyno? that's like atheist bitching they can't get into heaven
One thing I will give Gates is I beleive he is smart and doesn't choose his words lightly.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 12, 2011)

beardo said:


> I'm not gay but can chose to be if I feel like it, Other people have the gay in them their born gay-even some straight men have the gay gene but fight their urge and do not commit gay acts.
> I just say the word marriage is associated with God.
> Why can't I go to a gyno? that's like atheist bitching they can't get into heaven
> One thing I will give Gates is I beleive he is smart and doesn't choose his words lightly.


i dont think you could really choose to be gay. you could fake it by kissing and fucking guys, just like gay people hide it by pretending to be straight. but you could not get those real emotional feelings for another man. and if you can, you are bi.

i dont believe marriage is associated with god. some people associate it with god, true. but not all. most people just see marriage as a joining of two people who love eachother. just because most people here have a christian wedding, does not mean weddings are christian


----------



## beardo (Jul 12, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> i dont think you could really choose to be gay. you could fake it by kissing and fucking guys, just like gay people hide it by pretending to be straight. but you could not get those real emotional feelings for another man. and if you can, you are bi.
> 
> i dont believe marriage is associated with god. some people associate it with god, true. but not all. most people just see marriage as a joining of two people who love eachother. just because most people here have a christian wedding, does not mean weddings are christian


 What about Bill Gates and the Georgia guide stones and the NWO?


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> What about Bill Gates and the Georgia guide stones and the NWO?


What about them?


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> What about them?


 It is an Atheist plot to take over the world and reduce the population and enslave the survivors.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> It is an Atheist plot to take over the world and reduce the population and enslave the survivors.


That doesn't sound good....


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> Some people choose to be gay or not to be others have gay DNA
> Marriage is a religious term requiring the belief in God atheists should not be able to do it either they should get legal unions. it is like me complaning that my insurance won't pay for me to see a gynocoligist.


 Since when is marriage solely a religious union? Marriage predates many religions including Xianity. Marriage crossed over cultures and religions from the Greeks to the Egyptians and other pagan cultures. Marriage used to be about uniting territory and kingdoms, as well as about ownership and dowry. Now it is about legal benefits and privileges in our country that are being systematically denied to certain groups by bigots like you. The religious can keep their ceremonies before whatever gods they desire, but as long as the state recognizes the union contract and confers special benefits, any consenting couple should be able to get married under the law.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Heis, I see and Understand the difference. I don't know why this is being misunderstood. The question was not how Scientist or Epistemologist go about rationalizing, but how do believers use rationality. I showed him how they rationalize. And even gave an example of how I would rationalize a certain belief. You have said in the past, (I think) that you cannot use Science to confirm Religion or something along those lines. So I didn't use a scientific definition to explain that of a believer.


Heisenberg summed up the confusion. I still don't think the original question from pad was how do believers use rationality, but if they have rational reasons (using the dictionary definition of rational meaning based on reason and logic).

I understand your point.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> What about Bill Gates?- why don't you support it? what if it could help you either economically or socially
> Isn't marriage religious?
> What do people taste like? How do you know their not way better than cows or chickens? why not find out? maybe they could sell it at the store.


This thread exploded. Why don't _you_ support killing humans (whether it helps you economically or socially or any other way)? Do you have any reasons other than god says not too? Any reasons at all that are not fundamentally tied to god, like maybe you have some sort of moral framework independent of your god and religion?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> That was not the question posed though, and to your point I also inferred the people involved argue their rational to the others rational to determine the rationality of their thinking. Pad never gave any rational information of his own arguement to confer the rational thinking of others. He asked do they have rational reasons or Are they just irrational. Go back and slowly read what I said. Two or Three times if it helps.
> 
> Big Billy gave info towards his rationality towards Santa. We agreed upon Santa. I then went on to ask him about what god does he not want me to believe in? Is this so confusing? I'm inferring his ability of rational thinking compared to my rational thoughts. We may both agree or not on the rational or irrational, however, we were able to take in account what the other is thinking to determine the rationality of said subject.
> 
> ...


 So you are saying that by dismissing your post, and heeding my post, he is a hypocrite? Is this the information your referring to? I think your suggestion that he take a less hostile attitude hardly counts as information, even with the example and insight. It's an opinion. It is not unusual for a person to be unconvinced by one appeal and then change his mind when he hears it again, and doesn't necessarily qualify as hypocritical. When oly asks about missing links, and then states that no amount of discovery of missing links will make a difference, he is ignoring fact, not opinion. That makes him willfully ignorant, but not a hypocrite. What struck me as hypocritical is that he believes in the bible, in which Jesus says to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, do not judge. When oly says things like "You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded" that seems pretty judgmental. When he says "if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle" it doesn't seem like hes turning the other cheek. How can he expect others to respect his beliefs when he doesn't respect them himself? Pad is certainly being judgmental, but he isn't pretending to live by some code that teaches against it. When Pad says "fuck you" it is abusive and frankly pointless, when oly says "fuck you" it is abusive, pointless and hypocritical.

We are all ignorant and even willfully ignorant. I choose to ignore the music of John Tesh. That is not the same as holding a belief and judging others based on that belief while ignoring the dictations of that belief yourself. You are either purposefully equivocating, or else do not understand the nuance. If you have a problem with people calling oly hypocritical for considering his professors words and not ours, then take it up with whoever said that.

I may have trouble with adult understanding, but I seem to be able to understand most people just fine. Perhaps your lack of patience and leniency with people stems from your tendancy to use ambiguous language and to under articulate. In any case, confusion often arises during debate, especially one with so many participants; it doesn't necessarily mean that understanding is over my head.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> So you are saying that by dismissing your post, and heeding my post, he is a hypocrite? Is this the information your referring to? I think your suggestion that he take a less hostile attitude hardly counts as information, even with the example and insight. It's an opinion. It is not unusual for a person to be unconvinced by one appeal and then change his mind when he hears it again, and doesn't necessarily qualify as hypocritical. When oly asks about missing links, and then states that no amount of discovery of missing links will make a difference, he is ignoring fact, not opinion. That makes him willfully ignorant, but not a hypocrite. What struck me as hypocritical is that he believes in the bible, in which Jesus says to love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, do not seek revenge on those who wrong you, do not judge. When oly says things like "You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded" that seems pretty judgmental. When he says "if i knew you personally and you told me that in my face, i would kick your fucking ars ol boyle" it doesn't seem like hes turning the other cheek. How can he expect others to respect his beliefs when he doesn't respect them himself? Pad is certainly being judgmental, but he isn't pretending to live by some code that teaches against it. When Pad says "fuck you" it is abusive and frankly pointless, when oly says "fuck you" it is abusive, pointless and hypocritical.
> 
> We are all ignorant and even willfully ignorant. I choose to ignore the music of John Tesh. That is not the same as holding a belief and judging others based on that belief while ignoring the dictations of that belief yourself. You are either purposefully equivocating, or else do not understand the nuance. If you have a problem with people calling oly hypocritical for considering his professors words and not ours, then take it up with whoever said that.
> 
> I may have trouble with adult understanding, but I seem to be able to understand most people just fine. Perhaps your lack of patience and leniency with people stems from your tendancy to use ambiguous language and to under articulate. In any case, confusion often arises during debate, especially one with so many participants; it doesn't necessarily mean that understanding is over my head.


If the club is playing John Tesh music and you simply don't like the club your in and call the club bunk, then proceed over to another club playing John Tesh music and say hey this club is slamming. Your being being a hypocrite towards the club has nothing to do with the music being played. oh but I don't want to confuse you with the example and principle because I'm sure it must be because of the hot chicks that club has..whatever. Get mad if you want, it no longer matters to me. And I already addressed the point of holding boxed standards to a group or individual regardless of their belief or lack of in a post directly quoted to you so go back and check your comprehension as well. Please don't lose any sleep on my account. It's just a discussion and was never meant to be anything but. I never took anybody side on anything but pointed out a fact, which still remains a fact. You can just get over it as well.q


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Heisenberg summed up the confusion. I still don't think the original question from pad was how do believers use rationality, but if they have rational reasons (using the dictionary definition of rational meaning based on reason and logic).
> 
> I understand your point.


Yes I understood his comment as well but if you read what I said as you say you have and understood it. Then using the term didn't apply. Pad asked were there any rational reasons to believe in god or are all believers irrational? Who is he talking to Incog? Uummm, I don't know..yeah right, ok whatever... 

I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding..


----------



## Dankster4Life (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> dude, if you dont like what i am posting, then dont read it! YOu dont see me asking these people to leave... i like to know the way they think... I think it is evolution taking place... A breed evolving into the biggest bunch of hate driven people determined to undermine others beliefs and bash them in, sort of like the nazi's...


I am interested in their thinkin also......so i sit here and keep my trap shut and READ.

You don't get it and probably won't get it dude.

Did you notice the horse statement???You should really think about it.

And i see your posting again.Your posts take away from this thread.

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND READ!!!!!!!!!HOW DO YOU LEARN IF YOU NEVER SHUT UP? AND YOU HAVE NOTHING SUBSTANTIAL TO ADD!!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> If the club is playing John Tesh music and you simply don't like the club your in and call the club bunk, then proceed over to another club playing John Tesh music and say hey this club is slamming. Your being being a hypocrite towards the club has nothing to do with the music being played. oh but I don't want to confuse you with the example and principle because I'm sure it must be because of the hot chicks that club has..whatever. Get mad if you want, it no longer matters to me. And I already addressed the point of holding boxed standards to a group or individual regardless of their belief or lack of in a post directly quoted to you so go back and check your comprehension as well. Please don't lose any sleep on my account. It's just a discussion and was never meant to be anything but. I never took anybody side on anything but pointed out a fact, which still remains a fact. You can just get over it as well.q


Did you perceive anger in my post? I am setting here calm after some cheese tokes, and do not mind this discussion at all. 



> Are you actually meaning to say Oly is being abusive and hateful by his chosen words and he shouldn't because it's not right for him to do so, but others get a pass because it's right for them to do?


I am saying expression is a freedom, but reflects on your position. I am saying that they were both using poor expression, except olys had an added hypocritical quality. And yes, I disrespect the hypocrite more, I am bias that way. At least Pad was being genuine.



> If not, anytime someone chooses to use that type of verbage you should instantly stop them in their tracks and address their conduct as despicable as well.


I did address Pad's conduct, though not instantly. The wheel that squeaks the loudest.. You expressed that one dumb fuck deserves another, and I didn't disagree, I simply pointed out that one of those "fuck you"'s was in contradiction to the stated belief in Christ's teachings. It is not the language, but the hypocritical quality, something Jesus also taught against, that suggests weak morals. Oly explained his standards of morals and established that these morals came from his parents teachings. Since I have never seen Pad refer to a code that prevents him from engaging in abusive conduct, I can't say he is being hypocritical.

Oly is successfully playing the hurt card and acting as if any question or doubt of his belief is an assertion of superiority. It doesn't help that some are actually sending that message, and I agree with this statement.



> and using one of my opinions as your signature is also an attack on me... you are trying to show the rest of riu just how stupid i am in your eyes by what i said... that is an attack...


I don't agree with this statement



> i am just posting things to irritate any atheist out there waiting to attack


I don't think it's okay to take oly's ignorance out of context and showcase it to those not involved in the discussion, but I also don't think it's right to provoke an attack by being purposely irritable and then crying hurt when that attack comes, and using it as fodder to deflect valid criticism.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> what do you mean by this? Do you mean literally there are Christians and other devoted religious people out their bashing heads in and eating people?
> 
> why hasnt this been on the news?


Are you retarded? It has been on the news.

View attachment 1688588

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/09/tracymcveigh.theobserver


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Yes I understood his comment as well but if you read what I said as you say you have and understood it. Then using the term didn't apply. Pad asked were there any rational reasons to believe in god or are all believers irrational? Who is he talking to Incog? Uummm, I don't know..yeah right, ok whatever...
> 
> I'm glad we were able to come to an understanding..


Now I am confused. You understood his comment - ok. If I read and understood what you said, then using the term didn't apply - ok. What term? The term rational? How does your response in anyway dismiss his original use of the term?

Who was pad asking? He didn't address it to anyone, it was an open question in a public forum. 

Maybe pad could clear it up. Were you looking for a believers rationale? Or an actual rational reason?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> If the club is playing John Tesh music and you simply don't like the club your in and call the club bunk, then proceed over to another club playing John Tesh music and say hey this club is slamming. Your being being a hypocrite towards the club has nothing to do with the music being played



No, that's not the definition of a hypocrite. 
If he left the club, called it bunk for playing John Tesh, then opened his own club and played John Tesh music, or blasted John tesh in his car after leaving, he would be a hypocrite.

If he just left to a different club and proclaimed it to be "slamming" despite them playing John Tesh, he might be considered inconsistent, and one might question his actual motives for leaving he original club(obviously the playing of John Tech music does not necessarily exclude the club from being considered slamming if the next club still plays it but is considered slamming), but he would not be a hypocrite.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

karri0n said:


> No, that's not the definition of a hypocrite.
> If he left the club, called it bunk for playing John Tesh, then opened his own club and played John Tesh music, or blasted John tesh in his car after leaving, he would be a hypocrite.
> 
> If he just left to a different club and proclaimed it to be "slamming" despite them playing John Tesh, he might be considered inconsistent, and one might question his actual motives for leaving he original club(obviously the playing of John Tech music does not necessarily exclude the club from being considered slamming if the next club still plays it but is considered slamming), but he would not be a hypocrite.


I think he was trying to say that the music (or language) must not be important (or despicable) if you are willing to tolerate it somewhere else. Though I am confused in my child like understanding of how leaving the club for any reason is being hypocritical, if it's not followed up by contrasting actions. IOW, I agree.

But apparently there's hot chicks inside at least one of these clubs.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> But apparently there's hot chicks inside at least one of these clubs.


I'm ignorant(though not wilfully) of John Tesh's music, but unless it's exceptionally objectionable to my tastes, I might be interested in whichever of these clubs(I think the second one?) that has the hot chicks. When are you going?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I think he was trying to say that the music (or language) must not be important (or despicable) if you are willing to tolerate it somewhere else. Though I am confused in my child like understanding of how leaving the club for any reason is being hypocritical, if it's not followed up by contrasting actions. IOW, I agree.
> 
> But apparently there's hot chicks inside at least one of these clubs.


 First off Heis I wasn't directing the comment of child like understanding at you, but I did mention earlier of a certain posters child like thinking and was just following it up while I was speaking to you. 

And you are correct in the understanding of what I was saying.

If you read throughout the entire thread, at no point have I agreed with Oly or Beardo in any essential way. I have in every aspect agreed with Pad, Luger, Incog etc... The only difference is I have not tried to convince either but have provided information when I saw applicable. You would think that me and Oly was best of friends and agreed on everything when the exact opposite is the case. The only difference is my approach which works and doesn't imply or impose on his beliefs. The method I suggested Pad take when dealing with someone he couldn't find constructive dialogue with. Please check the evidence. This is the clouded judgement that I feel makes one a hypocrite. If a bum on the streets gives me advice that I comprehend as sound advice. I don't question his belief or education to find reason to accept his advice. If I did I would be a hypocrite to accept another's advice who told me the exact same thing and I only did so because he had a vette and business suit on. 

And no Karr you missed the boat on that one. I should've not tried to use Heis example and just explained it in my on terms. I hope the above example better suits your understanding of.the definition or maybe I simply don't know what a hypocrite is. That is also possible. Anyhow, I'm already sitting in the v.I.p. and yes they have hot chicks..


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You know what I've been wondering lately..? Are there any rational reasons to believe in God or are all believers irrational?





guy incognito said:


> Now I am confused. You understood his comment - ok. If I read and understood what you said, then using the term didn't apply - ok. What term? The term rational? How does your response in anyway dismiss his original use of the term?
> 
> Who was pad asking? He didn't address it to anyone, it was an open question in a public forum.
> 
> Maybe pad could clear it up. Were you looking for a believers rationale? Or an actual rational reason?


No, you are correct. It's very clear now. He was asking Atheist if they could find a rational reason as well.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x" or "x is wrong", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say. 

A christian who say it's wrong to trash their beliefs and then goes on to trash an atheist's beliefs is a hypocrite.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

karri0n my wayward son


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

Don't you cry no more


----------



## Dankster4Life (Jul 13, 2011)

You guy's are great...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

karri0n said:


> A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x" or "x is wrong", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say.
> 
> A christian who say it's wrong to trash their beliefs and then goes on to trash an atheist's beliefs is a hypocrite.


 When did I say X wasn't a hypocrite? I stated telling someone to be reasonable to advice and not doing so yourself is being a hypocrite. You don't see where this could have been applied to Pad either. It was more to the point of saying don't justify his actions by doing the same thing, but it sounds like I should ignore one persons actions vs another and just be biased. I thought Oly's hypocrisy was pointed out already, I was just pointing them all out. Sorry I don't pick sides, and if I did it would be the side of what's right vs wrong. And if I'm wrong about something then help me to better understand so I can be right. 

I must need to go smoke and clearly be clueless to the definition of a hypocrite.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> When did I say X wasn't a hypocrite? I stated telling someone to be reasonable to advice and not doing so yourself is being a hypocrite. You don't see where this could have been applied to Pad either. It was more to the point of saying don't justify his actions by doing the same thing, but it sounds like I should ignore one persons actions vs another and just be biased. I thought Oly's hypocrisy was pointed out already, I was just pointing them all out. Sorry I don't pick sides, and if I did it would be the side of what's right vs wrong. And if I'm wrong about something then help me to better understand so I can be right.
> 
> I must need to go smoke and clearly be clueless to the definition of a hypocrite.


I was referring to the bad music in the club reference - not to Pad or anyone else. I think if you view my history in this thread(and others) you will see that I do not choose sides either. 

I don't know what "When did I say X wasn't a hypocrite" means. Personally, I wouldn't put X down for any reason. He's either the least used letter or close to it, and stuck at the end of the alphabet like he was just slapped on there to make it 26. I root for him because he's the underdog. I've never seen his actions to be hypocritical.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

karri0n said:


> A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x" or "x is wrong", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say.
> 
> A christian who say it's wrong to trash their beliefs and then goes on to trash an atheist's beliefs is a hypocrite.





karri0n said:


> I was referring to the bad music in the club reference - not to Pad or anyone else. I think if you view my history in this thread(and others) you will see that I do not choose sides either.
> 
> I don't know what "When did I say X wasn't a hypocrite" means. Personally, I wouldn't put X down for any reason. He's either the least used letter or close to it, and stuck at the end of the alphabet like he was just slapped on there to make it 26. I root for him because he's the underdog. I've never seen his actions to be hypocritical.


 Karrion you clearly was speaking about someone who was Christian in your reference. You used it as an example. What Christian in specific, idk (x). You're the one who started using X's So I guess you was doing your cheerleader routine. 

And I never implied you choosing sides and gave reasoning to why I don't choose sides. But you expressed why Christians who do as you say they do are hypocrites as if I was ignoring the fact of. It only seems now your just attempting to be a smartass in spite of actually addressing what was actually said .


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

By X, I was referring to an action, not a person. I'll reword my statement and put in the example I used...

*A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x(don't trash anothers beliefs)" or "x is wrong(trashing someones beliefs is wrong)", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say. *

Braz,

Do you *choose* to believe in gods? Could you Choose not to and truly believe it?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.


The premise assumes the conclusion! Lets not Rush to irrationality.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The premise assumes the conclusion! Lets not *R*ush to irrationality.


You mean like Tom Sawyer?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The premise assumes the conclusion! Lets not Rush to irrationality.





karri0n said:


> You mean like Tom Sawyer?


Why? Why? Zzzzzzzzzz


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 13, 2011)

@ luger187...

so what is it you want me to answer?

Im done arguing! I see no point in my behavior and have thought it through that you guys are right... i did take offense to what you all said and acted like a child that got their toy taken away... But as the adult that i am, i know that i should have not responded in the ways i did.

If you all took offense or found my actions disrespectful, for that i am sorry. What i am not sorry for is sticking to my beliefs... 

I thank you all for your understanding and i thank you even if you dont care about what i just said...


----------



## Dankster4Life (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> @ luger187...
> 
> so what is it you want me to answer?
> 
> ...


++++++++++++ Rep.......


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> @ luger187...
> 
> so what is it you want me to answer?
> 
> ...


 no hard feelings. i dont even remember what i was asking lol, so nevermind.

most of us on this thread seem to think that people should have reasoning behind their decisions. to us, it seemed like you didnt want to let us know why you believe what you do. and because of that, we assumed you didnt really have reasons, you just believe because you were raised that way. to us, that doesnt seem like a logical way to come to a conclusion. 
i was raised to believe in santa, but eventually i used my brain to disprove santa. we(or at least i do) see religion sort of in the same way. you will believe it until you question your beliefs. and it is at that point when you find out what is really going on.
questioning beliefs serves as a way to verify or discredit them. either way, it works out in your favor. now you either know you are correct, or are no longer following a lie


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much? 

ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!

i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

karri0n said:


> By X, I was referring to an action, not a person. I'll reword my statement and put in the example I used...
> 
> *A hypocrite is one who says "don't do x(don't trash anothers beliefs)" or "x is wrong(trashing someones beliefs is wrong)", then proceeds to do exactly what he is telling others not to. Someone who acts in contrast to what they say. *
> 
> ...


Karrion I'm gonna throw you a lifeline... I know you were talking about x as in a action. You used Christian as an example to why people call Christians a Hypocrite by way of their described actions. Well, what or who are we talking about? And why use Christians as an example if that is not who we are talking about as being hypocrites. 

Well, you were not using X to describe a particular Christian in the thread so I just said X as not to label or pick on anyone particular and because you used (x). You didn't understand the meaning of me using X so I stated what I meant and put an (x) by Christian to show you what I meant. Then I explained to you again and you are still Pom Poms high 4 X. 

edit: I only partially answered your question. If the evidence perceived to my understanding disallowed me to believe in the conceptual God I believe in then No, I wouldn't choose to believe in that God, I just would not. 



guy incognito said:


> If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.


Does anybody remember this post? Am I the only one that actually reads the thread. Am I the only one that thinks if I was to start a thread that I would be the one to actually read all the comments people have chosen to post. Especially the ones that they quote me on. On my own Thread. 

And Incog I already know why you didn't see it. You only got half way through it remember. 

Not!! Just go ahead and skip down to the Pretty Big Letters!!



Brazko said:


> I don't know Pad. Is there any rational reasons to believe in God?
> 
> Let's see what a quick google search brings up.....
> 
> ...


 



Heisenberg said:


> The premise assumes the conclusion! Lets not Rush to irrationality.


 Oh, that is what we're talking about now? Irrational people?

Thanks for your vote of confidence



guy incognito said:


> Why? Why? Zzzzzzzzzz


Why Incog? Maybe the private time I decide to share outside of my personal life with the company I work for sometimes moves me to feel obligated in actually getting something accomplished while I'm there since they are paying me. It's hard to get good signals in to my smartphone but I accomplish it every now and then. The only thing is it puts a big strain on my phone always roaming for signals and it already has a shitty battery life. 

So at some point I have to charge it (main reason) and also uphold my agreements to the company. I would use the internet there but because they monitor what we search, I don't think going to a grow site would be in my best interest, and even less worth immediately responding to ignorance.. 

That's All


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> As long as the state recognizes the union contract and confers special benefits, .


 I'm all for that go get a gay union contract with all the same benefits a marriage certificate gets you with the exception of the approval of God.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> This thread exploded. Why don't _you_ support killing humans (whether it helps you economically or socially or any other way)? Do you have any reasons other than god says not too? Any reasons at all that are not fundamentally tied to god, like maybe you have some sort of moral framework independent of your god and religion?


 What is moral framework? What are it's foundations? who sets its bounderies? why are certain things moral or imoral? who draws these definitions and who enforces them and how?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much?
> 
> ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!
> 
> i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.


Stop being Irrational!!

Actually BabyDro I don't feel you're being irrational, so let me clear it up now before you become confused as to my angle of intention. This is Sarcasm BabyDro but it is not in anyway directed at you. I apologize if you already know I'm being sarcastic and feel I'm mocking your intelligence. I apologize if you did consider me mocking your intelligence. I meant no harm and only wanted to keep the thread lively. I apologize again for apologizing. 

Thanks 4 Posting 

And keep it Fire...., I mean the Dro


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> here you go again? whats wrong with you? an athiest yet all your concerned about iS other ppl believeing and it bothers you so much?
> 
> ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!
> 
> i think yoru the one one needs to convince himself that he believes in nothing.


dude, no need to get offended. what about what i said offended you?

its the topic of the thread, so idk why its a problem that we debate it.

if you have something constructive to say about why i should believe, lets hear it. otherwise quit acting like a victim


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

wait, was dababydroman talking to me or brazko? im confused


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> The challenge stands - What kinds of irrational beliefs is science (not scientists)responsible for?





Brazko said:


> What kind of irrational beliefs have been put forth by science.. I don't know Pad, the science has always been correct in the past. The science is always right and never clouded by the Scientist interpetation of the information put forth because it stood alone as scientific fact even if the interpation made was based on incomplete information. Good Grief, but hey I'll tickle your fancy..
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/nov/04/2


 
Does anybody remember this Post? 

I'm not saying I'm right but the information within put forth information that science led to an irrational belief. 

I just never heard back from the OP. I just wanted to know if I was able to tackle his challenge he put forth. Where he go? I could be wrong about the information within and I don't mind fully understanding anothers prespective of how I may be wrong.


aside note:

I'm not your adversary and I'm always on the team seeking to understand truth. You have to learn to Respect your teammates. There is no I or We in Team. And I never look at you as an Atheist or anything else but a human who's seeking to understand. I'm always willing to learn from you and anybody else regardless of their belief or education. Something I already have accomplished by simply reading what insights, information, prespectives and knowledge you have chosen to share. I feel you have made me a better person and it had nothing to do with your beliefs or education. 

but that aside:


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> wait, was dababydroman talking to me or brazko? im confused


Nah, I believe he was addressing you and to be specific I don't think you in particular or at all.

Luger I can say that the way you talk to others is very admirable to me. I definitely respect that!!


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Does anybody remember this Post?
> 
> I'm not saying I'm right but the information within put forth information that science led to an irrational belief.
> 
> ...


Yeah science is always being proven wrong-Remember when margerine was good for you and butter was bad, then trans fats were bad so margerine had to change?
Science is often proven wrong-God is never disproven.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Nah, I believe he was addressing you and to be specific I don't think you in particular or at all.
> 
> Luger I can say that the way you talk to others is very admirable to me. I definitely respect that!!


thanks buddy  ive been admiring your posts as well


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
> and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.


ok sorry, i thought you were talking to me. i didnt say anything in my post that was negative against religion, so i was confused lol

maybe he talks about it a lot because he is interested in the subject, as am i. if you see something wrong with what he says, you should tell him why you are right and he is wrong. then he does the same. its called debate. BUT if people go around calling people names and insulting, we just get mad at eachother and we end up with 50 pages of arguing

if you cant stand the heat, stay outta the kitchen


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> i wasn't talking to either of you, so if the shoes dont fit dont wear em. i was talking to pandawater bc this is all he ever ever talks about.
> and you shoulda apologized for saying something that ment nothing.


I knew where your intentions were set. After the many posts I've made I was shaky about using your post filled with any kind of sarcasm.

And as noted wasn't directed at you. And even now I understand you understood my meaning. It meant nothing.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

i didnt call any names, and not insulting. i just think that if someone does'nt believe why is it that all they want to do is debate about it? it would seem to me that that person is not even sure them self that there isent "somthing" out there or a higher being of somesort. theres nothing to debate about for me its all a useless 50 pages anyways.
how can you debate about ones belief? and how can one debate about his own belief? anyone who has a religion would never accept anything you say anyways, so its pointless.
only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them. < witch doesnt apply to everything, but to this i believe so.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm not interested in hearing about this in this thread. If you start a new one about it, I'll check it out and post, but lets just try to stay on topic.
> 
> The point I believe you were making was "he's an atheist, he does this thing that's really bad, so atheism is bad" which is invalid from the start. It's the same as the Hitler argument I've seen a million times. Hitler was an atheist > Hitler was bad > atheism is bad!. This is a fallacy of logic, if you don't understand why or need me to be more clear, ask.
> 
> ...


Thier are threads with the population control plans I can find one and give link if you want and the video in this thread is good, I think it is relevant but I will try to stay more on direct in relation to the topic at hand.
My point was to say that Atheism opens the door to justify horrible things or to take away the premise for not doing those things and excercising self control
And what are morals without religion? or religious roots.
If you can get gay married why not be able to have multiple wives or have a husband and wife for a 3 way marriage?


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> i didnt call any names, and not insulting. i just think that if someone does'nt believe why is it that all they want to do is debate about it? it would seem to me that that person is not even sure them self that there isent "somthing" out there or a higher being of somesort. theres nothing to debate about for me its all a useless 50 pages anyways.
> how can you debate about ones belief? and how can one debate about his own belief? anyone who has a religion would never accept anything you say anyways, so its pointless.
> only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them. < witch doesnt apply to everything, but to this i believe so.


so far, we(atheists) havent been shown evidence that god exists. thats it. atheism doesnt mean we think god does not exist, that is antitheism. atheists simply do not believe in a god because it hasnt been proven to them that he does exist. and until then, we refuse to conform to a religion because we dont know its true. why spend our lives praying to a god that we dont KNOW exists? religious people dont have a problem praying because they truly believe he does exist.

people believe in religions because they think their holy book is gods word, or they were raised to believe it and never questioned it, and some other reasons. for me personally, i debate about it because im interested in the psychology of it. i like to see how others view the world, and i share the same with them. that is how we learn. also as others debate, i learn more about my side of the argument by seeing what other atheists say, and what information they post.

if a religious person does not accept anything an atheist says based solely on the fact he is an atheist, doesnt that mean the religious person is willfully choosing to be ignorant? what if the atheist legitimately had a set of facts and observations which would expand the religious persons thinking? wouldnt they want to listen to that and at least consider it? what if the religious person has been proven wrong in certain aspects, but refuses to accept those FACTS because they choose their holy book instead? why live a lie willingly?

you said "only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them". everyone should always question their own beliefs because our own minds can trick us, and do all the time. if someone believes whole heartedly in their religion, they should have no problem defending it and showing others what it is about, because they truly believe in it.

im not saying you are wrong. im speaking of religious people in general. i mean no offense


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> Thier are threads with the population control plans I can find one and give link if you want and the video in this thread is good, I think it is relevant but I will try to stay more on direct in relation to the topic at hand.
> My point was to say that Atheism opens the door to justify horrible things or to take away the premise for not doing those things and excercising self control
> And what are morals without religion? or religious roots.
> If you can get gay married why not be able to have multiple wives or have a husband and wife for a 3 way marriage?


and religious people cant be talked into killing in the name of god? what about 9/11, the salem witch trials, or the inquisition? 
the self control it takes to not kill someone does not come from religion. it is imprinted in our brains, and has been for a long time. usually when someone kills someone else, in their head there is a legit reason for the murder. they made a decision to override that instinct because someone else slept with their wife, or stole their money, or is a heathen/sinner.

morals can also come from our society. i know not to do bad things because i will feel empathy for those i hurt, and also i may be shunned by others in my society. yes, religion has morals. but that does not mean morals come from religion.

i dont have any problems with gay marriage. the multiple wives thing gets a little iffy because sometimes the teen girls are brainwashed into thinking they love a 40 year old. but if its multiple consenting adults, i see no problem with it. the women in polyamorous relationships tend to get jealous with eachother though, which is expected


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

every christian knows they wont see god on earth, the bible says if man were go see god on earth he would die.
your arguement is since you cant see nothing theres no proof. there is no arguement we kno theres not visual "proof" of god. its all based on faith. so boom debates over? thats what i dont get. why ya'll want to debate this.

dont twist my words, and dont say something offensive then say, no offence.
the fact that we wouldent listen to what you say is because you cant say anything except i wana see god with my eyes blah blah. or then the science thing. why cant there be a scientific explination for the way god created the earth? i dont get that either.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Oh, that is what we're talking about now? Irrational people?
> 
> Thanks for your vote of confidence


The line was a lyric from a song by Rush, mine was nothing more than a cheap pun, to which I believe Guy found boring (zzzz).


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

See Luger, it doesn't logically matter if your approach doesn't account for the ability to circumvent. I personally would start at the root of the problem. By providing information that shows their roots are actually limbs, you establish a base to work with. Some things cannot be simply cut off but rooted up. If my intent was to uproot buried minds. My thread would never bring into question one's belief but be an information haven that allowed a person to ingest willingly. You cannot expect to force feed somebody in hopes of them willingly digesting it. I'm not saying you are. It's just probably the dinner table you're sitting at.

I never see a person's belief as something I must change, because I know through the process of evolving their belief will change over time, some sooner than later to never at all. But that is the process of evolution. If a person believes in one aspect of it, they must be able to understand it in all aspects. If you withdraw any component of it's mechanism then you don't have evolution. And they never had faith in it from the beginning. I have faith in evolution. 

I do agree with Baby Dro that it becomes pointless in this type of enviroment to change a person's belief. Change the enviroment and evolution happens. Will that ever happen? Your guess is as good as mine 

edit: I say belief but I also mean a person's outlook on life will also evolve. To address the people that don't have beliefs. To note that I wasn't being 1 sided about what I am saying.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> The line was a lyric from a song by Rush, mine was nothing more than a cheap pun, to which I believe Guy found boring (zzzz).


It was over my head then because I was sincerely just Thanking you for not drawing any conclusions.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 13, 2011)

thats what i was trying to say all along, but i guess it went un noticed...

you see, what i say dont matter, lol





Brazko said:


> See Luger, it doesn't logically matter if your approach doesn't account for the ability to circumvent. I personally would start at the root of the problem. By providing information that shows their roots are actually limbs, you establish a base to work with. Some things cannot be simply cut off but rooted up. If my intent was to uproot buried minds. My thread would never bring into question one's belief but be an information haven that allowed a person to ingest willingly. You cannot expect to force feed somebody in hopes of them willingly digesting it. I'm not saying you are. It's just probably the dinner table your sitting at.
> 
> I never see a person's belief as something I must change, because I know through the process of evolving their belief will change over time, some sooner than later to never at all. But that is the process of evolution. If a person believes in one aspect of it, they must be able to understand it in all aspects. If you withdraw any component of it's mechanism then you don't have evolution. And they never had faith in it from the beginning. I have faith in evolution.
> 
> I do agree with Baby Dro that it becomes pointless in this type of enviroment to change a person's belief. Change the enviroment and evolution happens. Will that ever happen. Your guess is as good as mine


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> thats what i was trying to say all along, but i guess it went un noticed...
> 
> you see, what i say dont matter, lol


I noticed, and it does matter


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 13, 2011)

well some people didnt pick it up, oh well, we are humans... I think we in a sense EVOLVE from our mistakes




Brazko said:


> I noticed, and it does matter


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> every christian knows they wont see god on earth, the bible says if man were go see god on earth he would die.
> your arguement is since you cant see nothing theres no proof. there is no arguement we kno theres not visual "proof" of god. its all based on faith. so boom debates over? thats what i dont get. why ya'll want to debate this.
> 
> dont twist my words, and dont say something offensive then say, no offence.
> the fact that we wouldent listen to what you say is because you cant say anything except i wana see god with my eyes blah blah. or then the science thing. why cant there be a scientific explination for the way god created the earth? i dont get that either.


We believe in things we can't see all the time. Gravity for example. Gravity is an unseen force, yet still interacts with reality in a measurable and predictable way. The very fact that God can not be predicted or detected is what makes it impossible to have a scientific explanation. In other words, if we want to test if god created the world, we have to ask ourselves, what we would expect the world to look like if their was a creator? Since the creator is all powerful, he can make the world look any way he wishes. Therefore the claim that god created the earth is not subject to the scientific method. That does not mean the claim is not subject to reason and critical thought, it just means there is no way to gather evidence when there is no way to distinguish between real evidence and false evidence.

If you think skeptics trust what they see with their eyes, then you do not fully understand the mindset of skepticism.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yeah science is always being proven wrong-Remember when margerine was good for you and butter was bad, then trans fats were bad so margerine had to change?
> Science is often proven wrong-God is never disproven.


Yes, I agree with that as well Beardo as being a good example. I'm just now trying to get it back straight in my head as well and started back buying the sticks and not the buckets. I also think people need to stop buying artificial sweetners mislead by the idea its a better choice and good alternative to sugar. It is in no way a good or better choice then just using plain sugar.

Also people are mislead into thinking enriched means better/extra nutrients when in actuality it just means that the food product that was stripped of all its valuable nutrients had to be enriched to restore its presumed natural qualities. That is not all cases but the majority of cases. Just a Marketing scheme whereas the information is technically true, but the belief that it is better is false.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> We believe in things we can't see all the time. Gravity for example. Gravity is an unseen force, yet still interacts with reality in a measurable and predictable way. The very fact that God can not be predicted or detected is what makes it impossible to have a scientific explanation. In other words, if we want to test if god created the world, we have to ask ourselves, what we would expect the world to look like if their was a creator? Since the creator is all powerful, he can make the world look any way he wishes. Therefore the claim that god created the earth is not subject to the scientific method. That does not mean the claim is not subject to reason and critical thought, it just means there is no way to gather evidence when there is no way to distinguish between real evidence and false evidence.
> 
> If you think skeptics trust what they see with their eyes, then you do not fully understand the mindset of skepticism.


Your theory of gravity proves God, if God hadn't thought of Gravity we would float away-That's what's so cool about God he thought of everything. Proof is in the Vagina, it's the center of the universe and the holiest of holes. If their is no proof God does not exist why are you hating? God is great, why wouldn't you want to go to heaven? haven't you heard it's really nice their.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> @ luger187...
> 
> so what is it you want me to answer?
> 
> ...


+rep

One thing I respect in all people, no matter what their belief is the acceptance of criticism and recognition when they have acted inappropriately. I only hope I can do what you just did if I act like a child and stubbornly refuse to listen to what others are telling me.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Why Incog? Maybe the private time I decide to share outside of my personal life with the company I work for sometimes moves me to feel obligated in actually getting something accomplished while I'm there since they are paying me. It's hard to get good signals in to my smartphone but I accomplish it every now and then. The only thing is it puts a big strain on my phone always roaming for signals and it already has a shitty battery life.
> 
> So at some point I have to charge it (main reason) and also uphold my agreements to the company. I would use the internet there but because they monitor what we search, I don't think going to a grow site would be in my best interest, and even less worth immediately responding to ignorance..
> 
> That's All


Uh...I was stoned making more rush references. Why? Why? Zzzzzz = [video=youtube;5nmOMo4OPi4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nmOMo4OPi4[/video]


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

Did they make them take God off the money? someone told me they were taking God off the quarters, thats messed up.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

This thread just got bum rushed.

[video=youtube;uwXjnVICb3I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwXjnVICb3I[/video]


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> I'm all for that go get a gay union contract with all the same benefits a marriage certificate gets you with the exception of the approval of God.


That's what a legal marriage is. As has been pointed out numerous times, the term marriage does not belong to those that worship gods. Marriage is merely a covenant between two people. If a religious group wants to add their god to the covenant, then they are free to do so but the state does not require a religious test for marriage. What you are asking is sole ownership of a fucking word that has meant many different things to various cultures throughout history. Why not just usurp the word 'love' as well? 

By claiming ownership, you require the state to devise a brand new term that has exactly the same legal benefits and protections that marriage already has. There's absolutely no point in doing so and only adds confusion to the law.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

Brazko said:


> Does anybody remember this Post?
> 
> I'm not saying I'm right but the information within put forth information that science led to an irrational belief.
> 
> ...





beardo said:


> Yeah science is always being proven wrong-Remember when margerine was good for you and butter was bad, then trans fats were bad so margerine had to change?
> Science is often proven wrong-God is never disproven.


The rules of logic permit you to be completely rational but still wrong. You can have a sound logical explanation but invalid premises. Induction, the tool that science uses most often is necessarily inexact. This is why we can never say that a theory is proven. Nothing we know about the universe that we live can be known to be absolutely correct. There is always a margin of error. Science strives to diminish that margin with each new discovery. 

This is why Einstein supersedes Newton and General Relativity is likely incomplete as it doesn't mesh with Quantum Field Theory, which, being the most successful scientific theory to date, is still fundamentally wrong as it ignores gravity. Science is like a large jigsaw puzzle that starts out with large course pieces but as we put it together, the pieces get smaller and more detailed, sort of like Zeno's Arrow.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> Science is like a large jigsaw puzzle that starts out with large course pieces but as we put it together, the pieces get smaller and more detailed, sort of like Zeno's Arrow.


Analogy win.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

aren't dreams proof of GOD? and microscopic cells have to be proof also. I would also say people who have heard GOD or talked to him are proof.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

it was more of a hypothetical question. heisenberg. of course it cant be scientificaly proven.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> What is moral framework? What are it's foundations? who sets its bounderies? why are certain things moral or imoral? who draws these definitions and who enforces them and how?


Moral framework would be the framework of morals you operate under. Some of my personal foundations are: treat other people like I want to be treated. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I acknowledge that right in other people, and try not to infringe upon it. I don't murder people because I don't want to be murdered. It's not out of fear of retaliation, or getting caught, or being punished by god, it's because it would violate my own moral code. 

I set it's boundaries. Certain things are moral or immoral based on whether they violate the fundamental rules. I set these definitions for myself. Society also sets it's own definitions and makes them laws. The police and court system enforce the ones society deems important enough for law. 

I think using god or religion as a reason for something being "wrong" or "immoral" doesn't make any sense. It's the equivalent of "because I said so!" If it is wrong and immoral, why can't you come up with other reasons WHY it's wrong or immoral? Is murder wrong? I think any rational person, when taking god completely out of the equation, would still come to the conclusion that murder is wrong.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> aren't dreams proof of GOD? and microscopic cells have to be proof also. I would also say people who have heard GOD or talked to him are proof.


Why do you think dreams would be 'proof' of God?

Or microscopic cells?

I'm sure you can see the pattern here beardo.. Things you simply don't understand you attribute to God. They must be God because you can't understand them? Come on man, you must realize how this line of reasoning is flawed. 

Plenty of people hear voices in their head all the time. How do you know what is a random voice inside your head and God? How would one determine that?

This video has nothing to do with your post, but it's relevant to the thread;

[youtube]swkAGExZCII&feature=feedrec_grec_index[/youtube]


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> aren't dreams proof of GOD? and microscopic cells have to be proof also. I would also say people who have heard GOD or talked to him are proof.


How so? There are naturalistic explanations for dreams, cells and even people that hear voices. Your evidence filter is severely skewed if you think those things are proof of anything supernatural.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

ya'll can go about it all day and night, even though your so sure, that you will fight a never ending war of debate .
If any of yall are good people and wind up at the pearly gates, i hope god bitch slaps you and tells you to take off your shoes.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Moral framework would be the framework of morals you operate under. Some of my personal foundations are: treat other people like I want to be treated. I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I acknowledge that right in other people, and try not to infringe upon it. I don't murder people because I don't want to be murdered. It's not out of fear of retaliation, or getting caught, or being punished by god, it's because it would violate my own moral code.
> 
> I set it's boundaries. Certain things are moral or immoral based on whether they violate the fundamental rules. I set these definitions for myself. Society also sets it's own definitions and makes them laws. The police and court system enforce the ones society deems important enough for law.
> 
> I think using god or religion as a reason for something being "wrong" or "immoral" doesn't make any sense. It's the equivalent of "because I said so!" If it is wrong and immoral, why can't you come up with other reasons WHY it's wrong or immoral? Is murder wrong? I think any rational person, when taking god completely out of the equation, would still come to the conclusion that murder is wrong.


 I think our Society has it's morals deeply based on religion- and so do most people. Killing people is very morally accepted in our society as it is today but only under some cercumstances like at war or by police or as an abortion, it is a judgment call and as of now that judgment is made in a scciety that is based on the bible that says not to kill. Why not kill so you can have more to eat or a bigger yard or less traffic or lower unemployment? it is a very slippery slope and we are already in a slide I think society needs more God not less.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> How so? There are naturalistic explanations for dreams, cells and even people that hear voices. Your evidence filter is severely skewed if you think those things are proof of anything supernatural.


 When God talks to you you know it and you know he speaks the truth- you know it is real and their is no denying what is real and as you know reality is subjective,. what is real to me is real, it doesn't matter if you can see it- if I see it it is real for me.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

for-real^ .. lol plenty of ppl hear voices in there head all the time? can you hear the voices in other ppls heads too?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> When God talks to you you know it and you know he speaks the truth- you know it is real and their is no denying what is real and as you know reality is subjective,. what is real to me is real, it doesn't matter if you can see it- if I see it it is real for me.


beardo, don't you think that's what a person who hears voices would say to justify it? There is no way for you to *know* that it's God. Everyone knows you cannot know. When you_ say_ you know and that there's no denying it, we all know you're being dishonest. 

Reality is not subjective_._ Your opinion of it is.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think our Society has it's morals deeply based on religion- and so do most people. Killing people is very morally accepted in our society as it is today but only under some cercumstances like at war or by police or as an abortion, it is a judgment call and as of now that judgment is made in a scciety that is based on the bible that says not to kill. Why not kill so you can have more to eat or a bigger yard or less traffic or lower unemployment? it is a very slippery slope and we are already in a slide I think society needs more God not less.


You don't think not killing other people in your own society but going to war with outsiders predates religion? Even lower animals observe this 'moral.' Piranha in a feeding frenzy still don't eat each other. Is that because of some fish religion? Empathy for others that are similar to us is genetically encoded. Most people, consciously or unconsciously won't kill another person because they wouldn't want to be killed themselves. I don't steal from others because I wouldn't want someone stealing from me. This is basic to any society living together whether they believe in a god or are completely atheistic. 

Would you care to explain how a primitive Amazonian tribe has survived as long as they had not believing in any form of a deity? http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/11/08/how-an-amazonian-tribe-turned-a-missionary-into-an-atheist/


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> for-real^ .. lol plenty of ppl hear voices in there head all the time? can you hear the voices in other ppls heads too?


 When the voice tells you something it is real and you have heard it so their is no denying what you heard and no forgetting it either.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> When God talks to you you know it and you know he speaks the truth- you know it is real and their is no denying what is real and as you know reality is subjective,. what is real to me is real, it doesn't matter if you can see it- if I see it it is real for me.


So how would you answer Penn's questions? If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child, would you do it?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think our Society has it's morals deeply based on religion- and so do most people. Killing people is very morally accepted in our society as it is today but only under some cercumstances like at war or by police or as an abortion, it is a judgment call and as of now that judgment is made in a scciety that is based on the bible that says not to kill. Why not kill so you can have more to eat or a bigger yard or less traffic or lower unemployment? it is a very slippery slope and we are already in a slide I think society needs more God not less.


I feel like you didn't read my post. I do not consider killing for gain because I think killing another human for gain is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether the bible condemns it or not. I am a human and I believe I have the right to not be murdered by other people. I extend that same right to other people. I will not kill another human. Don't you have any reasons other than god for not murdering people? Is that the only reason you think it's wrong? If it wasn't specifically stated in the bible that murder was wrong you would think it would be acceptable?


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> You don't think not killing other people in your own society but going to war with outsiders predates religion? Even lower animals observe this 'moral.' Piranha in a feeding frenzy still don't eat each other. Is that because of some fish religion? Empathy for others that are similar to us is genetically encoded. Most people, consciously or unconsciously won't kill another person because they wouldn't want to be killed themselves. I don't steal from others because I wouldn't want someone stealing from me. This is basic to any society living together whether they believe in a god or are completely atheistic.
> 
> Would you care to explain how a primitive Amazonian tribe has survived as long as they had not believing in any form of a deity? http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/11/08/how-an-amazonian-tribe-turned-a-missionary-into-an-atheist/


 Monkeys will steal from eachother and kill eachother and eat other monkeys
I was actually citing our current willingness to justify killings as a problem with the lack of a strict adherance to religious guidelines. and that widespread adoption of aethesim would make things much worse


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I feel like you didn't read my post. I do not consider killing for gain because I think killing another human for gain is fundamentally wrong regardless of whether the bible condemns it or not. I am a human and I believe I have the right to not be murdered by other people. I extend that same right to other people. I will not kill another human. Don't you have any reasons other than god for not murdering people? Is that the only reason you think it's wrong? If it wasn't specifically stated in the bible that murder was wrong you would think it would be acceptable?


 Yes- I would pick up the nearest rock and start bashing skulls of hypocrites 
What is your stance on funding killings?-How do you feel about abortion and death peanalty and the military and police?


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> beardo, don't you think that's what a person who hears voices would say to justify it? There is no way for you to *know* that it's God. Everyone knows you cannot know. When you_ say_ you know and that there's no denying it, we all know you're being dishonest.
> 
> Reality is not subjective_._ Your opinion of it is.


see theres no debateing yall becuase nomatter what we say you just say the same thing nope, nope, nope. so why in the hell do you keep coming back to hear it again and again and say the same shit over and over.. how the hell does it help you? your fighting a never ending battle with ppl who believe. you all do not understand the supernatural powers of belief.

but theres alot you do not understand because you can come back and ask me if i believe tommorow and ill say yes, come the next day and ill say yes. put a gun to my head and ask me if i believe in jesus christ and ill say yes. so, i win and you lose.


----------



## beardo (Jul 13, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So how would you answer Penn's questions? If God spoke to you and told you to kill your child, would you do it?


 No because the bible says it is a mortal sin so I would know it was satan pretending to be God.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 13, 2011)

if you thought god told you to kill your kid your fucking crazy, ilegitimate question that takes ya'll athiests nowhere.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> see theres no debateing yall becuase nomatter what we say you just say the same thing nope, nope, nope. so why in the hell do you keep coming back to hear it again and again and say the same shit over and over.. how the hell does it help you? your fighting a never ending battle with ppl who believe. you all do not understand the supernatural powers of belief.
> 
> but theres alot you do not understand because you can come back and ask me if i believe tommorow and ill say yes, come the next day and ill say yes. put a gun to my head and ask me if i believe in jesus christ and ill say yes. so, i win and you lose.


All pads point is is how do you differentiate between god truly talking to you and a delusion? How can you know absolutely certain one way or the other from your own view point (as the one hearing the voice)?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> No because the bible says it is a mortal sin so I would know it was satan pretending to be God.


That's a dodge. You said you know it is god instinctively, not because it is consistent with what is written in the bible. God can have good reasons, such as preventing your child, who he know grows up to be very evil because you die in a year and he grows up without you. Maybe he's testing you like Abraham. The point is, if you KNOW that it is God speaking to you, which you claimed to be able to do, AND he asks you to commit some atrocity, your denial means that you don't trust the voice, therefore how can you trust ANY voice? How can you question the voice of God? 

Besides, what good is a voice that only tells you things that you already know to be true or consistent with how you already live your life? How can you distinguish God's voice from a schizophrenic break? How do you know it's really God when it may be that it is completely normal for some people to hear voices and not even have a true mental illness? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_Voices_Movement


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> No because the bible says it is a mortal sin so I would know it was satan pretending to be God.


This is exactly what's being pointed out and I think you're still missing it. You don't KNOW it's God, you don't KNOW it's the Devil. This is what you THINK. Please realize the distinction. 

You're using inconsistent standards for your belief.

@ dababydroman, I'm asking you WHY you believe. Aren't you interested in trying to better understand why what convinced you doesn't convince me or the rest of the atheists in the thread? I'm not interested in changing anyones mind, I learned a long time ago it's an impossible task. I'm interested in pointing out the flaws in the logic that led you to believe what you believe because I think your beliefs are dangerous and cause harm. It would be one thing if you had sufficient reason to justify them, like if it were possible to prove the existence of God, and that would be another question entirely that we'd be debating instead, but you don't. All you have is "I need this to feel comfortable, you HAVE to respect that because it's my religious belief", and in most cases I'd agree, you have every single right to your own personal religious beliefs, but when they start to hurt other people, impact other peoples lives in a negative way, that's when I have a problem. This is what beleivers can't see, are oblivious to, or choose not to acknowledge; that their beliefs harm other people. They group together, a whole host of psychological factors take over and they end up confirming each others flawed conclusions without even realizing it. As long as the majority believe the same thing, this tactic works. As more people lose their faith, less people are comfortable with using this tactic to avoid finding true reasons to justify their belief, as is evident by the majority of believers responses to the thread.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

dude thats completely rediculous, you have no idea what your talking about. mindphuk. you dont know our god because you you did you would know thats NOT POSSIBLE.
and you dont hear some big loud voice like on the movies. and not everybody who believes recieves msgs from god. all you know is whats right and whats wrong if your thinking some evil then the devil is provoking you. like beardo said when you know its right you know its right. simple as that there are no voices thats just you thinking and whoevers influenceing your thoughts i dont know. it just comes to you and you KNOW its real.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

i have plenty of reasons to believe. you'v never been to church thats why you'v never heard any testimonies of ppl being healed or saved in many many situations.
and i believe that you athiest are doing the very same thing right here grouping together "a whole host of psychological factors take over and they end up confirming each others flawed conclusions without even realizing it."
someone must have caused alot of harm to your head to lead you to believe anyones beliefs but your own are harmful.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> i have plenty of reasons to believe. you'v never been to church thats why you'v never heard any testimonies of ppl being healed [/COLOR]


 Edgar Casey was the real deal.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

Been to church countless times. Heard more "Jesus has saved me!" stories than I care to remember. None of it impresses me. None of it convinces me.

If you're a Christian, yes, your beliefs do indeed harm society. If you would like examples I'd be happy to give you some.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

and frankly no, i am far from intrested in why yall dont believe. i was really stopped by to ask why yall care.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

well i guess that was pretty traumatizing experiance for you. bc youve actually gone out of your way.. far far out of your way to try and spread your veiws that you probably all gotfrom the internet..


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> dude thats completely rediculous, you have no idea what your talking about. mindphuk. you dont know our god because you you did you would know thats NOT POSSIBLE.


You don't know me or what I know about your god. I am quite familiar with Scripture, possibly more so than you as I have studied it in Hebrew as a believer as well as at a university from a secular standpoint. 


> and you dont hear some big loud voice like on the movies. and not everybody who believes recieves msgs from god.


Yet we are only discussing those people that claim to hear god. It's a simple question and neither of you have provided a satisfactory answer. How do you know when it's god and not just some delusion? I don't care HOW they hear, as long as they claim that they KNOW it's god, I can safely say, they have no idea except for some internal feeling. 


> all you know is whats right and whats wrong if your thinking some evil then the devil is provoking you. like beardo said when you know its right you know its right. simple as that there are no voices thats just you thinking and whoevers influenceing your thoughts i dont know. it just comes to you and you KNOW its real.


So your answer is you know because you know? That's entirely insufficient evidence for any rational thinking individual. Especially since there seems to be strong evidence that people hearing voices may be a completely normal part of the human condition, just like hynogogic sleep paralysis has led people to believe in demons as well as alien abductions. We know our brains fool us all of the time. Just pick up a book on optical illusions. Search youtube for audible illusions. These are simple examples of our brains not working correctly to see or hear reality. We can simulate a god experience in the laboratory with nothing more than magnetic fields. Anyone telling me that they _*know*_ the voices they hear are actually from god is someone that I believes belongs in a mental hospital.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

well you must not know shit if you think any christian would believe that god told them too kill a baby.

yes, i know because i know. all god wants you to do is follow his word he doesnt ask for anything elese.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yes- I would pick up the nearest rock and start bashing skulls of hypocrites


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


>


lmfao! "Yo daaawg need a haircut!"


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> well you muist not know shit if you think any christian would believe that god told them too kill a baby.


You are simply not understanding what is being said.

Beardo said "I know it's God because I know", you yourself essentailly said the exact same thing, then we said "k, what if that SAME VOICE tells you to kill your kid, will you, being the faithful Christian you claim to be, honor Gods word?", now you come back with "of course not! Who in their right mind would?! That's CRAZY!" - which was exactly what ALL OF US expected you would say. Now you must realize you and beardo are using INCONSISTENT standards when assessing where this voice inside your head is coming from. We all have voices in our heads, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea they are coming from outside your own mind. You are simply attributing the things you personally view as 'good' to God and things you view as 'bad' to influences by the devil and that thought experiment proves it.

Do you understand?


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

If the voice said "go out and feed the homeless", you would automatically think it's God because you view feeding the homeless as good.

If it said "kill the neighbors puppy!", you'd think it's satan.

Right? Now the question is, how do you KNOW? What questions are you asking to determine that?


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

i have nothing to do with beardo i dont give a fuck. 
like i said not everybody "hears" anything from god. messages dont have to be words. it could be a set of events that lead you to receive wisdom from god.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

god would not tell me to do that its in his word to do things of that nature. if i do or not is up to me.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> well you must not know shit if you think any christian would believe that god told them too kill a baby.
> 
> yes, i know because i know. all god wants you to do is follow his word he doesnt ask for anything elese.


 And you're not paying attention to why that comment proves that you cannot know that a voice is god. You can't have it both ways, either you can intuitively know it's god or it can only be god if the voice is consistent with what you already think to be true about god. You are also claiming to have intimate knowledge about characteristics of god, therefore contradicting he is beyond our understanding. You have acknowledged that it can't be god even though your own bible says he acted that way once before. You are claiming special knowledge, above what most faiths, even amongst the Xians, will claim. You are a gnostic theist in much the same way that a person that denies a god exists is a gnostic atheist. Even most of the atheists on this forum will not even claim to be a strong atheist in this sense. 

You can believe what you want all day long but please don't pretend that this is a rational, logical position to take. Many atheists I know went through a personal and spiritual struggle as many of us were once strong believers. You have created a logical fallacy called circular reasoning. You know about god because of what's written in the bible. How do we know what's written in the bible is true? Because when we feel god when we think hard about him. Sometimes we think of him by accident just before something odd happens. So my personal connection with god tells me the bible is true. But then how did you learn about god in the first place? Something can feel real, but without external confirmation, we cannot trust what we think and feel all of the time. Especially so about strong concepts that we hear about often as soon as we learn how to understand language and ask questions. Some of my earliest memories revolve around religious events in my family. God was omnipresent even before I could formulate the man in the clouds that most children first think about. You're kidding yourself if this doesn't affect how you attribute things in life, all of those strange coincidences, that statistically must occur every so often in people's lives.


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

k guys, ill just let yall talk to yourselfs about this cause.. i just realised.. ya'll ARE the devil! hahahahaha.. have badluck with your quest to spread bs ! bye.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> k guys, ill just let yall talk to yourselfs about this cause.. i just realised.. ya'll ARE the devil! hahahahaha.. have badluck with your quest to spread bs ! bye.


"la la la la la"


----------



## dababydroman (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> i didnt call any names, and not insulting. i just think that if someone does'nt believe why is it that all they want to do is debate about it? it would seem to me that that person is not even sure them self that there isent "somthing" out there or a higher being of somesort. theres nothing to debate about for me its all a useless 50 pages anyways.
> how can you debate about ones belief? and how can one debate about his own belief? anyone who has a religion would never accept anything you say anyways, so its pointless.
> only ppl in question of there own beliefs can debate about them. < witch doesnt apply to everything, but to this i believe so.



like i said.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> like i said.


Anyone that doesn't question their own beliefs is a credulous fool. 

Personally, I enjoy having my beliefs challenged. Especially when they are as odd as quantum mechanics and general relativity, dark matter, dark energy. extra dimensions. God sure made a complicated multi-dimensional world for just us smart monkeys living only in 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time when the physical matter that we can detect is actually just a small portion of what exists, the rest undetectable to any of our instruments.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> ya'll claim to kno why we have our religions and beliefs right? so why cant you let it go? because you believe in nothing so you dont even believe yourself anymore. go pray to nothing and ask nothing for help, and see what you get. NOTHING!


Both teams pray to God for help before a football game, only one team wins. So apparently even when you pray to God you get nothing 50% of the time. You could find the same rate of prayers being answered by the sun, if both teams prayed to it.



beardo said:


> Yeah science is always being proven wrong-Remember when margerine was good for you and butter was bad, then trans fats were bad so margerine had to change?
> Science is often proven wrong-God is never disproven.


Science never makes any conclusions without the understanding that new evidence can change things. Science keeps itself open to new evidence, and acknowledges that new evidence could shed new light, as it often does. As humans develop better technology, tools, and understanding we inevitably find evidence we couldn't detect before. Would you rather science make up it's mind about something and then never reconsider it's position again? Once we have an accepted answer (margarine is healthier) and new evidence comes along saying otherwise (butter is healthier) would you prefer science ignore this information for the sake of not admitting it's wrong? This is in fact what religion does, and somehow you are bragging about this? Really?



beardo said:


> Your theory of gravity proves God, if God hadn't thought of Gravity we would float away-That's what's so cool about God he thought of everything. Proof is in the Vagina, it's the center of the universe and the holiest of holes. If their is no proof God does not exist why are you hating? God is great, why wouldn't you want to go to heaven? haven't you heard it's really nice their.


My theory of gravity? You do not accept it? I wasn't stating the theory of gravity, but pointing out that gravity is something we know is there, even though it can't be seen. We can measure gravity and predict it's behavior. But here you point out your standard for evidence. To you a vagina is sufficient evidence to believe in a supernatural force that makes no detectable interactions with the world. While this is your prerogative, are you really going to fault others for rejecting it? Really? 



beardo said:


> Monkeys will steal from eachother and kill eachother and eat other monkeys
> I was actually citing our current willingness to justify killings as a problem with the lack of a strict adherance to religious guidelines. and that widespread adoption of aethesim would make things much worse


If this premise were true, we would see a disproportional amount of atheists in prison and on trial for crimes. We would see patterns of neglect, abuse and fraud being predominate among atheists. None of these things are true. Atheists make up less than 1% of prison population but about 93% of the National Academy of Sciences in the US. These are the people who cure your disease, improve your health, and enhance your life. Knowing someone is an atheist tells you precisely what they do not believe, but nothing about what they do believe. Any other attributes are based on bias and misunderstanding.

It's well established God often calls for the killing of mankind and animals, look no further than the great flood. A disproportional number of serial killers suffered from some sort of religious psychosis, or grew up in homes with extremely heavy religious influence. There seems to be a trait among priests to molest little boys, should we assume God is a pedophile? Of course none of these would fairly address the claim of God, and would be red herrings, just like your assertion that atheism is responsible for amoral behavior.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> There seems to be a trait among priests to molest little boys, should we assume God is a pedophile?


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> You are simply not understanding what is being said.
> 
> Beardo said "I know it's God because I know", you yourself essentailly said the exact same thing, then we said "k, what if that SAME VOICE tells you to kill your kid, will you, being the faithful Christian you claim to be, honor Gods word?", now you come back with "of course not! Who in their right mind would?! That's CRAZY!" - which was exactly what ALL OF US expected you would say. Now you must realize you and beardo are using INCONSISTENT standards when assessing where this voice inside your head is coming from. We all have voices in our heads, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea they are coming from outside your own mind. You are simply attributing the things you personally view as 'good' to God and things you view as 'bad' to influences by the devil and that thought experiment proves it.
> 
> Do you understand?


God said not to kill-God is perfect and wouldn't have put it in the bible if it wasn't right.
If your hearing different your being lied to and the devil is trying to decieve you.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> God said not to kill-God is perfect and wouldn't have put it in the bible if it wasn't right.
> If your hearing different your being lied to and the devil is trying to decieve you.


So what if the voice said "go buy lots of food, and bring it to the homeless shelter". How would you determine if that was actually god's voice or just some internal voice you were hearing?


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Both teams pray to God for help before a football game, only one team wins. So apparently even when you pray to God you get nothing 50% of the time. You could find the same rate of prayers being answered by the sun, if both teams prayed to it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Why not just say God made butter and butter is good and leave it at that.
I'm just saying God made what you call gravity and God made Vaginas they make people that's pretty amazing, anything that great has to be made by God, that's why we don't have man made Vagina imported from China, only the flesh light and we all know that's not as good or we would all want one.
I am not saying Atheism leads to crminal behavior or that claiming a religious affileation prevents it, I am saying that those who follow God and obey his word do good and that the morals associated with religon are good for socitey This is not to say people don't use religon as a front to commit horrible sin that is prohibited by God. -With wide spread Atheism and a socitey without God could more easily justify terrible acts.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> So what if the voice said "go buy lots of food, and bring it to the homeless shelter". How would you determine if that was actually god's voice or just some internal voice you were hearing?


 They are one in the same-but different voices sometimes. God is in us all so the voices you hear are him unless they don't jive with the 10 commandments and the word of God, then they are the voices of the devil and deamons trying to make you stray from the righteous path. so you must resist.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

I'm done participating in this discussion with beardo. It's futile.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I'm done participating in this discussion with beardo. It's futile.


 It's all good-You have no way to prove god didn't create everything or create us with the ability to invent the things we do.
Does God being great and people being happy about it and saying it and following the ten commandments cause a problem? What if people are happier just knowing God made butter and butter is good? Why do you have to break it down into calories and molocules- If people are happy to be going to heaven why try to take something so fulfilling from them?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Uh...I was stoned making more rush references. Why? Why? Zzzzzz = [video=youtube;5nmOMo4OPi4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nmOMo4OPi4[/video]


I agree that it was over my head. I have no clue of who Rush was. I did/do have a clue as to what the insinuations were. As I addressed them with Heis and yourself. It's not like you all decided to just spout Rush and Tam Sawyer analogies for no reason. O but let's not rush 



mindphuk said:


> The rules of logic permit you to be completely rational but still wrong. You can have a sound logical explanation but invalid premises. Induction, the tool that science uses most often is necessarily inexact. This is why we can never say that a theory is proven. Nothing we know about the universe that we live can be known to be absolutely correct. There is always a margin of error. Science strives to diminish that margin with each new discovery.
> 
> This is why Einstein supersedes Newton and General Relativity is likely incomplete as it doesn't mesh with Quantum Field Theory, which, being the most successful scientific theory to date, is still fundamentally wrong as it ignores gravity. Science is like a large jigsaw puzzle that starts out with large course pieces but as we put it together, the pieces get smaller and more detailed, sort of like Zeno's Arrow.


I completely agree with this statement. The exact same thing has been said by myself and others that Pad didn't seem to agree with. However, he wanted to know what irrational beliefs has science been responsible for. So regardless of the logical fallacies put forth from incomplete information, the verified data assisted in a false belief. I agree that science in itself cannot be wrong. However whatever science identified/verified was already correct before and it is not called science. The method of identifying/verifying is called science and is fallible to the people who interprets it. But somehow he didnt seem to understand this before, but he does now..


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

Why not just shoot heroin all day then?


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I'm done participating in this discussion with beardo. It's futile.


 Again God triumphs !


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> Why not just shoot heroin all day then?


 If your Atheist might as well because it doesn't matter.
As far as God I don't think he minds H but the lifestyle we would associate with a junkie is not in keeping with the Righteous path.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> God said not to kill-God is perfect and wouldn't have put it in the bible if it wasn't right.
> If your hearing different your being lied to and the devil is trying to decieve you.


It says different in this very same bible. God killed all the creatures on earth except those on the ark. Did the devil put this in the bible? Do you actually consider what you are saying before you write it out? How does the story of the great flood escape you when it is also the infallible word of god? I am starting to suspect your posts are crafted simply to reiterate ridiculous ideas, since they don't seem to contain any valid rebuttal. I think your are being purposefully oblique. 



beardo said:


> Why not just say God made butter and butter is good and leave it at that.


You are the one that brought up butter in the context of science with observation that science gets things wrong while religion is always right. I cleared up that assertion and stripped it of it's spin, to which your reply is simply, "God made butter". This leads me to believe you are either five years old, pretending to be as disconnected as a five year old, or have some sort of inability to process logical connections. I can't imagine this response being genuine.



> I'm just saying God made what you call gravity and God made Vaginas they make people that's pretty amazing, anything that great has to be made by God, that's why we don't have man made Vagina imported from China, only the flesh light and we all know that's not as good or we would all want one.


I do find procreation to be amazing, but not astonishing. It's pretty well known how an egg gets fertilized and grows into a human. Again you are demonstrating that your criteria for evidence of god simply need to be something you don't understand. That is a pretty weak position as what you don't understand is well understood by others, and could be understood by you if you seek answers. 



> I am not saying Atheism leads to crminal behavior or that claiming a religious affileation prevents it, I am saying that those who follow God and obey his word do good and that the morals associated with religon are good for socitey This is not to say people don't use religon as a front to commit horrible sin that is prohibited by God. -With wide spread Atheism and a socitey without God could more easily justify terrible acts.


So these serial killers and pedophile priests are examples of people who are not following the word of God. You are then saying that despite religions influence we still end up with amoral behavior. In fact, it's the religious who are doing most of the crimes. If only 1% of prison population are atheist, 99% of them are open to gods influence. But man is not perfect and that's fair enough. How though do you explain when God himself directly killed most of the world with a flood? Does God not teach by example? Why does God sometimes kill children? If a child is having heart surgery, and survives, God is given credit. It's a sad fact that many children die from surgery everyday. If God is responsible for the ones that live, he must be responsible for the ones that die, unless of course god isn't all powerful and sometimes can't help the situation. How do you explain when God creates something terrible? If anything amazing is evidence of god, I think that amount of oil spilled into the ocean last summer was pretty amazing. Part of that amazement would include god's decision to kill all those birds and fish.

Will you respond with considerate rebuttal, or simple say "God made fish"?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> *I am starting to suspect your posts are crafted simply to reiterate ridiculous ideas, since they don't seem to contain any valid rebuttal. I think your are being purposefully oblique. *


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)



Heisenberg said:


> Will you respond with considerate rebuttal, or simple say "God made fish"?




The gulf is actually nearly to pre-oil spill levels for health. I believe before the spill it was rated at 71% and it is now at 68%. Perhaps some god created the oil eating bacteria?


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> It says different in this very same bible. God killed all the creatures on earth except those on the ark. Did the devil put this in the bible? Do you actually consider what you are saying before you write it out? How does the story of the great flood escape you when it is also the infallible word of god? I am starting to suspect your posts are crafted simply to reiterate ridiculous ideas, since they don't seem to contain any valid rebuttal. I think your are being purposefully oblique.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 God can kill who ever he wants, we belong to him, this is his garden and he weeds it as he sees fit.
As far as God made butter-i'm pointing out sciences insistance on trying to analize everything. when in the end it doesnt matter and may make us less happy
The fact you came out of a Vagina and that guys will do almost anything for vagina and so will some women and that it feels so good and is so elastic and durable and has multiple functions- Or the brain who made the brain?


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> It's all good-You have no way to prove god didn't create everything or create us with the ability to invent the things we do.
> Does God being great and people being happy about it and saying it and following the ten commandments cause a problem? What if people are happier just knowing God made butter and butter is good? Why do you have to break it down into calories and molocules- If people are happy to be going to heaven why try to take something so fulfilling from them?


It is not our place to disprove god, nor are we trying to. The burden of proof falls to the party making the claim, something im sure you would agree with if someone was claiming you to be a murderer. Skeptics actually try to verify the existence of god, which we can not do. If religious people were simply happy with going to heaven, they wouldn't be knocking on my door imploring me to go as well. Our motivation is not to take fulfillment from others, but to explain why the concepts are not fulfilling to us. If you do not care to hear it, then don't present it to me. You can not implore me to believe in god, fail to give valid reasons why you believe in god, and then act hurt when I reject that belief. Figure out a good reason to believe, and I will accept it.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

god did it!


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> God can kill who ever he wants, we belong to him, this is his garden and he weeds it as he sees fit.
> As far as God made butter-i'm pointing out sciences insistance on trying to analize everything. when in the end it doesnt matter and may make us less happy
> The fact you came out of a Vagina and that guys will do almost anything for vagina and so will some women and that it feels so good and is so elastic and durable and has multiple functions- Or the brain who made the brain?


How infallible can the teachings of god be if he does not follow them himself?

Your appeal that things shouldn't be analyzed beyond levels of happiness is a blatant appeal to ignorance. Why seek answers when ignorance makes us happy? If you can't answer that, then you deserve to be ignorant.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> You fail to give valid reasons why you believe in god, .


I have had first hand contact with God and I am a believer.If you are not I will not let that lead me astray-I wish you well and have a blessed day.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 14, 2011)

H,

Do you *choose* not to believe in gods? What is it that makes it a choice(or not)?


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


> I'm done participating in this discussion with beardo. It's futile.


When I said something like that a few days ago, I see that I got a new rep. However, in spite of being a +rep, the content said, *"Get the fuck outta here atheist scum, we dont need your fucking lies"* and it referred me right back to my reply to beardo. Ironic that beardo now talks about immoral behavior without a god yet those that claim to follow him seem to demonstrate the worst that mankind has to offer.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> When I said something like that a few days ago, I see that I got a new rep. However, in spite of being a +rep, the content said, *"Get the fuck outta here atheist scum, we dont need your fucking lies"* and it referred me right back to my reply to beardo. Ironic that beardo now talks about immoral behavior without a god yet those that claim to follow him seem to demonstrate the worst that mankind has to offer.


Lol, yeah I got a rep from this thread that said "why dont you go shot yourself jackass, get your stupid shit out of here"


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

hey, have you all heard about the 3 guys and 1 hammer thing?

What about those dudes? What you all think about what they did? were they driven internally or were they just being dumb?

Do you think they are religious or are they atheists?

thanks


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

I think they are clearly psychopaths and have no ability to empathize with other humans. That kind of personality is dangerous whether they are believers or atheists.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

I know dude, those fuckers are insane! did you watch the video? 

I was just off of youtube and saw some reaction videos of people watching that video and they are horrified! 

I dont have the stomach or the mind to watch those types of things, i just cant do it captain!


whoa, i dont what i did that got all these quotes in here, sorry, quotes are not part of my reply, please ignore quotes...



guy incognito said:


> Lol, yeah I got a rep from this thread that said "why dont you go shot yourself jackass, get your stupid shit out of here"





mindphuk said:


> When I said something like that a few days ago, I see that I got a new rep. However, in spite of being a +rep, the content said, *"Get the fuck outta here atheist scum, we dont need your fucking lies"* and it referred me right back to my reply to beardo. Ironic that beardo now talks about immoral behavior without a god yet those that claim to follow him seem to demonstrate the worst that mankind has to offer.





guy incognito said:


> I think they are clearly psychopaths and have no ability to empathize with other humans. That kind of personality is dangerous whether they are believers or atheists.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I know dude, those fuckers are insane! did you watch the video?
> 
> I was just off of youtube and saw some reaction videos of people watching that video and they are horrified!
> 
> ...


I assume you were talking about these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs

Yes I saw the leaked videos.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

Whoa, dude, how can you watch those things?

Ive always said, yea i will watch em' but then at the time to hit play i back out!

Yeah, those fuckheads! The maniacs!


If it was up to me, i would post a stake out in the middle of the land where no shade is at just nice hot searing heat! Tie them up with chains, bury them waist deep and leave them there so the vultures can pick at their flesh till they die an agonizing death...







guy incognito said:


> I assume you were talking about these guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnepropetrovsk_maniacs
> 
> Yes I saw the leaked videos.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

I have been on the internet too long. I am desensitized to everything.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

So being desentisized makes you a pshycopath?

Just kidding!

Was it really gruesome like they say on youtube?





guy incognito said:


> I have been on the internet too long. I am desensitized to everything.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

Right there with you GI.

Hey oly, you think that's bad, go find 'two girls one cup' or 'one guy one jar' or the bme pain olympics. That should add up to an interesting morning!


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

Gotta say man, I appreciate the direction you've taken the last few pages oly.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> Right there with you GI.
> 
> Hey oly, you think that's bad, go find 'two girls one cup' or 'one guy one jar' or the bme pain olympics. That should add up to an interesting morning!


Or check my hard drives. I would have some serious explaining to do if anyone ever found some of the shit I have on there. I'm sure lots of people have very morbid curiosity though, I can't be the only one.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

Nah man, I cant watch that stuff! I just cant stomach dat shit(no pun)!

I googled last nite, the worst thing on the internet and alot were talkn bout 3guys 1hammer, does it take the cake so to speak?





Padawanbater2 said:


> Right there with you GI.
> 
> Hey oly, you think that's bad, go find 'two girls one cup' or 'one guy one jar' or the bme pain olympics. That should add up to an interesting morning!


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> So being desentisized makes you a pshycopath?
> 
> Just kidding!
> 
> Was it really gruesome like they say on youtube?


It was. It's been a couple years since I saw it. They stabbed the guy in the stomach with a screw driver, and also through the eye I think. I think they also hit him with a hammer. He was still alive through all that.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

Seems like a lot of the video sources have been taken off line, I get lots of dead ends. 

Here is one, but the sound is fucked up. It's even more disturbing than I remember (except I remember having audio with it before - you can hear everything going on)

WARNING - DISTURBING VIDEO - WARNING

http://www.totallyupyours.com/493d04d34086b-dnepropetrovsk_maniacs_killing_for_kicks.html

WARNING - DISTURBING VIDEO - WARNING


----------



## Cid6.7 (Jul 14, 2011)

Go smoke a blunt & watch the movie Paul thats all the evidence you'll need lmao


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

I will have to pass on that link, thanks though!

It is just so crazy that no matter how hard they try in movies to make it seem so horrifying and gory, it is nothing compared to these types of videos!

is it because we know what the person feels or is going through or is it because we know it aint fake! Whatever it may be, i just cant for the life of me watch stuff like that...

for you guys that can, do images come at random or do you have a hard time trying to fall asleep? I know i would, lol! first time i watched the exorcist the old one, man did that make me scared to sleep at night! i was 6, so you can imagine...






guy incognito said:


> Seems like a lot of the video sources have been taken off line, I get lots of dead ends.
> 
> Here is one, but the sound is fucked up. It's even more disturbing than I remember (except I remember having audio with it before - you can hear everything going on)
> 
> ...


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

i dont know if you are being sarcastic, but if not, i just got tired of people going at each other... there was nothing productive going on and i thought that might 'lighten' up the mood a bit! 

thanks





Padawanbater2 said:


> Gotta say man, I appreciate the direction you've taken the last few pages oly.


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

I think the fact that I know it was actually real makes it so much more disturbing than a scene from a movie like hostel or saw or something.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

I give lots of rep but no likes, so I might have given you guys rep but my rep plus is all lagit when I like something said and I try to always sign my name. I will leave a comment with my rep but the fuck you rep is not my M.O.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

Ok Gi, what is the worst thing youve seen on the internet?

anyone else?




guy incognito said:


> I think the fact that I know it was actually real makes it so much more disturbing than a scene from a movie like hostel or saw or something.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok Gi, what is the worst thing youve seen on the internet?
> 
> anyone else?


Pretty much anything on /b/ at 4chan, 

or this site: GRAPHIC!!!
http://web.archive.org/web/20100821153652/http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Offended

and no, most things don't bother me. I think it's because of the kids, they listen to the rap music.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

Thanks Kar, but nah, I do not have the "guts" to visit those sites! 

I think it is horrible to kill someone and some ppl do it for fun! Freakn crazy people!


@ pad, do you think islamic terrorists' are a part of the ppl u do not like?

Is that why you say when "religion hurts people?"





karri0n said:


> Pretty much anything on /b/ at 4chan,
> 
> or this site:
> http://web.archive.org/web/20100821153652/http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Offended


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> @ pad, do you think islamic terrorists' are a part of the ppl u do not like?
> 
> Is that why you say when "religion hurts people?"


Exactly right, man! That's a perfect example of the way a persons religion harms other people. There are many of them, some don't cause physical harm, like blowing people up would, other examples cause mental distress like passing laws that fuel the fires of discrimination against homosexuals and their equal right to the same opportunities as heterosexual people. 

Pain is pain, right? Be it physical or mental.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

I understand your point. Is it possible that you too can understand that not all religious people are like the ones you have just mentioned. THere are exceptions to everything.. Everything has an action and reaction, some religious people promote peace while others are against gay marriage... Some atheists' promote peace others promote hatred towards religious people...

There will always be opposing sides, but if we can understand each other here today, that would be something i can be proud of.





Padawanbater2 said:


> Exactly right, man! That's a perfect example of the way a persons religion harms other people. There are many of them, some don't cause physical harm, like blowing people up would, other examples cause mental distress like passing laws that fuel the fires of discrimination against homosexuals and their equal right to the same opportunities as heterosexual people.
> 
> Pain is pain, right? Be it physical or mental.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I understand your point. Is it possible that you too can understand that not all religious people are like the ones you have just mentioned. THere are exceptions to everything.. Everything has an action and reaction, some religious people promote peace while others are against gay marriage... Some atheists' promote peace others promote hatred towards religious people...
> 
> There will always be opposing sides, but if we can understand each other here today, that would be something i can be proud of.


One thing to keep in mind is that disdain for religion is not the same as hatred of religious people. I think many atheists debate so passionately with believers is because they see otherwise intelligent people bypassing their normal reasoning ability and evidence filters in favor of something that is highly questionable. These same atheists are just as outspoken about medical quackery, claims of alien abductions, Nessie and Sasquatch. Most of us are skeptics about any extraordinary claim that appears to violate the rules we have learned as to how the natural world works. There is good reason for that because skepticism has been instrumental in helping mankind progress forward as a species whereas credulity has stagnated progress.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Thanks Kar, but nah, I do not have the "guts" to visit those sites!
> 
> I think it is horrible to kill someone and some ppl do it for fun! Freakn crazy people!


I'm with you on that brother. I have difficulty watching that kind of stuff. I think that's good though. It means that aversion to killing another human is probably very deeply hardwired into our psyche along with other taboos like incest. There are some very good evolutionary explanations that help explain why we have these negative feelings and none of them require that we are taught it, either by another person or a deity.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> When I said something like that a few days ago, I see that I got a new rep. However, in spite of being a +rep, the content said, *"Get the fuck outta here atheist scum, we dont need your fucking lies"* and it referred me right back to my reply to beardo. Ironic that beardo now talks about immoral behavior without a god yet those that claim to follow him seem to demonstrate the worst that mankind has to offer.


I have been given rep twice from beardo, and he signed his comments. I was given unsigned rep stating "who do you think you are, you have nothing good to say", a comment which was later expressed nearly word for word by oly. Circumstantial I suppose.



olylifter420 said:


> Whoa, dude, how can you watch those things?
> 
> Ive always said, yea i will watch em' but then at the time to hit play i back out!


I agree Oly, I think it's a terrible thing for a person to waste such technology on. Our home computers are many times more powerful that what man used to go to the moon, yet many people take this technology and use it for the most morbid and unworthy things. I have been tricked into watching a few snuff films here and there, and their imagery always sticks with me for several days; truly disturbing. I am probably one of the few people I know who has not seen the 2 girls 1 cup video. I was at a friends house once when they put it on, and promptly left (and have not been back) and once people were hanging at my house, and one expressed that we should watch it, and I asked him to leave, then insisted on it. I simply do not tolerate morbid petty sensationalism beyond initial curiosity and those who do are not invited to my life.

Are we expanding from beliefs youre ashamed of to hobbies or interests youre ashamed of? I'll have to give that some thought.


I have not overlooked your question Karri0n, but need time to construct a response.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 14, 2011)

i really dont know what you are talking about... Can you please be more clear?

I used that to show pad that there are some fucked up people in this world and not all of them are religious... SOme could be atheists' themselves while others can be religious, i just dont see how that can be related to things i am ashamed of...

If you did not read my previous posts, i stated that i am too horrified to watch those things... I dont find those things amusing like so many do, i think it is so disrespectful for people to watch the last few minutes of the life of a person and then make it viral! Just not sane!


oh and i have not seen that video either, that 2 girls and a cup thing, with stewies reaction on family guy, i think was enough to sour my taste...




Heisenberg said:


> I have been given rep twice from beardo, and he signed his comments. I was given unsigned rep stating "who do you think you are, you have nothing good to say", a comment which was later expressed nearly word for word by oly. Circumstantial I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I understand your point. Is it possible that you too can understand that not all religious people are like the ones you have just mentioned. THere are exceptions to everything.. Everything has an action and reaction, some religious people promote peace while others are against gay marriage... Some atheists' promote peace others promote hatred towards religious people...
> 
> There will always be opposing sides, but if we can understand each other here today, that would be something i can be proud of.


Enviromental Change? I think so and you are the one responsible. 

If more Christians had a mindset like yours, to evolve past their fears, the face of Christianity would have a better ground to stand on in the public's eyes. You confronted them and found out that there was nothing to fear at all. 

I'm proud of you Oly.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

Everyone needs to Obey God
*Deuteronomy 17*
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

I think their should be a push to have the bible become law and to enforce its teachings and punishments.


----------



## DelSlow (Jul 14, 2011)

Now now beardo, what about the separation of church and state?


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> Everyone needs to Obey God
> *Deuteronomy 17*
> If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
> 
> I think their should be a push to have the bible become law and to enforce its teachings and punishments.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

DelSlow said:


> Now now beardo, what about the separation of church and state?


 I think it actually says they shall make no law prohibiting religious expression or practices which I think would allow people to practice their religion.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

guy incognito said:


>


 Maybe so but it is in the bible- Basicly it is saying anyone who doesn't worship the true God and his follow his word has commited a capital crime.- Their is a war among religions with one another and also with aetheists and their can only be one victor.


----------



## txhazard (Jul 14, 2011)

Beardo, ever imagine a world where you could discuss your views in an adult and understanding manner and not get openly or passively chastised? It would be a whole lot cooler if you could!


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

txhazard said:


> Beardo, ever imagine a world where you could discuss your views in an adult and understanding manner and not get openly or passively chastised? It would be a whole lot cooler if you could!


 That's why we need to get it on and after who ever wins was right and they will all agree and be able to live in peace.


----------



## txhazard (Jul 14, 2011)

I smell a Halo match to determine the victor!


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> Maybe so but it is in the bible- Basicly it is saying anyone who doesn't worship the true God and his follow his word has commited a capital crime.- Their is a war among religions with one another and also with aetheists and their can only be one victor.


There's a war with atheists? Do you think that atheists want to keep you from believing whatever you want? Because that's what it sounds like you would like. You want others to believe what you do or exterminate them. You are one sick fuck if you really think that way and not trolling like Guy suggests.


----------



## beardo (Jul 14, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> There's a war with atheists? Do you think that atheists want to keep you from believing whatever you want? Because that's what it sounds like you would like. You want others to believe what you do or exterminate them. You are one sick fuck if you really think that way and not trolling like Guy suggests.


 Yes you are trying to plant doubt where their can be none.
What you call a sick fuck I call a follower of God. Gods work must be done. If they are not with God they are with Satan.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 14, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> i really dont know what you are talking about... Can you please be more clear?
> 
> I used that to show pad that there are some fucked up people in this world and not all of them are religious... SOme could be atheists' themselves while others can be religious, i just dont see how that can be related to things i am ashamed of...
> 
> ...


No Oly I was simply agreeing with you and telling a story of my own. I do not hold grudges.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 14, 2011)

beardo said:


> I think it actually says they shall make no law prohibiting religious expression or practices which I think would allow people to practice their religion.


I believe it also says not respecting an establishment of religion as well. And what you may not understand that it was to keep one religion from being dominant and holding absolute influence over the congressional body that made the laws. Allowing the freedom to practice many religions. Therefore preventing one religion from dictating the laws of the land. That was its true purpose of intent. I'm not that savvy with all aspects of the constitution but I did pick that up on cspan from a constitution historian.

And if you say all religions are at war with each other then essentially you're saying your country has waged war on itself.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 15, 2011)

Oh, my bad bro! Im glad that we cool! 

I also do not hold any grudges... I find them to be a waste of time





Heisenberg said:


> No Oly I was simply agreeing with you and telling a story of my own. I do not hold grudges.


----------



## txhazard (Jul 15, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yes you are trying to plant doubt where their can be none.
> What you call a sick fuck I call a follower of God. Gods work must be done. If they are not with God they are with Satan.


 *takes step back* I hope your not taking that war too literally...would not want you to go militant.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 15, 2011)

thank you for your kind words Braz, i really appreciate them... I think i over reacted back there and let my temper get the best of me... i know that was not smart of me to do and that is not the type of person i am. I am one of the coolest person you can hang out and chill with... I love to smoke my medicine and i find nothing wrong with it... it comes from the earth and is not man made, it is as natural as it gets... 

I find it a blessing to be able to be around such intelligent minds and be able to exchange thoughts and opinions. the replies that you all post sometimes amaze me at how you all can breakdown the smallest of details... i find that pretty cool and wish to continue having great discussions with all of you... 


On another note, i was able to smoke some sour diesel and man, did it taste and hit amazing... I suffer from severe upper back spasms and that sucker knocked all that out and took the pain away... the taste was really fruity, kinda like fruity pebbles and it lasted for about 20 minutes after the last hit... I smoked some cindy 99 and bad girl really put out, couch lock and im pretty medicated right now...

So, thanks guys and i really appreciate your help and support..

keep it token 





Brazko said:


> Enviromental Change? I think so and you are the one responsible.
> 
> If more Christians had a mindset like yours, to evolve past their fears, the face of Christianity would have a better ground to stand on in the public's eyes. You confronted them and found out that there was nothing to fear at all.
> 
> I'm proud of you Oly.


----------



## mindphuk (Jul 15, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yes you are trying to plant doubt where their can be none.
> What you call a sick fuck I call a follower of God. Gods work must be done. If they are not with God they are with Satan.


 Sorry dude, when you use the same sort of rhetoric that the 9/11 terrorists use, I think you are considered a sick fuck by a lot of people, Xians included. Most people do not want others to convert at the point of a gun, which is exactly what you are suggesting. 

So tell me, why haven't you started killing non-believers yet considering this position you have taken? Any chance that you're scared you would be wrong and the life you take is actually innocent and not working with Satan? You talk a big game but you are acting like a troll. You're an idiot either way.


----------



## olylifter420 (Jul 15, 2011)

I think he is trolling, i see his posts on other threads and they are completely coherent, while the posts on here seem rather spontaneous and baffling!





mindphuk said:


> Sorry dude, when you use the same sort of rhetoric that the 9/11 terrorists use, I think you are considered a sick fuck by a lot of people, Xians included. Most people do not want others to convert at the point of a gun, which is exactly what you are suggesting.
> 
> and that made me laugh!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> Ok Gi, what is the worst thing youve seen on the internet?
> 
> anyone else?


 
even tho its just a movie i would have to say "A Serbian Film" and no you really really do not want to watch (even if you think you do)

i've watched the 3 guys 1 hammer before and i struggled to watch the whole way thru. the worst bit of that was watching him drift in and out of consciousness as they werebeating/ stabbing him

someone mentioned saw/ hostel earlier on they're actually on the pretty tame side compared to some of the newer ones

i'd recomened these 2 films very good although i dont think i'll ever sit thru them again

inside
martyrs 
but again you DO NOT WANT TO WATCH SERBIAN FILM


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 15, 2011)

olylifter420 said:


> I think he is trolling, i see his posts on other threads and they are completely coherent, while the posts on here seem rather spontaneous and baffling!


 
unfortunatly in this case i think its the true beardo speaking.people ask whats the harm in relgion and my answer is the rest of us have to live alonside people who can justify their hatred for they world by their idea of "word of god"


----------



## guy incognito (Jul 15, 2011)

beardo said:


> Maybe so but it is in the bible- Basicly it is saying anyone who doesn't worship the true God and his follow his word has commited a capital crime.- Their is a war among religions with one another and also with aetheists and their can only be one victor.





beardo said:


> Yes you are trying to plant doubt where their can be none.
> What you call a sick fuck I call a follower of God. Gods work must be done. If they are not with God they are with Satan.


And this is why I despise religion.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 15, 2011)

beardo said:


> Yes you are trying to plant doubt where their can be none.
> What you call a sick fuck I call a follower of God. Gods work must be done. If they are not with God they are with Satan.


 I work with and speak to god all the time. Here's what he looks like - I have this statue on one of my altars.
View attachment 1691374


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 15, 2011)

karri0n said:


> H,
> 
> Do you *choose* not to believe in gods? What is it that makes it a choice(or not)?


I suppose it depends on the context of the word. Someone like beardo seems to choose god in the face of undeniable contractions to his reasons, but maybe that only reflects his choice of debate tactics. I think that ultimately it is impossible to believe in something without first being convinced, and once convinced, it is impossible not to believe, unless unconvinced. What someone finds convincing is completely subjective, so I guess the question becomes can a person choose what they find convincing. That is something I would have to think more about. I can influence what I accept as evidence by identifying errors and choose to reject it, but once sufficient evidence is presented, I would seem to have no choice but to accept it. I think where many religious people fail is when they choose not to examine why they believe. As I tell people, if you subject your beliefs to doubt, and still believe anyway, I respect your beliefs even if I feel they are in error. I might not respect your methods, but ultimately I feel you are under no obligation to change what you think. If you have not properly examined your beliefs, I see no reason that they should be worthy of respect. Some people come to a conclusion and then refuse to examine any new evidence. In this case the choice is to ignore. So while I am not sure belief itself is a choice, it seems we can make many choices which ultimately influence what we believe.


----------



## karri0n (Jul 15, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> I suppose it depends on the context of the word. Someone like beardo seems to choose god in the face of undeniable contractions to his reasons, but maybe that only reflects his choice of debate tactics. I think that ultimately it is impossible to believe in something without first being convinced, and once convinced, it is impossible not to believe, unless unconvinced. What someone finds convincing is completely subjective, so I guess the question becomes can a person choose what they find convincing. That is something I would have to think more about. I can influence what I accept as evidence by identifying errors and choose to reject it, but once sufficient evidence is presented, I would seem to have no choice but to accept it. I think where many religious people fail is when they choose not to examine why they believe. As I tell people, if you subject your beliefs to doubt, and still believe anyway, I respect your beliefs even if I feel they are in error. If you have not examined your beliefs, I see no reason that they should be worthy of respect. Some people come to a conclusion and then refuse to examine any new evidence. In this case the choice is to ignore. While I am not sure belief itself is a choice, it seems we can make many choices which ultimately influence what we believe.


This is very similar to my conclusions when I examined the question. It goes much deeper than I originally assumed, which I discovered when attempting to answer the question. A choice must take place at some point along the chain, but when? I don't feel that I could choose to accept a piece of data as convincing or not convincing - it would just be one or the other. 

While it might seem that people like beardo choose to ignore any contrary evidence, I'm not so certain that this is even a choice. The mechanism of belief is simply not allowing the data to make any change. It is automatically categorized as incorrect, irrelevant, or otherwise invalid. 

I sincerely hope we can finally get a good discussion going on this and stop wandering off topic.


----------



## beardo (Jul 15, 2011)

mindphuk said:


> So tell me, why haven't you started killing non-believers yet considering this position you have taken?


I do pay my taxes.


----------



## Gary Busey (Jul 15, 2011)

First you said this:


olylifter420 said:


> You fucking atheists are so fucking retarded.


And then you said this:


olylifter420 said:


> I for one jackass, understand and have seen the fucking evidence for evolution, but i choose not to accept it because i believe in God and the bible...


What's the matter with you?


----------



## beardo (Jul 15, 2011)

Gary Busey said:


> First you said this:
> 
> 
> And then you said this:
> ...


 Gary Busey? I met your daughter.


----------



## Gary Busey (Jul 15, 2011)

Did she have big ass teeth like I do?



beardo said:


> Gary Busey? I met your daughter.


----------



## beardo (Jul 15, 2011)

Gary Busey said:


> Did she have big ass teeth like I do?


 Cool so your not really Gary, 
No she's young chick, no problem with teeth but face kind of shape as her dads with strong jaw but not in a bad way-Off topic just didn't know if you were Gary if so I was going to tell you you might try to keep your kid in a shorter leash.


----------



## Gary Busey (Jul 15, 2011)

Not the real Busey, just couldn't think of a screen name, and that's the first thing that came to mind. And I have been a fan of Busey since the early 80s.



beardo said:


> Cool so your not really Gary,
> No she's young chick, no problem with teeth but face kind of shape as her dads with strong jaw but not in a bad way-Off topic just didn't know if you were Gary if so I was going to tell you you might try to keep your kid in a shorter leash.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 15, 2011)

karri0n said:


> This is very similar to my conclusions when I examined the question. It goes much deeper than I originally assumed, which I discovered when attempting to answer the question. A choice must take place at some point along the chain, but when? I don't feel that I could choose to accept a piece of data as convincing or not convincing - it would just be one or the other.
> 
> While it might seem that people like beardo choose to ignore any contrary evidence, I'm not so certain that this is even a choice. The mechanism of belief is simply not allowing the data to make any change. It is automatically categorized as incorrect, irrelevant, or otherwise invalid.
> 
> I sincerely hope we can finally get a good discussion going on this and stop wandering off topic.


As Heis put it and how you have deciphered it is how I feel about God in context. I have never been convinced of the Biblical God but I have always understood God to measuring degrees throughout my life in the context of Nature and Universal Law/Happening. As I discovered more evidence in regards of the Biblical God, I came to an unequivocal assuredness that this was not God. It didn't change my belief because it was never my belief before. It was and still is a general understanding I have/know how people relate to Nature and Universal Law/Happenings as a whole. The difference in me knowing is that I know and understand to seperate the dogma associated with it. 

When I look at science, it confirms my belief even more because what I observe through my natural senses, science confirms on a micro/macro level the same processes taking place. 

When I say I believe in Santa Claus, its not believing in Rudolph Santa. Its me being able to understand the concept of being Santa Claus. Therefore, I believe in Santa Claus. I can also differentiate the difference when speaking to a child or Adult the context of their belief in Santa because I'm able to differentiate the child's belief vs the Adults belief.

Even as a young adult when I would pray, I would try to invision a being up there looking down. It just never processed for me because it didn't relate cohesively to the way the world appeared to me or how the context of belief appeared to me. I began to understand the contexts of belief and how they related to natural occuring events. So when I believe in something it's usaully because I have been able to discern the difference in reality and contextual belief. Because I comprehend I will say I believe because I understand.

Does that make any sense?

edit: also I have no specific pic of my God, but I still know your god (I thinks anyway)


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 16, 2011)

for some reason, ive always envisioned god looking like gumby. i have no idea why lol
here he is with pegasus


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 19, 2011)

"People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power. The only thing we should respect in a person&#8217;s faith is his desire for a better life in this world; we need never have respected his certainty that one awaits him in the next." 
&#8212; Sam Harris


----------



## Brazko (Jul 19, 2011)

"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality." 
 Carl Sagan


"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." 
 Albert Einstein


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." 
 Albert Einstein


"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." 
 Albert Einstein


----------



## Brazko (Jul 19, 2011)

I used to favor the likes of a Superman like figure, especially the scene of him out in space looking and listening in on the people of earth, but Gumby!!! ..lmao

I'm not judging though 



Luger187 said:


> for some reason, ive always envisioned god looking like gumby. i have no idea why lol
> here he is with pegasus


----------



## Luger187 (Jul 20, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I used to favor the likes of a Superman like figure, especially the scene of him out in space looking and listening in on the people of earth, but Gumby!!! ..lmao
> 
> I'm not judging though


hahaha supermans a good one. i was never even a big fan of the gumby show or anything. i just always imagined god being a big purple gumby-like figure. hes not really any type of animal(usually god is portrayed as human for some reason), and he has an unusual shape


----------



## Brazko (Jul 20, 2011)

Luger187 said:


> hahaha supermans a good one. i was never even a big fan of the gumby show or anything. i just always imagined god being a big purple gumby-like figure. hes not really any type of animal(usually god is portrayed as human for some reason), and he has an unusual shape


Well that actually makes sense and I can understand how you could imagine that. 

Actually that's a better piece of creative thought process than mine..


----------



## beardo (Jul 20, 2011)

I was just shown the light-You never chose God chose for you
Both sides are arguing as God wants so it perfect.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 20, 2011)

What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? In other words, why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?


----------



## karri0n (Jul 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? In other words, why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?


Failure is an important part of progress. In addition, if we're referring to Jehovah here, The Old Testament is full of examples as to why he's far from perfect. Jealousy, Wrath, Vanity are but a few of his constantly recurring vices.


----------



## Padawanbater2 (Jul 21, 2011)

A perfect being has no need to progress. That question was mainly directed at beardo and his assumption that God is perfect.


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 21, 2011)

Indeed, if perfection entails failure, we have lost the meaning of the word and have no way to distinguish between destiny and randomness. But I think Karri0n's point is that God, by his own admission, is not perfect. So Beardo must not pay attention to his own religious teachings, or else he worships someone other than Jehovah. Personally I think it's pretty clear that Beardo puts no thought into his comments beyond how much grief they can cause; a trait Im sure God appreciates.


----------



## beardo (Jul 21, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? In other words, why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?


 Failure and success are both relitive-And without failure how would we define success if someone wasn't doing worse and better how would you gauge your achievements? And what to you looks like failure for someone else might feel like success- To us a skunk smells bad but he's doing his job and a skunk is every bit as perfect as a rose. God is perfect in that it's his way or the highway.


----------



## ThE sAtIvA hIgH (Jul 22, 2011)

why dont we make religion only available to grown ups over the age of 18 at least then its there decision , you could show id to prove you are 18 and able to acept fictional beliefs.....................after all they say you should be 18 to drink alcohol wich disturbs your brain the same way religion does .


----------



## karri0n (Jul 22, 2011)

ThE sAtIvA hIgH said:


> why dont we make religion only available to grown ups over the age of 18 at least then its there decision , you could show id to prove you are 18 and able to acept fictional beliefs.....................after all they say you should be 18 to drink alcohol wich disturbs your brain the same way religion does .


A church I've been to didn't allow you if you were under 18 or did not have a parental consent form. I'm not sure who "we" is, but the reason *you* can't create a religion is because, as evidenced by the importance you place on "weed women n cars", any form of religion or spiritual practice that you came up with would be wholly detrimental to any of its followers.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2011)

Padawanbater2 said:


> What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? In other words, why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?


I know this was directed at Beardo, but I wish to answer the question scientifically speaking without regards to a deity.

What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? 

Evolution


why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?

Failure does not exist, Just as Perfection does not exist, Just as Time does not exist..

They are relative concepts....

I see it's easy for you to name all that is imperfect....

Could you describe for me the existence of a Perfect Person and Why they are Perfect? 

If one such exists........

And you better not say Jesus..


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 23, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I know this was directed at Beardo, but I wish to answer the question scientifically speaking without regards to a deity.
> 
> What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails?
> 
> ...


Perfection was a concept introduced by beardo, and in the context of god. If anything, I think Pad was making the same point, perfection is relative and does not really exist. I saw him ask why the assumption of perfection was being made. I did not see him list "all that is imperfect". So you have taken his point purposely out of context and then subtly accused him of a negatively skewed view. How does him describing a perfect person expand on any points?


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Perfection was a concept introduced by beardo, and in the context of god. If anything, I think Pad was making the same point, perfection is relative and does not really exist. I saw him ask why the assumption of perfection was being made. I did not see him list "all that is imperfect". So you have taken his point purposely out of context and then subtly accused him of a negatively skewed view. How does him describing a perfect person expand on any points?


No, I haven't skewed it Heis. I will go back and find it where he describes all the imperfectness of humans being born disfigured etc... 1 moment pls

How does him describing a perfect person expand on any points? 

He didn't state it right then but that was/is his defense to Why/how does God then create these imperfect humans if he is perfect.

But my post was geared as I said to nothing in regards to a deity...


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2011)

I've sifted through the most recent and was not able to find it, but if my memory holds correct he has made that statment repeatedly. I would ask you to simply ask him if he has used that defense analogy. I'm actually about to watch the fight right now so doing a research in regards to what I was implying him to think about as to some things he previously said wasn't on the intenirary for me to do now.

I will at a later time if he denies saying it or doesn't recall using those analogies to why does God create imperfect beings when someone mentions God being perfect. So my point was if he does understands the concept of perfection that shouldn't be a defense.

That also seemed the point Beardo was making as well in the context of perfect being the conflicting views works in a perfect system



beardo said:


> I was just shown the light-You never chose God chose for you
> Both sides are arguing as God wants so it perfect.


 but it was skewed into the question

What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails? In other words, why would a "perfect being" design a system to fail?

Both were using the context of the Word relatively, but God/god always seem to cloud peoples understanding. I understood exactly what he was saying.

If he denies it and I cannot find the many quotes from the past he made towards them then my memory has simply failed me. I should then apologize for saying that he has said that before. 

It's really no big deal. I'm not perfect


----------



## beardo (Jul 23, 2011)

Brazko said:


> I know this was directed at Beardo, but I wish to answer the question scientifically speaking without regards to a deity.
> 
> What kind of "perfect system" is one in which the vast majority of it's creation fails?
> 
> ...


This idea of relative concepts was what I was touching on earlier when I was talking about how God is real, and also on the metaphor about how a skunk is perfect and how God and heaven are real if you believe in them.
https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/449547-lets-debate-23.html


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2011)

Ok, Zab got his ass whooped!!



beardo said:


> This idea of relative concepts was what I was touching on earlier when I was talking about how God is real, and also on the metaphor about how a skunk is perfect and how God and heaven are real if you believe in them.
> https://www.rollitup.org/spirituality-sexuality-philosophy/449547-lets-debate-23.html


 
I followed your meaning exactly, understood it before and after you clarified it. But evertyime someone mentions God/god being perfect he uses the no elbows, 4 arms, etc.. of why does he create these imperfect beings. 

My question to him primarily didn't involve inserting a deity as a means for me to defend but for him to describe who/what perfect person exists outside of those imperfect qualities. Who/What was to be the standard of a Perfect Person? 

But the question was bound in his previous wordings, quotes, and the assumed knowledge as to what I was referring. 

Heis statements appear true but they are irrelevant to what I was saying/speaking about as the question was directed at Pad.. 

You are doing a good job at debating already, I don't think they want none of you.

That lets debate thread lasted about as long as this fight did... 

Heis, has given me some homework to do so I'll let you handle it.... 

Hopefully, I'll get to copy somebody's work instead


----------



## Brazko (Jul 23, 2011)

Here is one instance where a poster was using the relative context of the word and Pad obviously knows the difference in the subjectivity of the word "perfection" but chooses to ignore the poster using the word in the same manner and begins to explain the Subjectivity of the word. 

He also uses examples of flawed/imperfections of Humans to enforce his meaning as to why the person who used the word "God/god" with "Perfection" in the sentence is wrong as they didn't understand the word "Perfection" but they used the word in the same sense of relatedness. The same thing he did with Beardo, while ignoring his true point and meaning while inserting his take of how the word should relate to God.



Padawanbater2 said:


> That isn't the definition of 'perfect'. What you seem to be doing is taking words and ascribing your own personal definition to them, then calling it a day..
> 
> First, perfection is 100% subjective. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", similarly, perfection is as well.
> 
> ...


In all effect, my point was that even with all the things he claim imperfect, there is nobody on Earth that would hold to the word "Perfect/Perfection" regardless of whatever trait they may seem to not be deficient of.

What was the "Perfect" neanderthal man?

If he understands the concept of "Perfect" then stop assigning the context of everyone elses concept to mean something else. They are speaking relatively. But wait I haven't got to the no elbows, 3 arms, etc... and maybe not tonite but Its a recurring defense he makes to people claiming God/god is perfect, as if they cannot conceive or understand Perfection in it's relative meaning...

edit: now don't get me wrong because I understand that there are some people that do literally think "God" is perfect and its the Devils doing as to why any or such imperfections took place. However, a person of intellect should be able to decipher the difference at the moment when speaking to that person in regards of the words meaning. There was nothing confusing to me that Beardo wasn't speaking in a relative sense.. 

A word shouldn't be so traumatic as to boggle and confuse your senses of understanding..

That's All


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 24, 2011)

Being that perfection is subjective, I don't see anything wrong with Pad disagreeing. Pad is simply arguing that perfection does not apply, and if it does then your standards for perfection are questionable. Being a subjective term does not give someone the license to ascribe any quality they want to perfection. It's not a neutral word; it implies no room for improvement. What I see is pad acknowledging perfection can mean different things, and then making a case for imperfection. Why shouldn't pad insert his take on god's perfection? I don't see it as ignoring the true point, but countering the point. 

It is also not valid in a debate to use something someone said in another debate against them. If you see a pattern in his behavior, wait for it to emerge within this thread or address it in the other thread. When beardo says something like "all is as god wants so all is perfect' he not leaving much room for subjectivity. He is not saying this rug is perfect for the den, although the rug itself could use improvements. He is implying all is perfect because all is a result of god's will, we *never* choose god chooses for us. Pad is simply pointing out that god's perfect plan often includes failure, mistakes and flaws, all good reasons to question the use of the term perfection.


----------



## Brazko (Jul 24, 2011)

Statement: Hats are made perfect..

Rebuttal : Perfect for who? What about oblong heads, or dolicephalic heads, or brachycephalic heads?

Do you think hats are made perfect for these people?

Yes I see your point now, I stand corrected... 


Although the word is subjective it can be argued subjectively therefore the better subjective answer is correct. 

That makes much more sense...


----------



## citizensolider (Jul 25, 2011)

I beleive what I observe. I never take another person's word for truth. I'm a man of many theories but no beleifs.


----------



## Marlboro47 (Jul 29, 2011)

I believe that there is a God because for the same reason we do not kill ourselves, something greater then us decides to keep living/creating.
Proof: The universe is growing, so obviously new elements and compounds and being created.
Opinion:Something greater then us has the will to live, and create so it does.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 29, 2011)

Marlboro47 said:


> I believe that there is a God because for the same reason we do not kill ourselves, something greater then us decides to keep living/creating.
> *Proof: The universe is growing, so obviously new elements and compounds and being created.*
> Opinion:Something greater then us has the will to live, and create so it does.


see your all wrong on that point the universe isnt "*growing*" its "*expanding*"

nothing that is matter or energy exists that didnt exist in one form at the time of the big bang

what wasnt there is the gaps inbetween (also known as Space) 

everything is getting further away for everything else rather than new things being created

that is when they are not bound by gravity 
i.e.
solar system/ milky way / local galaxy group


----------



## Heisenberg (Jul 29, 2011)

ginjawarrior said:


> see your all wrong on that point the universe isnt "*growing*" its "*expanding*"
> 
> nothing that is matter or energy exists that didnt exist in one form at the time of the big bang
> 
> ...


Yep, expanding, not growing. However, new elements are being created, but they don't appear in nature. This begs the question; if creation of elements equals God, what does that make these scientists?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Jul 29, 2011)

Heisenberg said:


> Yep, expanding, not growing. However, new elements are being created, but they don't appear in nature. This begs the question; if creation of elements equals God, what does that make these scientists?


ahh but they arent being created from nothing they are just transformed from one form to another 

their very first original form was present from the start of big bang


----------

