Sockdog: A Compendium [Archive]

davo

23rd August 2009, 04:26 PM

This is my first post and it has come to my attension that so many atheists are telling me what I, as a christian, believe....

Many of us were christian, so we talk about what christianity taught us, from it in action, and it's adherents in action.

many people have expressed the view that all "religous people" are dumb

Well, a lot of them are by my definition, in the way that they have not thought about why they believe further than that they have been told it's true. I think not using reason, not investigating claims, referring to a book for 'evidence' and their morals, define their life and the world around it by scripture irrespective of evidence to the contrary .. yea I think it's dumb to do that.

many people hope to get a discussion on what is true without seeing both theories because

Hang on .. what 'theories'. You don't have a theory, you have a faith.

it seems to me that if you wanted to find out the truth with a discussion, you'd have aproximately equal people on both sides and you would talk about science not "they're wrong, now let's change something about thier theory so it actually is wrong"

What are you saying this doesn't make sense? I base truths on all available evidence and reason. I do not hold untenable beliefs or faith in something where there is no evidence whatsoever.

who knows about helium diffusion dating? who knows about the three(although some say there are four) problems with radioactive dating?

What problems? They are very accurate, and the more tests done with them, the more accurate the findings become, backed by solid evidence.

What is the evidence to the contrary (and I presume you are referring to the age of the earth) are you putting forward?

Is there even one percent of people who know what christianity really believes???

Oh right, you have The One True Truth (tm)

Is there somebody with the courtesy to ask a christian what a christian believes, a moslim what a moslim believes etc etc etc

Yes, I have spoken to many and was brought up by the christian brothers. I live in a society that contains about 70% believers. I witness what christians believe every day.

Or are you all just guessing at our beliefs, intelect etc etc etc and prooving your guesses wrong

what? no I understand your beliefs probably better than most. What is it I am getting wrong that you are saying I am doing?

I'm all for science, logic and reason to come to a logical conclusion on what is or isn't true but what is this???

Please correct me if i'm wrong....but i see very little logic and reason in this

Can you explain your logic and reasoning behind a belief in a god?

Consider the fact there is no evidence, and the concept of an omni-max god is a paradox, I would be interested to hear your explanations that are reasoned conclusions based on logic and science.

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 04:30 PM

Is there even one percent of people who know what christianity really believes???

The core belief of Christianity - the one that sets it apart from Judaism and Islam - is "forgiveness". Me personally, I think that's a pretty cool belief and even coolerer as something to aim for in life. It's just such a pity that Christians themselves don't get it.

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 05:09 PM

You could say I was surprised by just how un-Jesus-like I saw the loudest christians to be. I was like Mohandas K. Gandhi, when he said:

Gandhi rawks. He was a fan of Tolstoy, as am I.

sockdog

23rd August 2009, 05:11 PM

Fearless

23rd August 2009, 05:15 PM

Perhaps I am able to speak for myself, when I can say I'm qualified.

More than!

Whereas I am not, but I don't pretend to be, whether you believe this or not is no bother to me (directed at sockdog).

The thing is if you would have joined up, said hi, played ball for a while and got to know half the people here you could have probably answered half of your own questions but sadly you just assumed the worst and we all know the saying about assuming.

Believe it or not Bill Gates, although a very smart man didn't know as much about computers and IT technology as many would think... he just made sure he employed people who did. Many people assumed a lot about Bill Gates too.

SinisterDexter

23rd August 2009, 05:16 PM

Oh dear...

This is my first post and it has come to my attension that so many atheists are telling me what I, as a christian, believe....

many people have expressed the view that all "religous people" are dumb

Yes, this is an atheist forum. While we all try very hard to be as polite as possible, unfortunately our true feelings show through the cracks on occasion. But that's OK because christians forgive.

many people hope to get a discussion on what is true without seeing both theories because

Please define "theories".

it seems to me that if you wanted to find out the truth with a discussion, you'd have aproximately equal people on both sides and you would talk about science not "they're wrong, now let's change something about thier theory so it actually is wrong"

We do. Every religious person who has ever visited these boards has been given the same ultimatium: please present your evidence for god/s. None have yet done so.

who knows about helium diffusion dating? who knows about the three(although some say there are four) problems with radioactive dating?

I'm pretty sure we've all heard of these "issues" and dealt with them. None are valid.

Is there even one percent of people who know what christianity really believes???

No true Scotsman fallacy coming up...

Is there somebody with the courtesy to ask a christian what a christian believes, a moslim what a moslim believes etc etc etc

Or are you all just guessing at our beliefs, intelect etc etc etc and prooving your guesses wrong

I assure you, we rarely have to guess. As atheists we have religious opinions shoved down our throats ad nauseum by the religious. We, unlike you apparently, actually have a realistic understanding of how many different interpretations there are of even the most monolithic religion. The reality is that we actually have to ask each and every theist that visits these boards what their personal interpretation of god/s is because each and every one is different. Equally wrong, but different nonetheless.

I'm all for science, logic and reason to come to a logical conclusion on what is or isn't true but what is this???

What is what?

Please correct me if i'm wrong....but i see very little logic and reason in this

You are wrong. Please consider yourself corrected.

I am impressed though, you managed to create a strawman argument for atheists using strawman arguments. Well done.

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 05:17 PM

So, the core of christianity is NOT forgiveness.......what kind of system is that "do whatever ya want and be forgiven".......

Um, I don't recall saying it like that. For starters, the "forgiveness" thing I mentioned wasn't about having some external agent forgive me. It has to do with me personally being forgiving of the faults of others - no matter how palsied their thinking. It's not my job, as far as I know, to teach anybody anything either.

So, yeah. Not sure what else to add, but I'm confident you'll tell me.

Fearless

23rd August 2009, 05:21 PM

If i find out what I said is not part of the christianity theory then i will do my best to edit my posts and correct if correction is required
It will take a long time to answer all the questions, because thanks to the media, the public and a few others, your views of christianity are largely different to mine

You don't need to edit your posts... just seeing some open, comfortable discussion without agro and scripture tossing is usually all we ask... we are not going to tell you what or what not to believe... that is up to you.

Just talk to us as you would like to be talked to, not unlike one of the 10 commandments is a great beginning :)

SinisterDexter

23rd August 2009, 05:22 PM

hi all :P

I know my reply was angst but i'm sure you understand....

If i find out what I said is not part of the christianity theory then i will do my best to edit my posts and correct if correction is required
It will take a long time to answer all the questions, because thanks to the media, the public and a few others, your views of christianity are largely different to mine

OK, stop right there. There is no such thing as "the christianity theory". If anything, you could point to certain things as hypotheses (like the hypothesis that Jesus existed) that would then need to be corroborated by evidence before they could become theories. But you are completely misunderstanding what the term means right from the get go.

So, the core of christianity is NOT forgiveness.......what kind of system is that "do whatever ya want and be forgiven".......

The core of christianity is compassion......to have 'God' flow though me to help whoever I encounter

A sin is a selfish act

A church is a meeting place for two or more christians gathered in God/Jesus's name(purposes of prayer, worship discussion of issues etc) "where two or more are gathered in my name there i am also"

The Pope, Bishop etc are people just as human as the rest of us..... It's my guess that if he is christian he wouldn't be wearing overly fancy cloaths.....not saying he isn't christian, he might be, i don't know the bloke

thanks to all those who don't assume things

Gee, thanks. Um, how could we ever, err, have managed without your, uh, enlightening thoughts on what a, well, "true" christian, err, looks like.

You're not disproving the whole christians are dumb thing here yet.

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 05:38 PM

No it's not censorship.. it's just... well imagine we're a Holden forum and you drive a Volvo and expect us to as well ;)

Speaking as a Ford owner...um, nevermind.

Volvos suck.

sockdog

23rd August 2009, 05:51 PM

Many of us were christian, so we talk about what christianity taught us, from it in action, and it's adherents in action

Well, a lot of them are by my definition, in the way that they have not thought about why they believe further than that they have been told it's true. I think not using reason, not investigating claims, referring to a book for 'evidence' and their morals, define their life and the world around it by scripture irrespective of evidence to the contrary .. yea I think it's dumb to do that..

but you must question yourselves why someone like me is still a christian after having asked nearly every question there is to ask

Hang on .. what 'theories'. You don't have a theory, you have a faith.

"a faith" is a set of beliefs, which to me sounds like a theory.....you can test the truth/lack-of-truth of both so it makes no difference what you call it

What are you saying this doesn't make sense? I base truths on all available evidence and reason. I do not hold untenable beliefs or faith in something where there is no evidence whatsoever.

hang on, now your telling me that I don't base truth on "all available evedance and reason" and that there is no evidence

What problems? They are very accurate, and the more tests done with them, the more accurate the findings become, backed by solid evidence.

What is the evidence to the contrary (and I presume you are referring to the age of the earth) are you putting forward?

give me a minute

Oh right, you have The One True Truth (tm)

Did I not say I am open to logic and reason?

Yes, I have spoken to many and was brought up by the christian brothers. I live in a society that contains about 70% believers. I witness what christians believe every day.

there are christians and there are christians.....it is a case of which christians serve the god refered to in the bible and which christians unknowingly make up thier own god....people can call themselves what they want.....and in SE QLD aust. by my estimation, 5% is pressing it

what? no I understand your beliefs probably better than most. What is it I am getting wrong that you are saying I am doing?

I wasn't directing this thread specifically at you...you might know what christianity is......suffice to say it is as I said in my last reply with the addition of obeying Jesus because you love him.....not the kind of love your thinking about........the kind I am refering to is indescribable and different

Can you explain your logic and reasoning behind a belief in a god??

yes, I reckon I can....but it'll take time and i can't get on here too often

Consider the fact there is no evidence, and the concept of an omni-max god is a paradox, I would be interested to hear your explanations that are reasoned conclusions based on logic and science.

I consider what is scientific, logical, etc etc etc is that so hard to understand?

Merely your opinion that there's no evidence.....If given time I'll explain my reasoned conclusions

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 05:54 PM

but you must question yourselves why someone like me is still a christian after having asked nearly every question there is to ask

Christian trolls are funny! Seriously!

sockdog

23rd August 2009, 06:11 PM

Radiometric Dating - A Brief Explanation
Radiometric dating is the primary dating scheme employed by scientists to determine the age of the earth. Radiometric dating techniques take advantage of the natural decay of radioisotopes. An isotope is one of two or more atoms which have the same number of protons in their nuclei, but a different number of neutrons. Radioisotopes are unstable isotopes: they spontaneously decay (emitting radiation in the process -- thus making them radioactive). They continue to decay going through various transitional states until they finally reach stability. For example, Uranium-238 (U238) is a radioisotope. It will spontaneously decay until it transitions into Lead-206 (Pb206). The numbers 238 and 206 represent these isotopes' atomic mass. The Uranium-238 radioisotope goes through 13 transitional stages before stabilizing into Lead-206 (U238 > Th234 > Pa234 > U234 > Th230 > Ra226 > Rn222 > Po218 > Pb214 > Bi214 > Po214 > Pb210 > Bi210 > Po210 > Pb206). In this instance, Uranium-238 is called the "parent" and Lead-206 is called the "daughter". By measuring how long it takes for an unstable element to decay into a stable element and by measuring how much daughter element has been produced by the parent element within a specimen of rock, scientists believe they are able to determine the age of the rock. This belief is based upon three significant assumptions.

Radiometric Dating - The Assumptions
Many of the ages derived by radiometric dating techniques are highly publicized. Nevertheless, the fundamental assumptions employed are not. Here are the three major assumptions for your consideration: The rate of decay remains constant.
There has been no contamination (that is, no daughter or intermediate elements have been introduced or leeched from the specimen of rock).
We can determine how much daughter there was to begin with (if we assume there was no daughter to begin with, yet there was daughter at the formation of the rock, the rock would have a superficial appearance of age). Are these foundational assumptions reasonable? Recent findings seem to indicate that though we ourselves have not been able to vary the decay rates by much in the laboratory, the decay rates may have been accelerated in the unobservable past [1]. If this were the case, the first assumption would be deemed unreasonable. This would completely upset our current standardized view of earth's history. Dr Carl Wieland summarizes the recent findings: "When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas which readily escapes from rock. Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and 'radiogenic lead' in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic 'age' assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.) There is a significant amount of helium from that '1.5 billion years of decay' still inside the zircons. This is at first glance surprising, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should hardly be any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating. Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the recent RATE [2] papers reports on. The samples were sent… to a world-class expert to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data has since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." [3]
Learn more now!

Footnotes:
D. Russel Humphreys, Steven A. Austin, John R. Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling, Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay; Article available online at http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.
The "RATE" project stands for, "Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth"
Carl Wieland, RATE Group Reveal Exciting Breakthroughs, 2003

sounds pretty logical to me...or is there something they've missed?

I'll get to all the rest of it when next I'm on

sorry if I'm assuming anything

sockdog

23rd August 2009, 06:22 PM

that's part of the christianity theory anyway

sockdog

23rd August 2009, 06:24 PM

Um, I don't recall saying it like that. For starters, the "forgiveness" thing I mentioned wasn't about having some external agent forgive me. It has to do with me personally being forgiving of the faults of others - no matter how palsied their thinking. It's not my job, as far as I know, to teach anybody anything either.

So, yeah. Not sure what else to add, but I'm confident you'll tell me.

I see....

That's good but it's not the core of christianity......

Mister Pervert

23rd August 2009, 06:31 PM

I see....

That's good but it's not the core of christianity......

Like, I'm entirely bothered now.

Good grief.

As for the "Radiometrics" thing - is this some kind of L. Ron Hubbard thing?

Sheesh!

The Scientologists will sue you. You know that, don't you?

SinisterDexter

23rd August 2009, 07:32 PM

sounds pretty logical to me...or is there something they've missed?

I'll get to all the rest of it when next I'm on

sorry if I'm assuming anything

You've missed that radiometric dating is corroborated through the use of multiple isotopes and that it is corroborated by tree rings and ice cores - amongst others.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

davo

23rd August 2009, 08:09 PM

but you must question yourselves why someone like me is still a christian after having asked nearly every question there is to ask

No, I just put it down to someone that relies on the writings of groups such as the discovery institute and allaboutcreation.org as it fits with their faith system. They are the types of people that will just repost information on their sites, that has been refuted. For instance you publish about dating issues, ignoring the fact that there is a VAST amount of different types of structures that corroberate the age of the earth, and that, as I mentioned the more dating done on more objects, the more accurate the findings from them. Some samples are indeed misconstrued due to certain things happening, but when you look across the VAST array of dated material, the accuracy is undeniable.

Excuse me if I don't bother approaching your information on radiometric dating, if you want to read accurate information about it not presented a certain way, try : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html

your copy and pasted articles points are all covered in that.

"a faith" is a set of beliefs, which to me sounds like a theory.....you can test the truth/lack-of-truth of both so it makes no difference what you call it
/

'to you sounds like a theory' .. well you have a very loose concept of a theory. When you are comparing your hypothesis to a scientific theory, you need to use the same system that scientific theories use.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation. However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

hang on, now your telling me that I don't base truth on "all available evedance and reason" and that there is no evidence

Exactly, no evidence whatsoever, you are just relying on faith.

I wasn't directing this thread specifically at you...you might know what christianity is......suffice to say it is as I said in my last reply with the addition of obeying Jesus because you love him.....not the kind of love your thinking about........the kind I am refering to is indescribable and different

Jesus never existed, where's you evidence? You have one book, of writings made up about a mythical figure that is extremely similar to many other mythical figures in the same are at the same time. The bible appears to be just a collection of folk tales, this is fitting right into that. Your jesus appears to be a mythical figure, a puppet for a new religion based of learning what wasn't working with the old ones. Just seems a progression and rewrite, nothing more, as there is no other evidence to back up your claims he existed, let alone was a deity.

yes, I reckon I can....but it'll take time and i can't get on here too often

I actually doubt you will be back, like many others before you, the reason, logic and evidence will just fail you ;)

I consider what is scientific, logical, etc etc etc is that so hard to understand?

Merely your opinion that there's no evidence.....If given time I'll explain my reasoned conclusions

great bring it on.

Godless Ray

23rd August 2009, 09:29 PM

Hi sockdog,
you know that is a good point. Its been my experience that in discussions of anyones views on matters religious we only think they are on the same page because of the Christian label. I have yet to go thru this whole post but I would like to hear what your own beliefs are.

Godless Ray

Godless Ray

23rd August 2009, 09:37 PM

Sock god,

Just from the get go, The core of christianity is compassion......to have 'God' flow though me to help whoever I encounter

The bible has had a lot of editing done through the centuries and one peice is the case of Jesus refusing to heal a sick child. I am overseas at the moment so would need to seek my reference at a later date but how do you work these kinds of issues, I should point out there is quite a few actually.

Godless Ray

Godless Ray

23rd August 2009, 09:46 PM

sorry guys for doing three here in a row I am all over the place.

Sock dog when you said you have looked at this from different ways and I think you may mean you have read a bit, what types of Biblical criticism have you got into? I am taking the view here as mentioned earlier about the very many differing versions of the story that exist and the evolving of what I see as Jesus the product.

As an aside, I did visit the Lourve and was amazed at how many ancient paintings had there stuff wrong such as using crosses and other symbolism well before white ango Jesus was nailed up.

Godless Ray

GenericBox

24th August 2009, 08:24 AM

Have we asked the famous questions yet?

And why is this guy not sipping on a goblet of wine on Fantasy Island already?

Others were not afforded the amount of time this one has had...

Fearless

24th August 2009, 08:41 AM

Have we asked the famous questions yet?

And why is this guy not sipping on a goblet of wine on Fantasy Island already?

Others were not afforded the amount of time this one has had...
Of late some criticisms have been that people have been receiving their boarding pass a bit too soon. Most of us know the likely outcome but put your trust the locals for now :)

before we know it some will be calling for extra trips to be booked again. Trial and error. But that said, if anyone feels like spamming up other threads with nonsense, emergency jet skis and tow ropes will be scrambled. ;)

GenericBox

24th August 2009, 08:47 AM

Ok well I'll ask the famous questions then why I am here (well my poorly remembered versions of them):

1. Define God and prove he/she/it exists.

2. Prove that YOUR God is the one true god.

Normal terms and conditions apply - scripture not included yada yada.

secular swarm

24th August 2009, 09:01 AM

Well here's your problem... you guys have a book that tells you what you should be believing... a book many of us have read. Now, there are many different interpretations of the book, however when atheists talk about what Christians believe they're usually referring to things that are in the bible or things that Christians (at least many Christians) do indeed believe... Please give an example of what claims have been made about Christians that don't apply to many Christians.

On top of all of that, many atheists used to be Christians, many atheists have pursued religion, used to go to church etc etc (myself included) so we do get a good idea of what Christians, at least many Christians, believe.

As for the science issues... pointing out flaws with science don't somehow debunk the science... The problem with "Christian science" despite the fact its hilarious, is that every scientist would love to disprove something. So when you're talking about problems with dating, problems with anything and those problems are rejected by the scientific community yet flaunted by the religious community then you have a huge problem. The problem is that if someone proves a widely accepted scientific theory/belief/"fact" to actually be incorrect then they would become famous.... so why is it only "religious science" that seem to be disproving it or seem to think its incorrect?

Do you think the scientific community is just some big atheistic conspiracy designed to promote atheistic views and ignore flaws? Well its not. The reason all these things are universally accepted by the scientific community is because of the overwhelming evidence supports it. The scientist who disproves evolution (I know you didn't mention evolution I'm just making a point) or points out major flaws in it that would call into question whether or not it is real would instantly gain fame and fortune... but they don't because they can't, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that has made evolution go from Darwin's theory to scientific fact.

So my point is that Christian science or flaws with science pointed out just by Christians that are used to try to debunk science should be laughed at and ignored, because there's a reason they're still accepted by the scientific community.

Cosmic Teapot

24th August 2009, 10:37 AM

Have we asked the famous questions yet?

And why is this guy not sipping on a goblet of wine on Fantasy Island already?

Others were not afforded the amount of time this one has had...

He hasn't yet commited the sins (for want of a better word) that previous theist boat people have. So far, he hasn't machine-gunned cut and paste scripture, proselytised or acted particularly troll-like.
As long as he maintains his current demeanour and argues his position using rationality and facts, I can't see a reason to ship him off.

Godless Ray

24th August 2009, 06:04 PM

Now, there are many different interpretations of the book,

Man, not only that what about the differing versions that exist? It is pretty clear the idea became a product and that product was finessed in order to sell it over the centuries. There were many accidental mistakes but the intentional ones were huge. Do you remember the woman committing adultery? That whole story is missing from earlier fragments and is considered by scholars to be inserted by some scribe centuries after. The serious question here is how this book could be considered as any work of truth or evidence specifically on something obviously so important to some types of people. What I fail to understand is sockdog trying to discredit science but somehow never attempted the same verification of the very book that underpins his beleif system. Its just insane in my opinion.

Godless Ray

secular swarm

24th August 2009, 06:17 PM

Man, not only that what about the differing versions that exist? It is pretty clear the idea became a product and that product was finessed in order to sell it over the centuries. There were many accidental mistakes but the intentional ones were huge. Do you remember the woman committing adultery? That whole story is missing from earlier fragments and is considered by scholars to be inserted by some scribe centuries after. The serious question here is how this book could be considered as any work of truth or evidence specifically on something obviously so important to some types of people. What I fail to understand is sockdog trying to discredit science but somehow never attempted the same verification of the very book that underpins his beleif system. Its just insane in my opinion.

Godless Ray

Aye, agreed. Now I feel this deserves a video response.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qO9IPoAdct8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qO9IPoAdct8&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x006699&color2=0x54abd6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Seamus

24th August 2009, 08:01 PM

@Mr Black

Not sure how to put this;

Trying to avoid NTS fallacy;not entirely convinced THE basis of Christianity is forgiveness.

I think there are several perceptions about "THE" exact basis.

One of my observations is that there seems to be a dichotomy within Christendom,often within the same denomination.Not sure if it's simply emphasis or interpretation:

The dichotomy: Resurrection vs Redemption. For some it seems Christianity is about love,compassion and forgiveness,for others,the innate sinfulness of people, of suffering and of penance.Perhaps trust and acceptance vs supine grovelling?

The De La Salle brothers in charge of my education were of the penitent persuasion,especially the penitence of their charges..The Passionist priests I've known,who were also my friends, were about compassion and forgiveness,even rejecting the notion of ANY unforgivable sin. (including despair,which Catholics consider THE greatest sin)

I've probably expressed myself badly; I don't pretend to be a theologian. Today I'm an agnostic atheist,yet remain a cultural Catholic. Although it irritates the hell out of me,I retain my interest in questions of faith.

I'd be interested in your opinion.

davo

24th August 2009, 08:31 PM

The dichotomy: Resurrection vs Redemption. For some it seems Christianity is about love,compassion and forgiveness,for others,the innate sinfulness of people, of suffering and of penance.Perhaps trust and acceptance vs supine grovelling?

Isn't this the same thing? just one sees the glass half empty, one half full?

Jesus supposedly died for their sins. This was to forgive original sin, and asks nothing but faith to enter heaven.

Therefore, regardless of what christians feel is the basis of christianity, the basis is the forgiveness of sin, that's what their saviour died for. And looksee all they have do do now is have faith. ta-da!!

Unsacred Cow

24th August 2009, 09:43 PM

As soon as Moses turns his back, the people create god v2.0, and Moses has a cow at sight of said calf.

I do believe you just used my name in vain Mr Black. ;)

Unsacred Cow

24th August 2009, 09:50 PM

Oh no. Contrary to this other guy you're talking about, I am gracious. :)

Unsacred Cow

24th August 2009, 10:04 PM

Damn. I have to say, there are believers who do this sort of judo very well.

They're also probably doing their thing quietly, while here at AFA we get bible-bashed by the great-great-etc-grandkids of Jeebus's old Pharisee sparring partners.

Must be some kind of reflex judo action that kicks in upon hearing bible stories, a reflex that hasn't quite left the building yet perhaps. I'm kick-boxing it's backside to bed now.

GodwinGrey

24th August 2009, 11:50 PM

Is it true that Jesus lay with his mother and conceived himself?

Godless Ray

25th August 2009, 01:35 AM

@Godless Ray: please don't scare him off yet, I was hoping to go through the biblical version control issue with him in detail.

Seriously Mr Black ? I thought this was me being nice..No, really.

Godless Ray

davo

25th August 2009, 09:59 AM

Is it true that Jesus lay with his mother and conceived himself?

yep, what an act!!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3531004630_1132611f40.jpg

Godless Ray

25th August 2009, 06:59 PM

Davo,

where does one get images like the one you just posted? A few of you guys get some really funny stuff and I am always been curious?

godless Ray

Surprised Peter

26th August 2009, 11:42 AM

Every time I switch on the TV, wireless, go to the letter box and or walk down the street there is someone or something telling me what I should beleave. The large majority of this is proporting to be Christian. So are you saying Christains are Lying to us about what you/they believe or don't you have any idea what your chritian believes are and just follow the herd.

Surprised Peter

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 02:48 PM

Davo,

where does one get images like the one you just posted? A few of you guys get some really funny stuff and I am always been curious?

godless Ray

Dito. do you draw some yourselves? Got me grinning like a mad man in my office.

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 03:00 PM

Sockdog,

You sound just like me, only Christian. I believe in logic and reason too. What you read in most threads are people being worked up over Christians who were not Logical at all, we are giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

But before we go so deep into disproving scientific evidence that disproves Christianity... let's talk basics.... basics which we have disproved before, and I can assure you that we can further.

Is there somebody with the courtesy to ask a christian what a christian believes, a moslim what a moslim believes etc etc etc

Yes, we even have those out of the spectrum of Christianity. Crocodile was a Muslim, and I'm a Tao/Budhist/Pagan.

I was pretty distrubed by Christian teachings and enquired further, and found it even more absurd. Being a thinking and logical person. I wonder how you manage to go so far, without realising it's all just man made.

sockdog

26th August 2009, 03:02 PM

I'm back

thanks to those who kept to the point

No Jesus didn't lay and concieve himself according to the bible.......if God can create the unerverse it's not that hard for him to concieve someone without laying........

The bible is written by a minimum of 40 people (since there are 66 books and some authors doubled up, some authors are unknown)

If you are making a book to use to controll people then you don't include whores, tax collecters etc......much less have them write it......

There were many witnessess for alot of biblical events, if anyone of them saw that it wasn't as the bloke wrote it then it is excluded from the bible........eg the gospel of Judas.....although I havn't read the gospel of judas and from what i've heard it was written a few hundred years after the events

with todays technology it is, or should be, very easy to distinguish if the bible has been edited after it's initial writing

as for Jesus, moslims believe he was a prophet, Jews believe he was nothing special and i'm still getting people telling me what christians believe

You see, nobody is allowed to shove the gospel down people's throuts because they were told to wait for the Holy Spirit.........THAT is why I say what they say is not neccisarily reflectant of christianity........they might be christians......it's irrelevent

Now before you ask me if I am acting with the Holy Spirit......i tell you i reckon i am

having said that, i will be back on fri or sat.......for all those that thought i would never get on........

sockdog

26th August 2009, 03:09 PM

so ya's know, i've read page 3 and before....and some of this page....i'll get round to the rest:P

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 03:16 PM

SockDog,

You can do Christianity justice and continue from where your brother left off:

"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations."
You're right. I might consider this to be a doubtful disputation and forget all about it. I am quite convinced that it is.

Just remember. We are all searching for the truth. Good luck in your search. And God bless you.

or try wrap your mind around this:
Christianity BAD, Buddhism GOOD (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=19578&postcount=1)

sockdog

26th August 2009, 03:29 PM

to The Doer

looks to me like you have consideration and you are showing respect

so, i will read your(and others with your sort of attitude) posts and reply as is fitting before i read posts made by Davo for example

so......i have many reasons and miracles are pretty high on the list, also high on the list is the way the bible was written........it just doesn't fit to be a story tale or a real event changed, the way i read it........a few videos have convinced me too (one on what the night sky looked like from particular places the day Jesus was born according to the bible)....there are innumerous little things too that seem to support it

apart from that caption being wrong in every way........i can guarrantee you Jesus was neither a hair product salesperson, nor a guy in white robes who everybody liked.........hence why they crucifictied him

Fearless

26th August 2009, 03:32 PM

apart from that caption being wrong in every way........i can guarrantee you Jesus was neither a hair product salesperson, nor a guy in white robes who everybody liked.........hence why they crucifictied him

I need to talk to Mel Gibson about this... something is not right!

sockdog

26th August 2009, 03:39 PM

i will write as i see fit

and please, if your not serious, get out of this thread.....i'm no moderater but i have that right

i only have the time to read serious posts

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 03:41 PM

If you are making a book to use to controll people then you don't include whores, tax collecters etc......much less have them write it......

Yes you do, as the author you want the book to appear to relate to the common man.

Buddhism had all those, and a Courtesan too. Point?

There were many witnessess for alot of biblical events, if anyone of them saw that it wasn't as the bloke wrote it then it is excluded from the bible........eg the gospel of Judas.....although I havn't read the gospel of judas and from what i've heard it was written a few hundred years after the events

No, many of them who saw the bloke was a fake, didn't bother writing anything.

With all the miracles that he performed, and only a handful of them converted to Christians? What about the Jews and the remaining pagans? Was jesus not thorough in passing his message when he came?

Being a reasonable man, I'm sure you can see, that anything that contradicts Christianity will be silenced. I'm refraining from quoting the bible here. But You and I both know this is true. Correct?

with todays technology it is, or should be, very easy to distinguish if the bible has been edited after it's initial writing

No proof required, put aside the knowledge that there are many versions of the book, and the case of nicea....

Just look at the contents of the book! that's good enough. It's either an ill thought con, or a book inspired by an imperfect God. It's riddled with illogical teachings.

as for Jesus, moslims believe he was a prophet, Jews believe he was nothing special and i'm still getting people telling me what christians believe

You see, nobody is allowed to shove the gospel down people's throuts because they were told to wait for the Holy Spirit.........THAT is why I say what they say is not neccisarily reflectant of christianity........they might be christians......it's irrelevent

Giberrish.... I don't understand what your saying...

Now before you ask me if I am acting with the Holy Spirit......i tell you i reckon i am

This won't be the first time, the Holy Spirit has been proven wrong. I hope he will continue inspiring you and not like your predecessors. He may want to continue his work at the thread I mentioned earlier.

sockdog

26th August 2009, 03:52 PM

no they wouldn't write anything, they'd kill the false bloke and burn the scolls......

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 04:10 PM

On the contrary... That is why Christianity was underground for abit. Until it achieved sufficient mass, that the opposite was true. Those who talked against Christianity were prosecuted.

To look at the mentality of pagans. Lets look at Taoism as an example. Mostly pagans couldn't be bothered what God you prayed to. You have yours, I have mine. (Though there are cases where witch doctors instigate power struggles, overall they couldn't careless) basically, pagans are a superstitious lot, wouldn't you agree? They may believe anything, from 1 god, 2 gods, to a mix-max of any gods. Why would they prosecute Christians? Wouldn't they cower at the sight of an almighty Jesus?

But the question remains... why has the others, after witnessing Jesus' miracles, not believe in him?

TÐöer

26th August 2009, 04:15 PM

Proof of the mentality of a Pagan....

You will NEVER have a Taoist come knocking, on your door, asking you to repent.

robertkd

26th August 2009, 07:13 PM

if God can create the unerverse it's not that hard for him to concieve someone without laying........

well you can of course prove this somehow, and not simply say "it written in genesis" otherwise, you implicitly only believe this to be the case, even though the concept has amazing similarities to egyptian mythology of the, oh, creation of the earth and sun and stuff,...

The bible is written by a minimum of 40 people (since there are 66 books and some authors doubled up, some authors are unknown)

If you are making a book to use to controll people then you don't include whores, tax collecters etc......much less have them write it......why not it's worked so damn well throughout history,..

There were many witnessess for alot of biblical events, if anyone of them saw that it wasn't as the bloke wrote it then it is excluded from the bible so I see, your saying that there was like a committee that selected the various parts to be included and the various parts to be conveniently left out and you know this to be fact??

........eg the gospel of Judas.....although I havn't read the gospel of judas and from what i've heard it was written a few hundred years after the events and the teachings of the prophet muhammad came some 650 years AD and the book of mormans some 1830 years AD, ever thought you might be missing something in your life?

with todays technology it is, or should be, very easy to distinguish if the bible has been edited after it's initial writing I understand some scrolls have been dated and are likely from a period of some 2000 years but that in no way means the content is an accurate deception of anything other then a study of society or social commentary

as for Jesus, moslims believe he was a prophet, Jews believe he was nothing special and i'm still getting people telling me what christians believe depends who you talk to, jesus was totally rejected by the jews,... is that not in the bibe??

You see, nobody is allowed to shove the gospel down people's throuts because they were told to wait for the Holy Spirit.........THAT is why I say what they say is not neccisarily reflectant of christianity........they might be christians......it's irreleventso this is some christian code of practice I can refer christians and such to, next time they want to share there feel good stories with me, that will stop them dead in the tracks great,...

THANK YOU! reference please

and is this going to be actively enforced so I am not offended by such actions ??

Now before you ask me if I am acting with the Holy Spirit......i tell you i reckon i am strangely enough I wasn't even remotely thinking of asking you that,...but now that you mention it, you hear voices, you have conversations with these voices in your head, these voices tell you what to do ??

having said that, i will be back on fri or sat.......for all those that thought i would never get on........is this some sort of youth group challenge thing for you, so you can impress your peers with your knowledgeable prowess and careful crafted arguments?

Mister Pervert

26th August 2009, 07:31 PM

i only have the time to read serious posts

I wanted to get an old tattoo/patch art thingy touched up and redone the other day and was told I'd have to make an appointment and wait two weeks, at least. How long do you wait for "seriousness"?

Enquiring minds want to know...

SinisterDexter

26th August 2009, 08:42 PM

so, i will read your(and others with your sort of attitude) posts and reply as is fitting before i read posts made by Davo for example

Sock puppet. If you want to ignore someone, ignore me. But davo is possibly the most polite poster on this forum. He very rarely takes a condescending tone and argues logically and clearly - sticking to the point, dare I say it, religiously.

His posts are, however, extremely well researched and argued, which I suspect is your real objection.

Thus far you have given nothing new to this discussion and have answered literally no posts of any substance with anything of any substance. I am almost ready to pack your suitcase to the Island.

Cosmic Teapot

27th August 2009, 02:43 AM

No Jesus didn't lay and concieve himself according to the bible.......if God can create the unerverse it's not that hard for him to concieve someone without laying........
I think you missed the point of the Holy Trinity.
Father, Son, Holy Ghost; all one and the same. Am I making any headway here?

The bible is written by a minimum of 40 people (since there are 66 books and some authors doubled up, some authors are unknown)
Authors are one thing, the plethora of editors are another.
Or do you seriously think the bible has never been edited?

There were many witnessess for alot of biblical events, if anyone of them saw that it wasn't as the bloke wrote it then it is excluded from the bible
Care to back up the proof of reliable, credible witnesses?

........eg the gospel of Judas.....although I havn't read the gospel of judas and from what i've heard it was written a few hundred years after the events
All of the gospels were written well after the events and the authors aren't even known. The names were added later to make it appear they were written by the apostles.

with todays technology it is, or should be, very easy to distinguish if the bible has been edited after it's initial writing
Say what? How do you figure that's a technology issue? Do you think your average KJV bible can be scanned into a comuter and it'll be able to detect faint signs of crossing out?
As arguments go, that's as silly as saying...
by letting a kitten play with a bible, it is, or should be, very easy to distinguish if the bible has been edited after it's initial writing
as for Jesus, moslims believe he was a prophet, Jews believe he was nothing special and i'm still getting people telling me what christians believe
We're still waiting for you to explain what part of christianity you've cherry-picked that sets you apart from the christians we describe.
What part of christianity is it that we have wrong? Futher more, does this alleged descriptive inaccuracy apply to all christians, or just yourself?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th August 2009, 09:23 AM

The core belief of Christianity - the one that sets it apart from Judaism and Islam - is "forgiveness". Me personally, I think that's a pretty cool belief and even coolerer as something to aim for in life. It's just such a pity that Christians themselves don't get it.

Actually Islam focuses quite heavily on forgiveness (speaking here from the perspective of an ex-Muslim) and even goes as far as to say that banks charging interest is haram!

But hey like every other religion on the planet it claims to be the true religion and claims to be peaceful but forces its followers to exclude and kill members from other religions etc etc etc.

Kind of like Christianity but with a lot less shouting!

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th August 2009, 09:33 AM

But that's OK because christians forgive.
Don't let your guard down. Most Christians are complete fucking posers who don't bother forgiving if there is something wrong in the name of their lord.

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/MIaORknS1Dk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/MIaORknS1Dk&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x000000&color2=0x000000&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

davo

27th August 2009, 10:15 AM

I'm back

thanks to those who kept to the point

No Jesus didn't lay and concieve himself according to the bible.......if God can create the unerverse it's not that hard for him to concieve someone without laying........

Is Jesus god? or are you worshipping not god, but a man?

If Jesus is god, or part of god, he did 'lay' his mother, he impregnated her, without her consent. Other terms for this would be 'space rape'.

The bible is written by a minimum of 40 people (since there are 66 books and some authors doubled up, some authors are unknown)

For the most part, the stories in the NT are interpretations of stories in the OT. Just look at the story of jesus for instance .. it's just a twist on the story of john the baptist, and again the same story appears in all other major mythologies of the region and time, dating back to eqyptian pharoahs.

Can you explain the many many incorrect passages all thru the bible? things like Nazereth not even existing at the time? Or jesus making the demons into pigs and then they ran down a steep slope into the lake og Gallilee, from Gadera (http://net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Gadarenes) .. but look where Gadera is, it's 10km away, and it's totally a flat land both in Gadera itself, and between :

http://www.keyway.ca/gif/tencit.gif

there's just masses of them, I don't know where to start. Just look at the 'flood' and the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm) for example. This story has appeared on tablets dated 2800BCE, 400 years before earth was created according to young earth creationists, in a society that dates back to 7000BCE.

It's the same story with an ark and all, even Ut-Napishtim releasing a dove, it's just rehashed in the christian version.

If you are making a book to use to controll people then you don't include whores, tax collecters etc......much less have them write it......

You do if your rehashing established folk lore, based on existing near eastern mythologies 'with a twist'. Christianity brought a twist to Mithraism and other similar myths from a religion of the ruling class, to one of the slaves. Funny enough, the 'twist' was that you must suffer in this life, be tested, have faith. Nice effective twist that was ;)

There were many witnessess for alot of biblical events,

No there wasn't. Name ONE witness outside the bible to jesus, let alone any of the events surrounding his so called miracles.

Go on, just one.

if anyone of them saw that it wasn't as the bloke wrote it then it is excluded from the bible........eg the gospel of Judas.....although I havn't read the gospel of judas and from what i've heard it was written a few hundred years after the events

So was other parts of the bible, the earliest texts of the new testament were SUPPOSEDLY written at least 60+ years after they supposedly took place, with most written around 100 years later, starting at 130BCE or thereabouts. And this was only from statements from Papias (mentioning Mark and Matthew) in 130 CE, Irenaeus mentioned Luke in 180 CE.

davo

27th August 2009, 10:27 AM

so, i will read your(and others with your sort of attitude) posts and reply as is fitting before i read posts made by Davo for example

I'm flattered you see my statements as such a threat to your faith in a book written by man, that is just a rehashed grouping of folklore and parables of worship of the eqyptian sun gods, that brings you to refuse to deal with even reading my posts.

I would have thought your faith was strong enough to be able to deal with the material I present in a rational way.

atheist_angel

27th August 2009, 10:38 AM

Is there even one percent of people who know what christianity really believes???

Is there somebody with the courtesy to ask a christian what a christian believes, a moslim what a moslim believes etc etc etc

Or are you all just guessing at our beliefs, intelect etc etc etc and prooving your guesses wrong
Please correct me if i'm wrong....but i see very little logic and reason in this

Yep, i know what a christian believes, i was christian.
I know what a Jew believes, i'm Jewish....let me clarify that....I'm an Atheist Jew. :p

TÐöer

27th August 2009, 11:06 AM

Actually Islam focuses quite heavily on forgiveness (speaking here from the perspective of an ex-Muslim) and even goes as far as to say that banks charging interest is haram!

Yeah haram, but in reality, Islamic banking is just playing with words.

Here's an example of how it's used:
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/26040/84

In this case, they want the Full profit even though your terminating early and having financial difficulties at the time.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th August 2009, 11:37 AM

Yeah haram, but in reality, Islamic banking is just playing with words.

Here's an example of how it's used:
http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/26040/84

In this case, they want the Full profit even though your terminating early and having financial difficulties at the time.

I have always wondered how the hell a muslim bank is meant to get profit...

TÐöer

27th August 2009, 11:45 AM

The difference is instead of charging a person interest... they are actually buying the property for the individual and selling it off to them for a higher price, and lending them the money without interest.

It's basically the SAME thing. Except in the writer's case, they are refusing early termination, which by right should not incur future interest.

But since it was money 'Borrowed' and not a 'Loan'. The writer has to pay back, the full amount, profit and all.

Hurray for Is-lamic Banking!!

atheist_angel

27th August 2009, 12:32 PM

TÐöer

27th August 2009, 04:21 PM

That doesn't look Halal to me.

Halal, just means it is prepared and served by a M uslim.

I would like to say more... but dare not.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th August 2009, 04:34 PM

Halal, just means it is prepared and served by a M uslim.

I would like to say more... but dare not.

Actually it is close enough but it actually means prepared and served by a Muslim in a way that is fit for a muslim. The last part is the most critical part of the definition of Halal.

wearestardust

27th August 2009, 04:46 PM

i can guarrantee you Jesus was neither a hair product salesperson, nor a guy in white robes who everybody liked.........

The really funny thing about this is that the image that was shopped was, I can guarrantee, a devotional image created by Christians.

Which, returning to the topic, takes me back to a question asked right at the beginning of the thread: well, what do you believe?

I find it very irritating when trying to engage with Chistians, or people of any of the Abrahamic faiths, that whenever one tries to debate some less attractive part of their religion (eg killing, hatred, oppression, funny clothing) they insist that no-one of their faith actually believes that. Or, at least, no right-thinking person of their faith believes that. Totally contrary to the evidence of widespread killing, hatred, oppression, and wearing of funny clothes, in the name of whichever god is relevant to the discussion.

So it would be really nice to be able to debate with a person of Abrahamic faith who would stick to their beliefs and not try to water them down or disown them the moment the discussion gets challenging.

I could also make the point that, like many atheists, I know a lot about Christianity having been a worship leader, teacher, etc. But I think that point has been made adequately by others.

By the way, I note your comments separating sheep from the goats, sorry, courteous and discourteous posters. Punctuation, by the way, is a courtesy to your reader.

TÐöer

27th August 2009, 04:48 PM

Yeah... I omited that on purpose. Cause who knows what they do in the back?
It's like a license for hygene. If your a *mu-slim then you're clean. If you're a pork eating non, then you're a dirty bastard. (EDIT: well even if you don't eat pork you're still dirty)

Just to relate on the social dance between the m uslim and the nons in my community. It's nothing bad really... just awkward.

A neighbour's wife, visited her husband. As a kind getsture gave the neighbour some cakes (No meat of course). To be kind the m.uslim neighbour accepted it. But later threw the whole lot out, and returned the tray.

To me, it's the thought that counts, and the intentions were good. But I think it's a darn waste of food. I didn't get any :P

Is that the same for your community Croc?

*pardon my rewording to avoid search.

Mister Pervert

27th August 2009, 05:11 PM

Actually it is close enough but it actually means prepared and served by a Muslim in a way that is fit for a muslim. The last part is the most critical part of the definition of Halal.

"Pork, pork...stick it on a fork, and feed it to a..."

Sorry.

Those darn Protestants actually have songs of prejudice.

*shrugs*

sockdog

30th August 2009, 04:31 PM

Which, returning to the topic, takes me back to a question asked right at the beginning of the thread: well, what do you believe?

I find it very irritating when trying to engage with Chistians, or people of any of the Abrahamic faiths, that whenever one tries to debate some less attractive part of their religion (eg killing, hatred, oppression, funny clothing) they insist that no-one of their faith actually believes that. Or, at least, no right-thinking person of their faith believes that. Totally contrary to the evidence of widespread killing, hatred, oppression, and wearing of funny clothes, in the name of whichever god is relevant to the discussion.

***SIGH***

I said something about the Holy Spirit and ya's didn't understand me, ironically i recal the bible said something about people not understanding, it's why Jesus talked in parables. (according to the bible)

I also get the implecation that only one or two of you will consider anything i say and whatever they have to say, which tends to be worthwile, is drowned out by irrelevent things and the opinions of people who don't care what my opinion is...

***SIGH***

For that reason if wearestardust or TheDoer or crocodile (because 50 emails would be even worse) would like to talk to me, email me at:

yowiegunner@hotmail.com

So there ya go. I will pray that you may see. If God is good & exists, maybe you will. If he doesn't exist or if he is not good, it doesn't matter what I do/say.

btw: I'm aware it's sunday (i said i'd reply sat) & no I'm not trying to avoid things, hence the email address.

Fearless

30th August 2009, 04:40 PM

So there ya go. I will pray that you may see. If God is good & exists, maybe you will. If he doesn't exist or if he is not good, it doesn't matter what I do/say.
Thanks for the offer but save your prayers for someone who might need it... Benny Hinn or someone like that. He might need saving one day.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9454/prayer.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/prayer.jpg/)

atheist_angel

30th August 2009, 09:37 PM

Halal, just means it is prepared and served by a M uslim.

I would like to say more... but dare not.
In my mind, it was funny to substitute Halal for Kosher. But, do a word search to see how many times you can find Halal in this article.

www.american.com/archive/2007/march-april-magazine-contents/islamic-banking-is-it-really-kosher

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/march-april-magazine-contents/islamic-banking-is-it-really-kosher

Mister Pervert

30th August 2009, 09:47 PM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

30th August 2009, 10:25 PM

Jebus H Christ mate I've been to a Jewish place before - in fact I'm in one at the moment as university accomodation.

Even though they don't force you to believe what they believe they do force you to abide by their "laws" - such as using 5 out of the 10 tables that are there.
Here's how they set it out:
RRBBB
RRRBB
R=red and B=blue

And at breakfast and lunch EVERYONE must sit on the B tables (NOBODY is allowed on the R tables) and on dinner time EVERYONE must sit on the R tables (NOBODY is allowed on the B tables) - and their "God's blessings" are nailed to the fucking door frames - and they look like cheap surface mount reed switch magnets (which is what I thought they were before I found out they were scripts with blessings) and the logo for their blessing resembles the USB logo - now that's one thing I call weird.

Mister Pervert

30th August 2009, 10:30 PM

Jebus H Christ mate I've been to a Jewish place before - in fact I'm in one at the moment as university accomodation.

Even though they don't force you to believe what they believe they do force you to abide by their "laws" - such as using 5 out of the 10 tables that are there.
Here's how they set it out:
RRBBB
RRRBBR=red and B=blue

And at breakfast and lunch EVERYONE must sit on the B tables (NOBODY is allowed on the R tables) and on dinner time EVERYONE must sit on the R tables (NOBODY is allowed on the B tables) - and their "God's blessings" are nailed to the fucking door frames - and they look like cheap surface mount reed switch magnets (which is what I thought they were before I found out they were scripts with blessings) and the logo for their blessing resembles the USB logo - now that's one thing I call weird.

Where does the Big Cheese sit?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

30th August 2009, 10:33 PM

Where does the Big Cheese sit?

Probably occupies the rest of the 5 tables I would guess ;)

Or even the table which has the wine and candles and matches and holy prayer book thing (usually on a Forbidden Table)

Mister Pervert

30th August 2009, 10:39 PM

Probably occupies the rest of the 5 tables I would guess ;)

Or even the table which has the wine and candles and matches and holy prayer book thing (usually on a Forbidden Table)

Got it :)

Frommage...

atheist_angel

30th August 2009, 10:52 PM

Jebus H Christ mate I've been to a Jewish place before - in fact I'm in one at the moment as university accomodation.

Even though they don't force you to believe what they believe they do force you to abide by their "laws" - such as using 5 out of the 10 tables that are there.
Here's how they set it out:
RRBBB
RRRBBR=red and B=blue

And at breakfast and lunch EVERYONE must sit on the B tables (NOBODY is allowed on the R tables) and on dinner time EVERYONE must sit on the R tables (NOBODY is allowed on the B tables) - and their "God's blessings" are nailed to the fucking door frames - and they look like cheap surface mount reed switch magnets (which is what I thought they were before I found out they were scripts with blessings) and the logo for their blessing resembles the USB logo - now that's one thing I call weird.
Ahhh...Mezuzahs and Kiddush

atheist_angel

30th August 2009, 11:01 PM

TÐöer

30th August 2009, 11:52 PM

Apologies to Doer and Croc - for me numbnuts joke earlier in this thread.

"My restaurant rules?" _ I hope not!

Halal and Kosher - all part of the ritual of eating good food :)

All gotta be better than friggin' wafers...

Huh? what about?

I'm not a former Mus lim. That's Croc.
I just live in a country where Mus lims rule.

Anyway, I don't think there's any offense in that. After all, it's a stupid rule. What's wrong with pork anyway?

Over here there's recorded gag, being forwarded. Some guys went to a muslim restaurant, and ordered pork. Whereby the waiter, tried his best to contain himself, saying they don't serve it there. Whatever the waiter suggested, they will keep asking if they served it with pork, until the waiter went berserk. Lol, that was really funny. :D

atheist_angel

31st August 2009, 05:49 AM

- and the logo for their blessing resembles the USB logo - now that's one thing I call weird.Ah,Yes....a shin, and it can make an 'S' sound or an 'Sh' sound....Bible Code anyone? :rolleyes: What a piece of fraudulent mystical garbage that(bible code) was, and I still see Xtians lapping it up. :eek:

atheist_angel

31st August 2009, 07:21 AM

Seamus

31st August 2009, 07:58 AM

i will write as i see fit

and please, if your not serious, get out of this thread.....i'm no moderater but i have that right

i only have the time to read serious posts

Of course you have the right to write what whatever you like [within forum rules]

You also have the right to ask people to do or not do what ever you like.
Fortunately for the rest us,you do not get to say who says what about your posts,or who may or may not respond. This is an open forum.

Thread hijacking is common on many forums,it is often an indicator that people find the post(er) boring and/or the poster a wanker.

Your time restrictions are your problem and your responsibility.

PS :First person singular is written in upper case. ("I") and it's "you're" ('you are') 'your' indicates possession or relationship. EG 'your car' 'your father'. Oh, it's ' moderator'

Sir Patrick Crocodile

31st August 2009, 08:26 AM

just remember that he probably doesn't have a shift key or even a caps lock key and there is a good chance that he is saving all the capital letters for his proselytizing and yelling at those who do not believe in god.

TÐöer

31st August 2009, 05:31 PM

@Doer
in my experience, i wasn't allowed to have male visitors without a chaperon and any non-muslim visitors were politely referred to as 'garbage people' after they left...must be a sunni thing.

but to this day, i still find myself following many of these silly rules. It seems to give me a deeper sense of security, probably because I'm introverted, I guess.

Oh,were you a Mus lim, or just one who has lived in a mu slim country? That's interesting. I've never had a reason to visit a mu slim single of the opposite sex before. So never encounted that issue.

atheist_angel

1st September 2009, 03:34 PM

Oh,were you a Mus lim, or just one who has lived in a mu slim country? That's interesting. I've never had a reason to visit a mu slim single of the opposite sex before. So never encounter that issue.
i never converted. i just needed to live away from all the rabid american xtians. it was a little oppressing, but i felt a lot safer. i just wasn't mature enough to cope with wild unpredictable people back then. i stopped doing the ramadan thing when i started having blood sugar issues, though. -woohoo! i never could make it through the whole month anyway.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

1st September 2009, 03:36 PM

i never converted. i just needed to live away from all the rabid american xtians. it was a little oppressing, but i felt a lot safer. i just wasn't mature enough to cope with wild unpredictable people back then. i stopped doing the ramadan thing when i started having blood sugar issues, though. -woohoo! i never could make it through the whole month anyway.

I had absolutely no idea you were a Muslim - I also used to be a Muslim and some people here on the forum know about this.

atheist_angel

1st September 2009, 04:37 PM

I had absolutely no idea you were a Muslim - I also used to be a Muslim and some people here on the forum know about this.Gee Croc, I never thought about it that way.

sockdog

2nd September 2009, 03:02 PM

Of course you have the right to write what whatever you like [within forum rules]

You also have the right to ask people to do or not do what ever you like.
Fortunately for the rest us,you do not get to say who says what about your posts,or who may or may not respond. This is an open forum.

Thread hijacking is common on many forums,it is often an indicator that people find the post(er) boring and/or the poster a wanker.

Your time restrictions are your problem and your responsibility.

PS :First person singular is written in upper case. ("I") and it's "you're" ('you are') 'your' indicates possession or relationship. EG 'your car' 'your father'. Oh, it's ' moderator'

|| Forum Rules - Please read ||
Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/index.php) to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of AFA Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of AFA Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that go beyond acceptable everyday usage of language, are hateful, threatening or violate existing laws or protocols of peaceful interaction.

This AFA Forum offers near unlimited freedom of expression and any abuse of this privilege will not be tolerated. Those found to be infringing these freedoms will initially receive a warning, and repeat offenders will be temporarily suspended for a period of time set by an Administrator.

AFA members especially have a duty to portray to the public a disciplined attitude in postings

The owners of AFA Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

I'd like to think those rules apply. I'd also like to think AFA members are a respectable bunch of people. Another thing I'd like to think is that I can come to a place like this (of all the places I could come to) to discuss what is and isn't true and come to a logical, reasonable conclusion (through hearing what atheists have to say and replying accordingly until I have come to a conclusion on what is true). That was my original intension...

It would be nice to pay more attension to what is said rather than the punctuation used to say it. Some good respectable Australian (of all nationallities) forum this is.

I had thought that mateship still existed among a forum of this size with the Australian label. I spose *lest we forget* doesn't mean anything important here.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd September 2009, 03:18 PM

So exactly what rules do you think are being broken? Instead of quoting the entire forum rules (thus creating a duplicate) why not explain what rule is being broken and why it is being broken.

AWarGuy

2nd September 2009, 03:22 PM

sockdog, also you cant say atheists dont know anything about christians or catholics. im an atheist going to a catholic school and they drill me with their info n all

Sir Patrick Crocodile

2nd September 2009, 03:25 PM

sockdog, also you cant say atheists dont know anything about christians or catholics. im an atheist going to a catholic school and they drill me with their info n all
I agree there. people should not be allowed to do this shit to us and it hinders society. btw sockdog we are speaking in your language so You should be able to understand this.

I know a lot about Islam and Christianity because I was exposed to them. Most of these people pick and choose things from their religion and claim it to be peaceful.

Seamus

2nd September 2009, 04:29 PM

I had thought that mateship still existed among a forum of this size with the Australian label. I spose *lest we forget* doesn't mean anything important here. Ad hominem attack which further reduces your almost non existent credibility. We owe you NOTHING. ("Australian" is a geographic description you drongo)

How on earth did you make the leap from being identified as a dickhead to making a sweeping assumption about an unrelated topic?

I corrected you grammar as it contained errors. I will continue to do so. I'm not saying you have to actually DO anything.

PS: It's 'attention'-and NOW I understand your defensiveness;you're only semi literate.

Mister Pervert

2nd September 2009, 04:34 PM

It would be nice to pay more attension to what is said rather than the punctuation used to say it.

Poor spelling and grammar is the online equivalent to speaking in tongues.

atheist_angel

2nd September 2009, 04:40 PM

"i will write as i see fit and please, if your not serious, get out of this thread.....i'm no moderater but i have that right....i only have the time to read serious posts" "Another thing I'd like to think is that I can come to a place like this (of all the places I could come to) to discuss what is and isn't true and come to a logical, reasonable conclusion (through hearing what atheists have to say and replying accordingly until I have come to a conclusion on what is true). That was my original intension..."@sockdog, All your arguments in your opening statement have already been directly addressed and people have moved on to talking about the more indirect side of these things. If you feel that some of your arguments need to be readdressed, you could always start a new thread where you can be more specific and clear about how you feel. But, regardless of how it makes you feel, we are still more than likely not going to change our actions, but rather explain the reasoning behind our actions. If your interested in hearing some of my reasons, click my quote below. :( One would only have to...

SinisterDexter

2nd September 2009, 05:24 PM

I'd like to think those rules apply. I'd also like to think AFA members are a respectable bunch of people. Another thing I'd like to think is that I can come to a place like this (of all the places I could come to) to discuss what is and isn't true and come to a logical, reasonable conclusion (through hearing what atheists have to say and replying accordingly until I have come to a conclusion on what is true). That was my original intension...

We are. You posted, ignored a good proportion of intelligent and informed responses, and then started accusing us of being disrespectful. Standard martyr operating protocol.

It would be nice to pay more attension to what is said rather than the punctuation used to say it. Some good respectable Australian (of all nationallities) forum this is.

Grammar, punctuation and spelling are the basis of effective communication. If you don't punctuate correctly you often leave your words open to wide interpretation and misunderstanding.

I had thought that mateship still existed among a forum of this size with the Australian label. I spose *lest we forget* doesn't mean anything important here.

Red herring. If you want to play the martyr find a bunch of Romans prepared to stick you up on a cross. Otherwise, stop playing your own violin and start putting forth some intelligent discussion.

atheist_angel

2nd September 2009, 09:08 PM

Cosmic Teapot

2nd September 2009, 09:55 PM

Has anyone started the "Why do I see christians telling me what atheists believe" thread yet? Everytime I hear christians refer to atheists, they claim we can't have a good moral code unless we believe there is a judgement day.

Or, that we can't care about anything, outside ourselves, unless we believe there is an invisible man watching our every thought. We are very fedup with the other side of the coin, too...you know. :(

As recently demonstrated by Digitalos, some xtians honestly believe that atheism is a genuine "belief system".
My favorite reply to that is "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Unfortunately, most xtians are too thick to grasp the concept.

davo

2nd September 2009, 10:35 PM

I'd like to think those rules apply. I'd also like to think AFA members are a respectable bunch of people. Another thing I'd like to think is that I can come to a place like this (of all the places I could come to) to discuss what is and isn't true and come to a logical, reasonable conclusion (through hearing what atheists have to say and replying accordingly until I have come to a conclusion on what is true). That was my original intension...

Well two things I will point out sockdog,

1. You also think there is a god and have put forward no logical reasoning as such

2. You say you came here for logical reasoned discussion, but look at your discussion or lack of it, your original post was a definite judgmental troll, and your wondering why you got basically what you tried to do, a harsh reaction to that judgemental attitude.

If you wish a reasoned discussion, then answer the points raised, and get in dialogue, rather than just posting inflamatory opinion.

I had thought that mateship still existed among a forum of this size with the Australian label. I spose *lest we forget* doesn't mean anything important here.

C'mon sockdog, this is just an ad hominem attack as mentioned, this is what I am talking about. Why not stick to your 'higher morals' and show us 'lesser Australians' how to maintain a decent and convivial dialogue in the face of all this?

I suppose we won't see you again for a week or so, then you will pop in with something else to try and stir the pot again? sigh

atheist_angel

2nd September 2009, 11:21 PM

As recently demonstrated by Digitalos, some xtians honestly believe that atheism is a genuine "belief system".
My favorite reply to that is "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby".
Unfortunately, most xtians are too thick to grasp the concept.

I tend to agree. They just can't separate belief from anything. In my observation, people that have had their religious belief system morphed in with their self identity have difficulty grasping the concept of non-belief. They try to twist a non-belief into an alternate-belief.

I think one has to be a genuinely sincere person to stand up and walk away from religion. After all, it would be so much easier to maintain family and social acceptance to just go with the flow. But, that doesn't seem to be the part that's confusing them. Infact, they won't even acknowledge it.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

3rd September 2009, 08:15 AM

I have called a wwambulance!

Also this thread can go to Fantasy Island... that's where it belongs.

I say excellent move old chap.

davo

3rd September 2009, 08:15 AM

Sockdog is just trolling to try and find excuses to bolster their own belief system.

Ie: sockdog makes an assertion, with no evidence, and sticks to it, finding any excuse from anything thus occuring anywhere to justify that position.

typical theist.

TÐöer

3rd September 2009, 09:08 AM

to The Doer

looks to me like you have consideration and you are showing respect

so, i will read your(and others with your sort of attitude) posts and reply as is fitting before i read posts made by Davo for example

Hi sockdog,

I have replied your post here:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=25505#post25505

And 3 consecutive post here:
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=25519#post25519

Eager for your reply.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

3rd September 2009, 10:02 AM

wearestardust

3rd September 2009, 10:44 AM

I'd like to think those rules apply. I'd also like to It would be nice to pay more attension to what is said rather than the punctuation used to say it.

Welcome to the internet.

Here is what poking at your punctuation, grammar and spelling is likely to mean. Punctuation, grammar and standardised spelling have all developed over time to make life easier for the reader. They are not just this stuff that teachers invented to make life hard at school. Thus, these things are a sort of courtesy to the reader. So: when you get responses attacking your punctuation and so forth, the underlying message is likely to be something along the lines of: "not only did I not find anything worthwhile in your post, but you made it unduly hard for me to find that out".

Intelligent posts rarely get criticised for punctuation. But, then, there are a couple of reasons for that.

sockdog

3rd September 2009, 04:20 PM

No I don't like it when christians tell atheists what atheists believe.

No I don't agree with The Pope, Bishops etc

I dispise it when i am refered to as 'religious' because that is everything christians shouldn't be.

As for punctiation, it is much easier to understand text when people are not limited to punctuation. A typo in a otherwise correctly punctuated text can cause a totally different meaning. So, I go by a different 'punctuation' which you probably didn't recognise. I am sorry for the misunderstanding but I don't think it should have caused such a fuss.

I am still willing to discuss things but only as long as I am taken seriously.

I spose I really shouldn't have come here claiming to be 'christian'. It made ya's assume quite alot about me that I don't neccecarily agree with.

TheDoer seems to be the only person who is showing any restraint. Speaking of wich, I plan to be back on tommorrow to read those posts and reply, and thanks for your patience.

Has anyone started the "Why do I see christians telling me what atheists believe" thread yet? Everytime I hear christians refer to atheists, they claim we can't have a good moral code unless we believe there is a judgement day.

Or, that we can't care about anything, outside ourselves, unless we believe there is an invisible man watching our every thought. We are very fedup with the other side of the coin, too...you know. :(

Nice that we can agree on something!
FYI I always tell my christian teachers and friends that that morals argument doesn't count for anything but not all of them agree with me.

atheist_angel

3rd September 2009, 04:53 PM

we are still more than likely not going to change our actions, but rather explain the reasoning behind our actions. If your interested in hearing some of my reasons@sockdog, I wish I had seen that coming, but I have a deficit that prevents it. I will suggest that maybe you didn't read my other posts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you did read them, then shame on you!

At least atheists, know what they are talking about with regards to religion, whereas the religious don't know what they are talking about in regards the atheism.

Mister Pervert

3rd September 2009, 04:59 PM

As for punctiation, it is much easier to understand text when people are not limited to punctuation. A typo in a otherwise correctly punctuated text can cause a totally different meaning. So, I go by a different 'punctuation' which you probably didn't recognise. I am sorry for the misunderstanding but I don't think it should have caused such a fuss.

No biggie, sockdog. People often write to me and ask, "Are you an intellectual?" After I correct their spelling and grammar mistakes I reply, "Yes, I am." Or, as Plato might have said, "Yes, he is."

wearestardust

3rd September 2009, 05:16 PM

No I don't like it when christians tell atheists what atheists believe.

As for punctiation, it is much easier to understand text when people are not limited to punctuation.

No. No it's not.

Back on topic. I posed a question for you upthread. Or perhaps I mused on an issue rather than directly posed a question. Anyway, it went like this. I find that very frequently when religionists get into debate and points are raised about the evils perpetrated by their faiths (eg hatred, killing, silly clothing), they duck the issue and come out with an assertion that, really, no-one in their faith really thinks that, or if they do then they're not really following the faith. The end result is that it seems that religionists never seem to hold any views at all according to this line. For example, Waleed Aly in the book "People like us" manages pretty much to excise the entire Shia community from Islam because they have some views on hierarchy that are inconvenient for his particular apologetics.

So, what do you think?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

3rd September 2009, 05:24 PM

@sockdog, I wish I had seen that coming, but I have a deficit that prevents it. I will suggest that maybe you didn't read my other posts to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you did read them, then shame on you!

At least atheists, know what they are talking about with regards to religion, whereas the religious don't know what they are talking about in regards the atheism.Apparently religious don't know what they are talking about in regards to religion either ;)

SinisterDexter

3rd September 2009, 06:25 PM

No I don't like it when christians tell atheists what atheists believe.

No I don't agree with The Pope, Bishops etc

I dispise it when i am refered to as 'religious' because that is everything christians shouldn't be.

It is, by definition, what every christian, including you, is. That doesn't mean there isn't massive variation within the group, and what we have been trying to tell you is that we understand this. Probably better than you.

As for punctiation, it is much easier to understand text when people are not limited to punctuation. A typo in a otherwise correctly punctuated text can cause a totally different meaning. So, I go by a different 'punctuation' which you probably didn't recognise. I am sorry for the misunderstanding but I don't think it should have caused such a fuss.

English developed punctuation to make things easier to understand. Text is easier to understand when punctuation is used correctly and consistently. Yes, emoticons can assist with the tone or timbre of a post, but on the whole a well written and punctuated post is much easier to understand than unpunctuated rambling.

If you want to make up your own language, find a different spot to do it. Here we use English.

I am still willing to discuss things but only as long as I am taken seriously.

You have yet to say anything credible. Despite that, many of us have taken you "seriously" and have posted intelligent rebuttals to your posts which you choose not to engage with. When you do, you may be treated with more respect - but respect is earned, not granted.

I spose I really shouldn't have come here claiming to be 'christian'. It made ya's assume quite alot about me that I don't neccecarily agree with.

When you make claims about "christians" as a group while also trying to stand apart as a "true christian" it comes across as inconsistent, hypocritical and as an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (google it if you don't know it). If you want to discuss what you believe and why, go right ahead. But you need to define very carefully what it is you believe and, as yet, you haven't done that.

TheDoer seems to be the only person who is showing any restraint. Speaking of wich, I plan to be back on tommorrow to read those posts and reply, and thanks for your patience.

All we have is patience sockdog. Restraint is something no-one should expect on a forum and this forum's residents do not pull punches. You have the option of sucking this up and continuing, or whining like a martyr and going home with your tail between your legs. It is a simple choice.

Nice that we can agree on something!

I don't think you will find any disagreement here that there are many types of christianity. But there are times when they can be grouped together for the purposes of an argument and trying to be pedantic (given that, at the most fundamental, each christian will have a slightly different faith to the next) is silly. You haven't brought us anything new yet - this is why you are being pilloried.

FYI I always tell my christian teachers and friends that that morals argument doesn't count for anything but not all of them agree with me.

Well, in this, at least, you show some wisdom. Morals as a consequence of either Jesus' example or the threat of hell do not give enough credit to human beings for being inherently moral. What we, as atheists, tend to object to most strongly is that most christians proclaim scripture as the ultimate source of morals, which implies they are unchanging and blunt in application. We like morals that can change to reflect better understandings of complicated situations (so they can better serve to the betterment of humanity) and morals that are subtle in application toward those complicated situations.

SinisterDexter

3rd September 2009, 06:27 PM

No. No it's not.

Back on topic. I posed a question for you upthread. Or perhaps I mused on an issue rather than directly posed a question. Anyway, it went like this. I find that very frequently when religionists get into debate and points are raised about the evils perpetrated by their faiths (eg hatred, killing, silly clothing), they duck the issue and come out with an assertion that, really, no-one in their faith really thinks that, or if they do then they're not really following the faith. The end result is that it seems that religionists never seem to hold any views at all according to this line. For example, Waleed Aly in the book "People like us" manages pretty much to excise the entire Shia community from Islam because they have some views on hierarchy that are inconvenient for his particular apologetics.

So, what do you think?

For the record, sockdog, this is an excellent explanation of the aforementioned "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks DC. ;)

wearestardust

4th September 2009, 10:54 AM

For the record, sockdog, this is an excellent explanation of the aforementioned "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Thanks DC. ;)

And I'd never heard of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy before this thread! By dog I've had an independent thought, even if after someone else thought of it. A rare thing, especially in my line of business (public serpent).

I'm disturbed to find that the NTS fallacy was thought up by Anthony Flew, though. It clearly didn't help him.

BTW you probably should call me WAS here, given the fascist requirement of having more than two letters in one's nickname. Probably something to do with the trinity.

sockdog

4th September 2009, 05:52 PM

I hope you guys don't mind, if I fight fire with fire by bringing up Buddhism.

To Christians, Sorry about the topic title. Just wanted to drag you in here for the discussion. np
But nice that you should ask.
Edit: Well, not 'ask' but ya get the point.

This is my argument: You claim that GOD is good. If he wasn't then whatever the bible says is all bullshit and there is no point wondering whether he exist or not. Or rather, if he isn't good then that is not the god I want to serve, regardless of existance.

Alas from all that you have told me, about God's good ways it does not hold up, to Buddhism.

To start it off, here's some examples:

Christianity: God requires you not to kill, unless it is God's enemies (abortionist, witches, and those who introduce you to other religions)
Buddhism: The Buddha says no killing. Period!
No, not quite.

Mathew 5:21

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,a]" class="footnote">[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#fen-NIV-23256a)] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb]" class="footnote">[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#fen-NIV-23257b)]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,c]" class="footnote">[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#fen-NIV-23257c)]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#en-NIV-23256) Exodus 20:13
Matthew 5:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#en-NIV-23257) Some manuscripts brother without cause
Matthew 5:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-24#en-NIV-23257) An Aramaic term of contempt

Hatred/selfish motives is the sin, so only hateful/selfish killing, not who you kill.

Christianity: God RULES all, if he gives you shit, you deserved it. Your puny existence have no right to question his wisdom.
Buddhism: Life sux, you should try to elevate your own suffering and don't pass it to others, as "what goes around comes around"I'm not sure where but it does say in there that you should question all things, that includes the bible.

You are not however, allowed to test God. eg. jump off a cliff saying "God'll save me" also eg. Asking God to do a miracle to prove his existance.

Everybody gets crap, though God teaches people if they are willing often through the crap.

Christianity: To err is human AKA Sinners. God will punish them in hell.
Buddhism: To err is human, we should not punish these people. Thus we should not kill even though those whose bad deeds lead them to be born as livestock or insects we should not kill or abuse them.God is not half as interested in sin as he is in people being mates with Jesus(ie. on judgement day Jesus says along the lines of "Nah, he's me mate and he's given it a bloody good chop.")

Christianity: Everything on this earth is yours. Go and get it! When it's depleted. God will replenish them in heaven.
Buddhism: Nothing on this earth is permanent. We should live according to our means and do not crave for anything. Since craving = suffering.I think you'll find, along the lines of
"...do not store up treasures on earth where moths destroy and thieves come in and steal but store up treasure in heaven..."

Everything on earth was ours untill they ate the fruit. We are superior over animals and have been given the right to eat them cooked. We are not given the right to eat lumps of animal fat(obvious reasons).

What is with the pig then? Wild pigs eat anything, to this day they shouldn't be eaten for health reasons unless they've been living on crops. Makes sense that God would be aware of this. See why OT and NT are different? That's one reason, we now have demestic pigs.

Christianity: Forget wrong doings, forget doing right, have faith and everything will be good. (A concept easily abused)
Buddhism: Forget your pass, only your present and try to achieve right mind, and action. However be warned that your pass may catch up with you. It's up to you to correct it.Ask for forgiveness from God & the victum. Then forget, as God forgets it.
You'll find that loving Jesus (like ya best mate) as he loves you is all that is required.

"...seek first God and everything will be given unto you."

Christianity: All you need is faith. Any doubts is your sin/arrogance/or the devil pulling you away.
Buddhism: You need to practice right thought, right action. but to truly understand, you must experience it yourself.No, faith is one of the things. The devil plans and scemes to take everybody down with him. The devil is NOT omnipresent and niether are his cohorts(AKA demons, ex-angels).

Selfishness causes problems, amoung those problems is doubt.

Christianity: Gives awe, by so called Miracles (dubious, and questionable statistical possibilities)
Buddhism: Gives awe by saying the 'Truth'I take it you have seen few to nil miracles? They are a bonus. God gives awe by revealing himself to people.

Bottom line: God's teachings are pretty primitive and if God does not exist, it will be a huge tragic joke on human kind. Whether God does or does not exist, Buddhist principles applies.
__________________Yes, from what I've heard about Bhuddism, it's principles are pretty good but that doesn't change the truth. Yes, if God doesn't exist it is a huge tragic joke on mankind.

I disagree with you on the primitive teachings though, ever hear that the ark not only could fit all the animals(when they arn't too old and thus, big) but it is the best shape for stability in water. Do the physics.

Ever notice that OT laws are a kind of quarantine system?

sockdog

4th September 2009, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by wearestardust http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=27261#post27261)
No. No it's not.

Back on topic. I posed a question for you upthread. Or perhaps I mused on an issue rather than directly posed a question. Anyway, it went like this. I find that very frequently when religionists get into debate and points are raised about the evils perpetrated by their faiths (eg hatred, killing, silly clothing), they duck the issue and come out with an assertion that, really, no-one in their faith really thinks that, or if they do then they're not really following the faith. The end result is that it seems that religionists never seem to hold any views at all according to this line. For example, Waleed Aly in the book "People like us" manages pretty much to excise the entire Shia community from Islam because they have some views on hierarchy that are inconvenient for his particular apologetics.

So, what do you think?

A list of questions on what I believe perhaps?

Otherwise I'm merely guessing what you want me to make clear about my opinion/belief.

sockdog

4th September 2009, 06:16 PM

gotta go, lightning outside

Dave

4th September 2009, 06:33 PM

TÐöer

5th September 2009, 02:03 AM

Hi Sockdog, thanks for the reply. Your answer seems reasonable, but I have spotted some issues.

Thanks for not condemning Buddhism, but I really do not, mind, the purpose of the comparison, is to show, that If God exist, why doesn't his religion hold up, to a man made religion?

Christianity: God requires you not to kill, unless it is God's enemies (abortionist, witches, and those who introduce you to other religions)
Buddhism: The Buddha says no killing. Period!

Mathew 5:21
Hatred/selfish motives is the sin, so only hateful/selfish killing, not who you kill.

That bible quote made little sense to me. I'm not sure, what's with the brothers squables. but from what you said... "not who you kill". Exactly, that bible quote was from the section on "Murder" Which means, whatever is deemed murder to Christianity is a Sin. But getting rid of sinners, isn't murder. And Jesus dealt death to non believers, plenty of times himself.

And the church has encouraged killing plenty of times, this can be seen in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Witch hunts, etc.

It's easy to say that those bad things that God did, back then, were the OT. But still it is served together, without identifying to believers... this ... this and this... part, should not be emulated... however this... and this... should be followed. Jesus has just left it open for his followers to interpret, and from how he punished sinners, I wouldn't be surprised if he supports the OT.

Either it was done, then or now. The atrocities which God has done (Do I need to quote?), is beyond acceptable.

Buddhism is much better. "Don't kill". No escape clauses.

Christianity: God RULES all, if he gives you shit, you deserved it. Your puny existence have no right to question his wisdom.
Buddhism: Life sux, you should try to elevate your own suffering and don't pass it to others, as "what goes around comes around"

I'm not sure where but it does say in there that you should question all things, that includes the bible.

You are not however, allowed to test God. eg. jump off a cliff saying "God'll save me" also eg. Asking God to do a miracle to prove his existance.

Everybody gets crap, though God teaches people if they are willing often through the crap.

Pointless, This is what a fellow Christian said, after he could not defend God anymore.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Beefy: The Russian was right (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1484&page=6)

No matter how you question God or the bible, in the end, a Christian has to believe in Jesus and that's it: 'Faith' What Jesus repeats over and over. Not through his actions, his evidence, or his proofs. He says the road to salvation is merely 'Faith' (I'm sure you agree, tell me if you need a quote). So even after you have done your little mind exercise, and all logic points in the opposite direction to God, you still need to believe in him. Am I correct?

And correct me if I am wrong, that disbelievers go to hell, whether you were as pure as a flawed human can be in life, if you don't believe in Jesus, you go straight to hell! Is there room, not to believe?

Christianity: To err is human AKA Sinners. God will punish them in hell.
Buddhism: To err is human, we should not punish these people. Thus we should not kill even though those whose bad deeds lead them to be born as livestock or insects we should not kill or abuse them.

God is not half as interested in sin as he is in people being mates with Jesus(ie. on judgement day Jesus says along the lines of "Nah, he's me mate and he's given it a bloody good chop.")

Ya sure, you escape, if you believe in him. But for the rest of your friends and family, who are not Christian, they go to hell, while you look gleefully at them from heaven.

Am I not right in saying, that Buddhism, forgives more than God?

Christianity: Everything on this earth is yours. Go and get it! When it's depleted. God will replenish them in heaven.
Buddhism: Nothing on this earth is permanent. We should live according to our means and do not crave for anything. Since craving = suffering.

I think you'll find, along the lines of
"...do not store up treasures on earth where moths destroy and thieves come in and steal but store up treasure in heaven..."

Everything on earth was ours untill they ate the fruit. We are superior over animals and have been given the right to eat them cooked. We are not given the right to eat lumps of animal fat(obvious reasons).

What is with the pig then? Wild pigs eat anything, to this day they shouldn't be eaten for health reasons unless they've been living on crops. Makes sense that God would be aware of this. See why OT and NT are different? That's one reason, we now have demestic pigs.

Yes exactly (see your quote in Bold), overall, Christians believe it's their God given right, to reap from this earth. But of course, Faith is better since it promises eternal salvation. It matters not. Christians feel that they are allowed to do as they please with this earth. You can see that, in America and Africa, where the animals were wasted, just for the sport of it. God has claimed to have given Chrsitians the "you can do anything to this earth" card. Don't worry, I will reset.

Christianity: Forget wrong doings, forget doing right, have faith and everything will be good. (A concept easily abused)
Buddhism: Forget your pass, only your present and try to achieve right mind, and action. However be warned that your pass may catch up with you. It's up to you to correct it.

Ask for forgiveness from God & the victum. Then forget, as God forgets it.
You'll find that loving Jesus (like ya best mate) as he loves you is all that is required.

"...seek first God and everything will be given unto you."

Sounds, nice, but it matters not. Many Christians have told me, that A Christian Robber or Rappist can sooner go to heaven, then a kind hearted non Christian. Because god forgives.... unless of course, if you were a non believer... then he has prepared Hell.

The Buddha, smites no one. And does not demand faith, in order for people to be considered good.

Christianity: All you need is faith. Any doubts is your sin/arrogance/or the devil pulling you away.
Buddhism: You need to practice right thought, right action. but to truly understand, you must experience it yourself.

No, faith is one of the things. The devil plans and scemes to take everybody down with him. The devil is NOT omnipresent and niether are his cohorts(AKA demons, ex-angels).

Selfishness causes problems, amoung those problems is doubt.

I'm not concerned how powerful the devil is. This is new.... I could have sworn, I read a passage where Jesus says, all you need is faith. Explain then, in your version of Christianity, what else, is required, that with faith alone, disqualifies you from entering heaven.

Christianity: Gives awe, by so called Miracles (dubious, and questionable statistical possibilities)
Buddhism: Gives awe by saying the 'Truth'

I take it you have seen few to nil miracles? They are a bonus. God gives awe by revealing himself to people.

I've seen plenty of miracles. Most of it were attributed to other gods. What would you say to a Buddhist, who believes the Goddess of Mercy has answered her prayers and saved her Son from Brain Tumour?

Well god or no god. Statistics has shown that both believers and non believers, have got 'good' and 'bad' coming to them at the same rate. Otherwise, doctors will start prescribing Christianity.

Now look at Buddhism. What converted many to Buddhism, is not because, they suddenly saw the Buddha. It was simply because, of certain words of wisdom, that they realised were infinitely true. For example: To Cling is to suffer.

Bottom line: God's teachings are pretty primitive and if God does not exist, it will be a huge tragic joke on human kind. Whether God does or does not exist, Buddhist principles applies.

Yes, from what I've heard about Bhuddism, it's principles are pretty good but that doesn't change the truth. Yes, if God doesn't exist it is a huge tragic joke on mankind.

I disagree with you on the primitive teachings though, ever hear that the ark not only could fit all the animals(when they arn't too old and thus, big) but it is the best shape for stability in water. Do the physics.

Ever notice that OT laws are a kind of quarantine system?

Thanks for the good word on Buddhism.

I see no reason for quarantine. God knew that adam and eve was going for the apple, which eventually, willl make all man have sin, thus the need for the flood, which Ultimately does not remove man's sin.

How is this primitive? Making claims without proper, blue prints or explanation as to how, such a feat maybe possible during such a backward time. Look at modern records and you will see the difference in recording standards. Also, look at the story... do you not see a trend, that the feat of man were out of proportion in OT, compared to NT, where only Jesus had those powers? Making wild claims, doesn't that sound like works of a primitive man?

Why I said God's teachings are pretty primitive? Look at the 10 Commandments. I only need 1 to say the 9: "Don't do unto others what we don't want others to do unto us."

The remaining 1, is not necessary for humans, to live happy meaningful lives.

TÐöer

5th September 2009, 04:21 AM

Wow... unbelievable. I reached the Post Max length, with that last post....

atheist_angel

5th September 2009, 03:47 PM

sockdog

5th September 2009, 04:05 PM

sockdog

5th September 2009, 04:16 PM

Can I ask in all honesty Sockdog, when you open the bible and start reading at what point do you say "Well hell yeah that makes perfect sense"? An honest question.:) This is a question I would really like answered, if you choose to of course.

The bible when read in context makes perfect sense. I read the bible and think about what the surrounding circumsances were. So I try to think about things through thier eyes and ponder on wheather or not it fits.

And generally, there are but a few things that do not yet make sense but those are the things wich either do not effect truth and/or I havn't thought about much yet.

So yeah, not really a "point" per say, it's on averege about once every 5 verses(wich are usually 1-3 sentences each).

good question:)

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 05:36 PM

Is it not true that God killed billions of people in a flash flood? That's more than Hitler killed - so God is worse than Hitler. You know what that's called? Ruling with fear and intimidation.

sockdog

5th September 2009, 05:50 PM

Pointless, This is what a fellow Christian said, after he could not defend God anymore.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Beefy: The Russian was right (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1484&page=6)

I'll have to read up on that another time, but it's my guess that he was annoyed when nobody understood that wich he couldn't have said any simpler. Just a guess, I'll read it when next i have the time.

No matter how you question God or the bible, in the end, a Christian has to believe in Jesus and that's it: 'Faith' What Jesus repeats over and over. Not through his actions, his evidence, or his proofs. He says the road to salvation is merely 'Faith' (I'm sure you agree, tell me if you need a quote). So even after you have done your little mind exercise, and all logic points in the opposite direction to God, you still need to believe in him. Am I correct?

I see no point in wasting my life on false beliefs. I intend to find out the truth.

And correct me if I am wrong, that disbelievers go to hell, whether you were as pure as a flawed human can be in life, if you don't believe in Jesus, you go straight to hell! Is there room, not to believe?

If you could be totally selfless then I reckon you'd go to heaven, but who the hell is totally selfless?

Belief and serving God. Even the demons believe he exists.

Ya sure, you escape, if you believe in him. But for the rest of your friends and family, who are not Christian, they go to hell, while you look gleefully at them from heaven.

Reward and Punishment. Not escape-from/surcum-to some kind of inevitable doom. And I reckon God should get justice some day. As for friends and family, I ccan't really explain it in a way that you understand so I'll hold my tongue lest you interpret something else. I'll have a think about how to explain it.

Am I not right in saying, that Buddhism, forgives more than God?

God forgives those who ask it(and whoever asks it, must regret it). Bhuddism forgives all. hmmm...does that make bhuddism better?

Yes exactly (see your quote in Bold), overall, Christians believe it's their God given right, to reap from this earth. But of course, Faith is better since it promises eternal salvation. It matters not. Christians feel that they are allowed to do as they please with this earth. You can see that, in America and Africa, where the animals were wasted, just for the sport of it. God has claimed to have given Chrsitians the "you can do anything to this earth" card. Don't worry, I will reset.

It is selfish to exessively kill animals(Keep in mind that if we let dingos breed up animals will go extinct). It is squandering what God has given you.

Sounds, nice, but it matters not. Many Christians have told me, that A Christian Robber or Rappist can sooner go to heaven, then a kind hearted non Christian. Because god forgives.... unless of course, if you were a non believer... then he has prepared Hell.

I have not yet met anyone who hasn't acted selfishly in thier life. I imagine if they didn't regret the robbing or raping, they wouldn't end up in heaven.

Makes sense that kind hearted non-christians will, by the mercy of God, be shown the way. it's up to them to take it.

The Buddha, smites no one. And does not demand faith, in order for people to be considered good.

And who, do you think God smites(if he exists)?

I'm not concerned how powerful the devil is. This is new.... I could have sworn, I read a passage where Jesus says, all you need is faith. Explain then, in your version of Christianity, what else, is required, that with faith alone, disqualifies you from entering heaven.

Neither am I concerned about the power of the devil, I'd be much more comfortable with him next to me where I can keep an eye on him.

I've seen plenty of miracles. Most of it were attributed to other gods. What would you say to a Buddhist, who believes the Goddess of Mercy has answered her prayers and saved her Son from Brain Tumour?

After "Hi, how are you?" I would ask if I could see her son and ask her son the exact delails. I would then ponder. After much pondering I would come to a coinclusion.

Well god or no god. Statistics has shown that both believers and non believers, have got 'good' and 'bad' coming to them at the same rate. Otherwise, doctors will start prescribing Christianity.

The bible specificully says that christians will be persecuted because of Christ. Christians are to learn from 'bad', if eventually.

Now look at Buddhism. What converted many to Buddhism, is not because, they suddenly saw the Buddha. It was simply because, of certain words of wisdom, that they realised were infinitely true. For example: To Cling is to suffer.

What keeps me christian is the coincidences of answered prayers, and the little things that make me think "That makes sense scientificully, morrally etc".

Thanks for the good word on Buddhism.

Good to know:)

I see no reason for quarantine. God knew that adam and eve was going for the apple, which eventually, willl make all man have sin, thus the need for the flood, which Ultimately does not remove man's sin.

Quarantine of diseases. There was a need since too many miracles would, I suspect, destroy the purpose of faith.

God knew they could have resisted the devil. Not only that but "resist the devil and he will flee from you"

I have some theories about God, The devil and future seeing but it is far too much speculation.

How is this primitive? Making claims without proper, blue prints or explanation as to how, such a feat maybe possible during such a backward time.
Makes sense that if God knew how to make it he sure as hell knows how to do a whole range of feats, far beyond what we can accumplish now.

Look at modern records and you will see the difference in recording standards.

Did you expect them to speak english(AU)?

Also, look at the story... do you not see a trend, that the feat of man were out of proportion in OT, compared to NT, where only Jesus had those powers? Making wild claims, doesn't that sound like works of a primitive man?

No person hass powers, but can have the HS living inside of him/her. It is the HS that has powers. (and Jesus and God and to a lesser extent the devil)

Why I said God's teachings are pretty primitive? Look at the 10 Commandments. I only need 1 to say the 9: "Don't do unto others what we don't want others to do unto us."

The remaining 1, is not necessary for humans, to live happy meaningful lives.[/quote]

"Don't do unto others what we don't want others to do unto us."
Isn't this, in other words, what Jesus said exept his version was more possitive implying also that if you want others to help you, start helping others.

The Israelites were a stubborn bunch of people. They needed more specific instructions.

stuff, what a spiel :P

sockdog

5th September 2009, 05:54 PM

Is it not true that God killed billions of people in a flash flood? That's more than Hitler killed - so God is worse than Hitler. You know what that's called? Ruling with fear and intimidation.

It's my understanding that had those people lived, more people(ie thier sons and daughters etc) would end up in hell. And so someonehas shown me when God smited people. Must have been hard on God, eh?

Edit: But still, God and Jesus are not the same person. Although they think the same and are both 'good'.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 05:55 PM

It's my understanding that had those people lived, more people(ie thier sons and daughters etc) would end up in hell. And so someonehas shown me when God smited people. Must have been hard on God, eh?Ah I get it. So the mass murder was to get them into hell sooner - Sounds quite logical don't you reckon? ;)

atheist_angel

5th September 2009, 06:05 PM

I think I got ignored. :(

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 06:27 PM

It's my understanding that had those people lived, more people(ie thier sons and daughters etc) would end up in hell. And so someonehas shown me when God smited people. Must have been hard on God, eh?

Edit: But still, God and Jesus are not the same person. Although they think the same and are both 'good'.
Are you kidding? The Bible says God (who is the father of Jesus) = Jesus (who is the son of God)

sockdog

5th September 2009, 06:28 PM

What is your real purpose for creating this thread? Are you trying to show us that christians aren't so bad? Are you trying to convince us that religion is true? Are you trying to work though your mixed feelings, in regards to your fellow christians; or your own beliefs? Are you seeking a higher purpose? Are you considering non-belief? What is your real purpose for creating this thread? :confused:

Initially, to set the record straight, to show atheists what christians really believe and to show to atheists that there are 'christians' and there are disciples of christ. To show which is which.

It was not my intension to 'convert' people. I do only so much without God/Jesus revealing himself to you.

Also, I usually enjoy talking about science, particularly with regards to christianity.

Not to mention the prompting by the HS.

atm I have no doubts about christianity but I am always, or try to be, open to the opinions of others.
I know my purpose and am quite solid in my feelings toward christianity atm.

If I think of anything more to say in regards to this post/my intentions I will say so.

As for needing faith only, I'll think about it and maybe ask a more knowlegeable christian than myself.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 06:30 PM

We can tell what Christians believe because of what they say about their religion and what the religion actually teaches (based on the Bible) - you guys love picking and choosing whatever you want to follow and ignore the rest.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 06:43 PM

Tell me have you ever ridden a motorcycle before? If so then do you know how to operate it - or does God magically help you even though you don't know how to operate one? If so how come the Bible doesn't tell you how to ride a motorcycle? It is the word of an almighty God who knows everything isn't it?

sockdog

5th September 2009, 06:54 PM

The "surrounding circumstances" were a bunch of ignorant bronze age goat herders in a time when the wheel barrow was an emerging technology... Good grief man... it seems you have captured the era perfectly ;)

As in who was the king of the country at the time and what would he be likely to do? The OT spans alot of time.

sockdog

5th September 2009, 06:56 PM

I think I got ignored. :(
I've replied to what I think you're refering to and wanna say that if anyone says anything serious that needs a reply, i'll try to reply.

sockdog

5th September 2009, 06:58 PM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 07:01 PM

It tells people very obviously how to live a life.All I see is something resembling "fight fight kill maim smash destroy fight fight kill fight murder kill and fight" and nothing about how to live a life. What about driving a car/riding a motorcycle - that's part of "living a life" isn't it? Telephones are part of "living a life" and so is computers and television. None of them have been mentioned in "the word of God" have they?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

5th September 2009, 07:09 PM

I was referring more to the authors of the bable ;)Uncyclopedia reveals the truth (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bible)

Dave

5th September 2009, 10:24 PM

The bible when read in context makes perfect sense. I read the bible and think about what the surrounding circumsances were. So I try to think about things through thier eyes and ponder on wheather or not it fits.

And generally, there are but a few things that do not yet make sense but those are the things wich either do not effect truth and/or I havn't thought about much yet.

So yeah, not really a "point" per say, it's on averege about once every 5 verses(wich are usually 1-3 sentences each).

good question:)

Sorry to take so long to reply. I wonder if that's more wishfull thinking than reality when you suggest you try to ponder whether something fits. It's just that I simply cannot get burning bushes, talking snakes, fish and bread that multiplies amongst many other things to fit in with my everyday reality or my perception of past reality. So I am wondering how you reconcile these things as making sense?:)

TÐöer

6th September 2009, 03:41 AM

Thanks for the feedback. Looks like they may be a thing or two we could learn from each other.

Originally Posted by TheDoer http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=27537#post27537)

That bible quote made little sense to me. I'm not sure, what's with the brothers squables. but from what you said... "not who you kill". Exactly, that bible quote was from the section on "Murder" Which means, whatever is deemed murder to Christianity is a Sin. But getting rid of sinners, isn't murder. And Jesus dealt death to non believers, plenty of times himself.

Murder is selfish killing of humans by humans.
It is God's will that none should perish but all should have eternal life, so knocking off sinners doesn't help the cause.
Jesus dealt death? Lets see, I recal Jesus stopped his disciples from defending him. (Peters swing of the sword that chopped off the bloke's ear, if it missed and killed the bloke, though it didn't, would be considered alright because of his motives.)

Can't seem to recal Jesus killing anyone. Unless you mean OT laws made by God that involve capital punishment(That's what they call it isn't it?).

Alright, I've gone through, where I thought I last saw that quote, apparently I was mistaken, Jesus did not ask anyone to be killed, rather, said that he comes to them with a sword. And that men will fight among themselves because of him. And that no mercy will be given to sinners who do not repent. I retract my statement, that Jesus dealt death, but my initial point stilll rings true. 1. God kills. in the OT, like the example Crocodile has given, Noah's ark. (There's much more examples of course) 2. Killings, and not "murders" (as Christians call it) do occur through out Christianity.

And the church has encouraged killing plenty of times, this can be seen in the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Witch hunts, etc.
Oh, yes...I knew somebody'd bring those things up, and I could add a few more to that list.

Anyway, what you'll find is that none of that was done for God and to this day there are people that still do things that only seerve to demerit Christ, Christianity, God. From what I hear, there are quite a few tv-evangalists like that in america, but since I don't live there i can't say for sure.

You may say it was not done for God, but most who participated, definately thought they were doing God's bidding. And surely, you still agree, that they were good Christians. That's just it, you see, Christianity, can be easily abused to justify killing. Don't ask me how they came to that conclusion, I'm not a Christian.

It's easy to say that those bad things that God did, back then, were the OT.

No, God did not do or support the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts. That doesn't mean the devil supported them though, he is, after all, not omnipresent.

I was refering to Noah's ark, etc. which you would say is not applicable, since it was back then. The crusades, occured after OT.

But still it is served together, without identifying to believers... this ... this and this... part, should not be emulated... however this... and this... should be followed.

The new testimont stresses that only motives count (if you are angry with your brother you have already murdered him in your heart). If you love Jesus as I mentioned before, your motives will be good.

Luke 14:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14:26&version=NIV)
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Jesus would sooner you murder kin, then not be his disciple.

The OT says to people "an eye for an eye".

Yep, and did Jesus say, "that was the old one? Please don't follow?"

It was left for followers to find exclusions, to the case of forgiving. And we all can see that in the death penalty. Whose to say, what is Christian and is not the Christian thing to do? When both the violence and the forgiving came from the same book? Why wasn't Jesus Clearer??

While some other religions say "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you."

Jesus says "Do to others what you would have them do to you."
Notice that you get the option of helping people instead of not hurting.

"Do to others what you would have them do to you." - does this include shoving the bible into peoples faces, and breaking families? When You know that you wouldn't want others to preach Atheism, to your children when you aren't home.

Oh well, basically, both meant similar, I could have easily coined it as Jesus put it. The geist is, to man: be your own judge as to right and wrong.

The fact is that, that point is less important then to love God. And when it comes to judgement, remember the 10 Commandments, remember God comes first, even if it means, you hate your kin, or perform an act, which you believe is right, because God might want you too.

If all you see is God, you tend to err.

Jesus has just left it open for his followers to interpret, and from how he punished sinners, I wouldn't be surprised if he supports the OT.

No, Jesus put as plane and simple as he could, on several occasions. He's even got billions(actual figure is irrelevent) of copies of it printed around the world.

Matt 19:16-26
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, "'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,
19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
He loved money more than God. His motives were his own salvation and money which is selfish.

Tell the Buddhist monks in the monastry, they gave everything up, and not even for God.

Have you sold your possessions and given to the poor?

Jesus still does not say, do not follow the OT. He just emphasize on the 10 commandments.

Either it was done, then or now. The atrocities which God has done (Do I need to quote?), is beyond acceptable.

Yes, please quote.

Judges 20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+14:26&version=NIV)
18 The Israelites went up to Bethel [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2020&version=NIV#fen-NIV-7073b)] and inquired of God. They said, "Who of us shall go first to fight against the Benjamites?"
The LORD replied, "Judah shall go first."

23 The Israelites went up and wept before the LORD until evening, and they inquired of the LORD. They said, "Shall we go up again to battle against the Benjamites, our brothers?"
The LORD answered, "Go up against them."

28 with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, ministering before it.) They asked, "Shall we go up again to battle with Benjamin our brother, or not?"
The LORD responded, "Go, for tomorrow I will give them into your hands."

Funny is it not? in the OT, God, wants brother to fight against brother, just because of a small group of man, who did wrong, he brought the tribe, to the brink of extinction. Then later God, performed more atrocities, by asking them to kidnap virgin woman. All this could have been averted, but God wanted it to fall through and he stoked the fire.

Buddhism is much better. "Don't kill". No escape clauses.

So if a bhuddist kid has a weapon of some sort and 1m away is a bloke who has strapped to him, quite a large bomb and is walking into a crowded shopping centre, that kid is not allowed to kill that person to prevent more deaths. Whereas if the kid was christian he would have every right to kill that person, providing he was doing so with the intension of saving the people in the shopping centre.

You're putting up a strawman, by running a scenario, to potray both religions to be the same. That does not change the fact, that alot of killing has been done in the name of Christianity and God kills.

And secondly, your scenario has nothing to do with either Religion. That is a human choice to make. You won't catch, a Buddhist monk carrying a gun, or any reason for others to kill Buddhist monks, except to kill for their own religious justifications. And for a buddhist policeman, well, that's completely up to him. He is only human, and following the law after all.

I'm not quite understanding your reasoning behind "much better".

Whereas, the Buddha doesn't kill.

There was no rebirth, then telling his disciple, what he said previously, were no longer applicable. No OT, NT.

SinisterDexter

6th September 2009, 08:29 AM

I think I got ignored. :(

Ha! Me too. Although I did tell him he could. I also suggested he answer davo's posts, however, as they will be the hardest critique he will have to face. It's nice that my admonitions had such a ringing effect however.

SinisterDexter

6th September 2009, 08:33 AM

As in who was the king of the country at the time and what would he be likely to do? The OT spans alot of time.

Actually, the original statement is true on many levels that I'm not sure you intended. The OT, particularly Genesis and Exodus, is set in about the 13th century BCE. However it is much more likely to have been put together as a political analogy to justify the actions of later monarchs, particularly Benjamin, in their thirst for conquest.

atheist_angel

6th September 2009, 08:50 AM

wearestardust

6th September 2009, 09:08 AM

A list of questions on what I believe perhaps?

Otherwise I'm merely guessing what you want me to make clear about my opinion/belief.

I was probably asking you what you think about the issue that it is very difficult to pin down Christians to what they think, so that a discussion can be had. My immediate next post will address this a bit more as well as posing some related questions.

wearestardust

6th September 2009, 09:27 AM

np
Or rather, if he isn't good then that is not the god I want to serve,

Well. So what are you going to do? Are you going to:

1. cease to serve God?

2. take a theological approach that says that, even though god did and does things that if he were not god, would be unutterably evil, within an Abrahamic faith context are somehow argued as flowing from his love? (*)

3. say "my god would not do those evils" and edit out of putative factual truth the various evils of god (and thereby define god in your image)? Not laughing at you, it's a standard Christian move to say "my god doesn't/wouldn't ..." even when it's right there in the Bible.

4. retract your statement?

Second question. Are you anti-gay? If you are, it's OK, the Bible says you should be. If you aren't, why not and why do you pick not to perform that particular kind Biblical injunction? Especially when you seem to be hung up on OT stuff. But if you do believe that practicing as a gay person is wrong, riddle me this. Not the standard "do you burn witches", but: do you have money in interest-bearing accounts? According to the Bible, god really really really hates interest on loans. Really. Why do you ignore that? (As an aside, why are you so hung up on OT food laws when in Acts they are abolished?).

Third question. Or maybe it's just a point for reflection and general response. The standard answer to my previous question about interest is that the Bible talks about "usury" which s theological cholars say is 'unreasonable' interest'. You also quote, upthread, Jesus on the issue of murder and being angry. Now, plenty of conservative christians say "murder" is "illegal killing". So killing people in war or, and this is the real point, executing them, is fine. Do you agree or not? In any case, lots of other Christians don't agree with this line of reasoning.

So (still on this third point), what are we to do? My two last examples show how Christians are (i) split on important issues and (ii) fudge important issues. How do you think we should resolve these issues and debate them?

I think my real point here is: an atheists picking up something that lots of Christians insist on saying as part of their faith is not telling Christians what they believe, even if the person to whom the atheist is talking to as an individual is trying to squirm away from responsibility from what many of of her or his co-religionists said. The atheist didn't make those things up, the Christians did.

By the way, finally, if you don't thing that getting or paying interest on loans is an important issue, try buying a house or car by just saving up for it. Indeed try running a modern economy without credit. Or are you just going to rent or buy a second-hand car, relying on sinners to take out the loans for you (including for all the rest of the infrastructure in the world you live in?)

* or because, as Crocodile notes in his thread about Christians telling atheists what they believe, because god is totally badass? I mean, going out to get 50 foreskins from dead enemies to give as a present to one's gf's dad, and delivering 200% of the target? How totally metal is that? Rock and rolllllll!!!!

TÐöer

7th September 2009, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by TheDoer http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=27537#post27537)
Pointless, This is what a fellow Christian said, after he could not defend God anymore.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Beefy: The Russian was right (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1484&page=6)

I'll have to read up on that another time, but it's my guess that he was annoyed when nobody understood that wich he couldn't have said any simpler. Just a guess, I'll read it when next i have the time.

Well, anytime. I'm sure you will see the arguments were fair.

No matter how you question God or the bible, in the end, a Christian has to believe in Jesus and that's it: 'Faith' What Jesus repeats over and over. Not through his actions, his evidence, or his proofs. He says the road to salvation is merely 'Faith' (I'm sure you agree, tell me if you need a quote). So even after you have done your little mind exercise, and all logic points in the opposite direction to God, you still need to believe in him. Am I correct?

I see no point in wasting my life on false beliefs. I intend to find out the truth.

Great, I hope you are honest in this. May we all find it.

And correct me if I am wrong, that disbelievers go to hell, whether you were as pure as a flawed human can be in life, if you don't believe in Jesus, you go straight to hell! Is there room, not to believe?

If you could be totally selfless then I reckon you'd go to heaven, but who the hell is totally selfless?

In *claim, the Buddha is. His fellow monks, are on that path too. (Claim, same as jesus claim)

No you can't, if you read the bible, Jesus is the only way to salvation. And you being the exception, Christians will give us the ultimatum, that you can't go to heaven without being a Christian (belief in Christ) in life.

Otherwise, there is no need to save us non-Chrsitians, when we see him on D-day, we will aknowledge him. No problem.

Are you saying that, even if you're a Christian, if you are not selfless, you can't go to heaven? And of course, as you say, no one is completely selfless... so does that mean, no one gets to heaven? End up in Hell instead?

Look at Budhism, it encourages you to achieve perfection, but does not penalize you. You have no one to answer to, but yourself. Isn't that better?

Belief and serving God. Even the demons believe he exists.

hum? I don't get this reply to my point. Anyway, demons can't be used as reference, since their testiment happens to also come from the bible, which we are scrutinizing now.

When it comes to claim, the demons also acknowledges the Buddha's perfection.

Ya sure, you escape, if you believe in him. But for the rest of your friends and family, who are not Christian, they go to hell, while you look gleefully at them from heaven.

Reward and Punishment. Not escape-from/surcum-to some kind of inevitable doom. And I reckon God should get justice some day. As for friends and family, I ccan't really explain it in a way that you understand so I'll hold my tongue lest you interpret something else. I'll have a think about how to explain it.

Don't worry, I won't think less of you. If it is reasonable for you, it should be for the rest of the world too. I am eager to know about it, censored or not.

Right now, it is a driving force that seperates Christianity from Buddhism.

It would be good, if the answer can come from your Holy Spirit.

Am I not right in saying, that Buddhism, forgives more than God?
God forgives those who ask it(and whoever asks it, must regret it). Bhuddism forgives all. hmmm...does that make bhuddism better?

Sounds, nice, but it matters not. Many Christians have told me, that A Christian Robber or Rappist can sooner go to heaven, then a kind hearted non Christian. Because god forgives.... unless of course, if you were a non believer... then he has prepared Hell.

I have not yet met anyone who hasn't acted selfishly in thier life. I imagine if they didn't regret the robbing or raping, they wouldn't end up in heaven.

Who, does not ask for forgiveness when they are loosing, dying or well to do? If hitler ask for forgiveness, as the allies start pounding on his door, he goes straight to heaven.

How about the people he killed, who had no chance to ask for forgiveness for being borned? Without a chance to even repent, they are sent to hell for eternity.

Buddhism, on the other hand, is not about condoning peoples actions. To forgive others is to forgive ourselves, when we hold a grudge it is us, and not the aggressor that feels the pain. What is the point of pulling our hair out, that Osama is still at large? Of course, it doesn't mean hiding a criminal from justice.

To start from self is the best way to save people, 1 at a time.

Buddhism, does not have such rules full of loop holes on who we should forgive. The reason to forgive is not to gain favour with Jesus.

Now that's selfish, "ok, I will forgive you, because Jesus commands it, and I want to go to heaven".

Makes sense that kind hearted non-christians will, by the mercy of God, be shown the way. it's up to them to take it.

What way? as I have pointed out, God's religion seems to be inferior to a human one. If he really wants to offer us a way, it will be on judgement day, when he appears to us only then can we make a proper choice.

Yes exactly (see your quote in Bold), overall, Christians believe it's their God given right, to reap from this earth. But of course, Faith is better since it promises eternal salvation. It matters not. Christians feel that they are allowed to do as they please with this earth. You can see that, in America and Africa, where the animals were wasted, just for the sport of it. God has claimed to have given Chrsitians the "you can do anything to this earth" card. Don't worry, I will reset.

It is selfish to exessively kill animals(Keep in mind that if we let dingos breed up animals will go extinct). It is squandering what God has given you.

Tell that to those who killed the Bisons, the Elephants and the Rhinos.
Many of them say it's their God given right.
As you can see, Christianity, can be used to justify such actions. Up to what extent and of what animals to kill, that is left completely for the Christians to interpret. Thus it is flawed.

Secondly, don't animals feel pain? Why doesn't God create them to feel no pain? Why does he wants you to kill living creature for food. Does that make any sense?
When Christians are told that they have the right to live off the land. They tend to forget all these things... they stop thinking and let the book do the talking.

And I quote: "it is squandering what God has given you. "

God or no god, it is wrong to squander.

TÐöer

7th September 2009, 06:06 PM

The Buddha, smites no one. And does not demand faith, in order for people to be considered good.

And who, do you think God smites(if he exists)?

Apparently people who don't believe in him, or those who were around before Jesus' time, thus their Sins could not be removed, and with Sin, they could not correct themselves. Even if you were a baby, whose slate is completely empty, you would have immediately inherited Sin from Adam and Eve, thus guaranteeing you a spot in Hell. Were you going to say, "Sinners"?

Noah's ark would be a good example. Also consider the earlier example of Judges 20. Where God, did not smite, the group of rapist, instead encouraged the israelis to wipe each other off the face of the earth. (He does not need to smite in this case)

I'm not concerned how powerful the devil is. This is new.... I could have sworn, I read a passage where Jesus says, all you need is faith. Explain then, in your version of Christianity, what else, is required, that with faith alone, disqualifies you from entering heaven.

Neither am I concerned about the power of the devil, I'd be much more comfortable with him next to me where I can keep an eye on him.

Ya well, that was off topic, on your part.

So what else, is required, that with faith alone, disqualifies you from entering heaven?

I've seen plenty of miracles. Most of it were attributed to other gods. What would you say to a Buddhist, who believes the Goddess of Mercy has answered her prayers and saved her Son from Brain Tumour?

After "Hi, how are you?" I would ask if I could see her son and ask her son the exact delails. I would then ponder. After much pondering I would come to a coinclusion.

He'll say, "what my mother said". What you going to do next? it's just that! miracles are all in our heads, no matter how real it may seem, there are actually scientific explanations and sometimes it's just our imagination and wishful thinking going wild. Statistics has proven it. That Christians don't have good things happening to them more than non-Christians... and why is that? could it be, that those miracles weren't miracles afterall?

Lets look at some other examples of miracles. During a hindu festival, devotees will pierce their body, and adorned heavy sacred relics. The strength and endurance they gain is amazing. They attribute it all to their gods. How can you denny that?

Well god or no god. Statistics has shown that both believers and non believers, have got 'good' and 'bad' coming to them at the same rate. Otherwise, doctors will start prescribing Christianity.

The bible specificully says that christians will be persecuted because of Christ. Christians are to learn from 'bad', if eventually.

Ya... so:
Good things happen to non Christians
Bad things happen to non Christians
Good things happen to Christians
Bad things happen to non Christians.
So basically, there is no proof whatsoever, that indeed the causes for those good or bad things happening had anything to do with your religion does it?
Thus, as I have proven the Miracles, the basis for us to believe in God, is void.

Now look at Buddhism. What converted many to Buddhism, is not because, they suddenly saw the Buddha. It was simply because, of certain words of wisdom, that they realised were infinitely true. For example: To Cling is to suffer.
What keeps me christian is the coincidences of answered prayers, and the little things that make me think "That makes sense scientificully, morrally etc".

It's not about what makes sense or moral. It's about what does not. Refer to judges 20. then look at the other comments I have made, in comparing Buddhism and Christianity.

[/quote]

I see no reason for quarantine. God knew that adam and eve was going for the apple, which eventually, willl make all man have sin, thus the need for the flood, which Ultimately does not remove man's sin.
Quarantine of diseases. There was a need since too many miracles would, I suspect, destroy the purpose of faith.
Are you saying he is doing all these to gain our faith? When he could have easily, showed us, he exists, and ask us to repent? And for his need of faith, killed and made many people suffer?

God knew they could have resisted the devil. Not only that but "resist the devil and he will flee from you"
Ya, they could, but he also knew that many of them won't but he still went along with it anyway, right?

I have some theories about God, The devil and future seeing but it is far too much speculation.
And that's just it, "theories", until you have known the true story, what is apparent now is God is cruel. And his teachings do not hold up to Buddhism.

How is this primitive? Making claims without proper, blue prints or explanation as to how, such a feat maybe possible during such a backward time.

Makes sense that if God knew how to make it he sure as hell knows how to do a whole range of feats, far beyond what we can accumplish now.

Yes, and where's the documentation on that? Where is the exact site of the event, what was the exact list of animals, and the dimensions of the ark. Yes, and "If God knew" is just a claim. Surely, he knew that people would question such claims. But yet, the documentation he provided in his perfect book, was lacking.

Look at modern records and you will see the difference in recording standards.

Did you expect them to speak english(AU)?

I was refering to British English. My OZ is bad :P

What I said previously, proper, undisputed info, that people would not question as to possibility of his claim. Until today, people are still speculating where the ark is. If he is indeed all powerful, as powerful as the bible says, then why is it that the bible itself looks elementary? Doesn't God want us to know he exist? His book and his claims of feat is making us think otherwise.

Also, look at the story... do you not see a trend, that the feat of man were out of proportion in OT, compared to NT, where only Jesus had those powers? Making wild claims, doesn't that sound like works of a primitive man?

No person hass powers, but can have the HS living inside of him/her. It is the HS that has powers. (and Jesus and God and to a lesser extent the devil)

HS or not. just look at the stories, back then there was Noah's ark, and God's direct influence and communication with man, then later it was merely through Jesus, and the apostles, today, we see and hear nothing.

The Holy spirit that people claim to have today, is not impressive at all and easily refuted. Now, try to refute buddhist teaching's instead.

Why I said God's teachings are pretty primitive? Look at the 10 Commandments. I only need 1 to say the 9: "Don't do unto others what we don't want others to do unto us."
The remaining 1, is not necessary for humans, to live happy meaningful lives.

"Don't do unto others what we don't want others to do unto us."
Isn't this, in other words, what Jesus said exept his version was more possitive implying also that if you want others to help you, start helping others.

The Israelites were a stubborn bunch of people. They needed more specific instructions.

As mentioned, it is better to live and let live, then to expect others to welcome your help or expect them to give you in kind, otherwise call them unChristian. To be generous and to be kind, comes naturally, but to harm others, now this is a problem which we tend to do, this is why, we must always put ourselves in the other person's shoes.

Either way of putting the phrase, you must remember that this point is only a side note to the 10 commandments when Jesus said it. And here is another difference between Buddhism and Christianity, Buddhism believes that suffering and wrong doings are caused by misunderstanding, or ill information, that is why, it tries to educate people, and not just commanding them.

If you command a child not to touch fire, will he listen? Wouldn't it be better if you explain the real reason, that fire causes pain?
In effect, for having little patience and little faith in the israelis, Jesus, has got the isrealis believing that those 10 things were the only things they had to do. Then later they were bombarded with more things they should and should not do. And today, people like me, and all the members here, are looking at the book, and start to shake our heads. Wondering how proselytisers call it the perfect book.

I would recommend proselytisers to read Buddhist books, they are more thought provoking.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th September 2009, 11:51 AM

I'm going to admit here that I can predict this thread will turn into yet another 500+ post monster.

TÐöer

8th September 2009, 12:13 PM

No it won't. I predict it will die dead in its tracks because 1 party, will be too busy to reply.

Cosmic Teapot

8th September 2009, 12:27 PM

I'm going to admit here that I can predict this thread will turn into yet another 500+ post monster.

I doubt it as Peter ignores most responses, so a discussion becomes impossible.
Peter is a pigeon poster; he flies in, shits on the bonnet of your car and flies away again before you can shoot him down.

atheist_angel

8th September 2009, 01:14 PM

i will write as i see fit

and please, if your not serious, get out of this thread.....I'm no moderator but I have that right

I only have the time to read serious posts:( I asked you before, 'what was the purpose for creating this thread'. I the way I see it, there are two issues that have been brought up in this thread. The first one pertains to the original question of 'How could it be possible for an atheist to know or understand what a chistian believes'. The second issue pertains to the question of, 'Is it possible that religion is a false belief system that has no merit or basis in fact'. My posts were to start a dialog that would address your original question. If this is a sincere question, I would like to talk about it. :o If not, then you may keep ignoring me and I will gladly get out of your thread.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th September 2009, 01:53 PM

All hail the Prophet Crocky!

Seriously, there may be a need for Sockdog and other posters to get back to initial principles of what Sockdog actually does believe. It's gotten a tad nebulous, and some reinforcement would make this much more readable.

Black
Now Playing: "Won't Get Bored Again" by The Circular Argument Banned.Now to go to the RTA to get my Learner's Water-walker License.

Cosmic Teapot

8th September 2009, 01:59 PM

I doubt it as Peter ignores most responses, so a discussion becomes impossible.
Peter is a pigeon poster; he flies in, shits on the bonnet of your car and flies away again before you can shoot him down.

Oh, and sockdog isn't any better.
He's like the prat that puts useless leaflets under your windscreen wiper in a carpark and bolts before he can be held accountable for the trash he's distributing.

Thanks Mr Black.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

8th September 2009, 09:58 PM

So what was the original topic of this thread?

Caio

8th September 2009, 10:22 PM

:( I asked you before, 'what was the purpose for creating this thread'. I the way I see it, there are two issues that have been brought up in this thread. The first one pertains to the original question of 'How could it be possible for an atheist to know or understand what a chistian believes'.

I think it is, particularly if you were a Christian and then became an atheist, this would help with the empathy of understanding what they believe. Personally I think it is a similar sensation to when I think about the world and universe and marvel at its beauty, except that I don’t attribute this to god, but its still wonderful. As for knowing what they believe, well that’s just a matter of research I guess.

The second issue pertains to the question of, 'Is it possible that religion is a false belief system that has no merit or basis in fact'. My posts were to start a dialog that would address your original question. If this is a sincere question, I would like to talk about it. :o If not, then you may keep ignoring me and I will gladly get out of your thread.

Sure is possible as long as it is falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ), as to whether it is or isn’t, well the consensus here seems to be that its false. And the way I see it is that the burden of proof lies with the believers, they make the claim, they prove it.

TÐöer

9th September 2009, 09:56 AM

Christianity: God RULES all, if he gives you shit, you deserved it. Your puny existence have no right to question his wisdom.
Buddhism: Life sux, you should try to elevate your own suffering and don't pass it to others, as "what goes around comes around"

I'm not sure where but it does say in there that you should question all things, that includes the bible.

You are not however, allowed to test God. eg. jump off a cliff saying "God'll save me" also eg. Asking God to do a miracle to prove his existance.

Everybody gets crap, though God teaches people if they are willing often through the crap.

Pointless, This is what a fellow Christian said, after he could not defend God anymore.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Beefy: The Russian was right (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=1484&page=6)

No matter how you question God or the bible, in the end, a Christian has to believe in Jesus and that's it: 'Faith' What Jesus repeats over and over. Not through his actions, his evidence, or his proofs. He says the road to salvation is merely 'Faith' (I'm sure you agree, tell me if you need a quote). So even after you have done your little mind exercise, and all logic points in the opposite direction to God, you still need to believe in him. Am I correct?

Proof: Linky (http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html)

We need also to recognize that our very minds were created by God. We can only use these minds to the extent that He allows, and it is, therefore, utterly presumptuous for us to use them to question Him and His motives.
"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25 (http://christiananswers.net/bible/gen18.html#25)).
"Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, why hast Thou made me thus?" (Romans 9:20 (http://christiananswers.net/bible/rom9.html#20))

SockDog, so how can God both allow and disallow you to question him?

Isn't it as I say? Question to get answers that support him, but disbelieve any doubts?

And correct me if I am wrong, that disbelievers go to hell, whether you were as pure as a flawed human can be in life, if you don't believe in Jesus, you go straight to hell! Is there room, not to believe?

If you could be totally selfless then I reckon you'd go to heaven, but who the hell is totally selfless?

Sounds, nice, but it matters not. Many Christians have told me, that A Christian Robber or Rappist can sooner go to heaven, then a kind hearted non Christian. Because god forgives.... unless of course, if you were a non believer... then he has prepared Hell.

I have not yet met anyone who hasn't acted selfishly in thier life. I imagine if they didn't regret the robbing or raping, they wouldn't end up in heaven.
Makes sense that kind hearted non-christians will, by the mercy of God, be shown the way. it's up to them to take it.

It's not really about selfless is it? By default, non believers go to hell. Quote:

There is really no such thing as the “innocent” suffering.

Since "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), there is no one who has the right to freedom from God's wrath on the basis of his own innocence.

sockdog

11th September 2009, 05:12 PM

Just want ya's to know that I havn't left this thread and will do my best to reply to people tomorrow or sunday.

Please note that the original topic(ie. The title) is no longer relevent, although a couple of things are still being said which are not correct which I will mention as I reply to them.

atheist_angel

11th September 2009, 05:17 PM

TÐöer

12th September 2009, 01:49 AM

Please note that the original topic(ie. The title) is no longer relevent...

Ah, glad you're back. Initially, I thought you were going to reply about Buddhism, in the Buddhism thread, but anywhere will be fine.

Worldslaziestbusker

12th September 2009, 07:34 PM

Please note that the original topic(ie. The title) is no longer relevent, .

Does this indicate that an opinion held by a Christian has been changed by the posts on this forum? I didn't think that happened.
Thanks, Sockdog. You made my day and gave me hope for the future.
WLB

Cosmic Teapot

13th September 2009, 09:18 AM

Just want ya's to know that I havn't left this thread and will do my best to reply to people tomorrow or sunday.
And we wait with bated breath.

Please note that the original topic(ie. The title) is no longer relevent, although a couple of things are still being said which are not correct which I will mention as I reply to them.

Do you need a hand moving those goal posts? They look heavy.

sockdog

13th September 2009, 05:10 PM

So, this is where I will have this discussion. I'll reply to the the issues raised in "why do I see atheists..." first.

sockdog

13th September 2009, 05:22 PM

(Dave said...)

Sorry to take so long to reply. I wonder if that's more wishfull thinking than reality when you suggest you try to ponder whether something fits. It's just that I simply cannot get burning bushes, talking snakes, fish and bread that multiplies amongst many other things to fit in with my everyday reality or my perception of past reality. So I am wondering how you reconcile these things as making sense?:)

Like I have said, there are a few things but generally, it fits and such small things that there is I will ponder but I spend most pondering time on other things, like the issues raised here.

As for miraculus things, I have seen a few...not many but I am only 17 and would've been drawing on something in church and not going to youth and other such events untill 2 years back so I don't expect to have seen many.

Generally, when I'm sweating and shivering, when i find it difficult to stand, when i can feel something immensely great, yet unexplainable I think that talking snakes and whatnot seem quite plausible indeed.

Dave

13th September 2009, 06:09 PM

Generally, when I'm sweating and shivering, when i find it difficult to stand, when i can feel something immensely great, yet unexplainable I think that talking snakes and whatnot seem quite plausible indeed.

I hope I am not being too forward to ask when and where you experience these physical effects?
Also it would be good if you could tell me in which way do you "feel something immensely great" just so I can try and understand your perspective.:)

sockdog

13th September 2009, 06:32 PM

Thanks for the feedback. Looks like they may be a thing or two we could learn from each other.

Hopefully, and thanks for sticking to the thread and being patient with me.

Alright, I've gone through, where I thought I last saw that quote, apparently I was mistaken, Jesus did not ask anyone to be killed, rather, said that he comes to them with a sword. And that men will fight among themselves because of him. And that no mercy will be given to sinners who do not repent. I retract my statement, that Jesus dealt death, but my initial point stilll rings true. 1. God kills. in the OT, like the example Crocodile has given, Noah's ark. (There's much more examples of course) 2. Killings, and not "murders" (as Christians call it) do occur through out Christianity.

Yes and I'm sure they are without excuse, so they had been given a chance as I understand it. Anything to the contrary?

Killings are alright, murders are not. Thier hearts were stubborn, there was little-to-nothing that could have been done for them. What's the point?

You may say it was not done for God, but most who participated, definately thought they were doing God's bidding. And surely, you still agree, that they were good Christians. That's just it, you see, Christianity, can be easily abused to justify killing. Don't ask me how they came to that conclusion, I'm not a Christian.

"Depart from me for I never knew you."
Did they know Jesus or did they know of him?

So they didn't know but of course how could they, the church told them it was for God.

"Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you."
They coould have seeked. They could have knocked.

Do you understand or should i explain further?

I was refering to Noah's ark, etc. which you would say is not applicable, since it was back then. The crusades, occured after OT.

Noah's ark was not a case of murder but of mass killing. There is a difference although another way would ahve been nice...
As for crusades, i explained above.

Jesus would sooner you murder kin, then not be his disciple.

You have misinterpreted somewhat, read the surrounding verses. I will note that anyone who loves them more than Jesus cannot be his disciple.

Yep, and did Jesus say, "that was the old one? Please don't follow?"

It was left for followers to find exclusions, to the case of forgiving. And we all can see that in the death penalty. Whose to say, what is Christian and is not the Christian thing to do? When both the violence and the forgiving came from the same book? Why wasn't Jesus Clearer??

Wasn't he? hmmm......unless I'm wrong, this falls under the categry of not understanding. You see, Jesus made it starkly clear butr it seems you are not seeing it the way I am...anyway, selfish motives are against the law, I cannot put It more simple than that, and that is pretty much what Jesus said several times.

"Do to others what you would have them do to you." - does this include shoving the bible into peoples faces, and breaking families? When You know that you wouldn't want others to preach Atheism, to your children when you aren't home.

Simple answer - No.
Did Jesus shove the Bible in people's faces?

Oh well, basically, both meant similar, I could have easily coined it as Jesus put it. The geist is, to man: be your own judge as to right and wrong.

As I said above, the gist is: If it is selfish, don't do it. If it is not selfish, go right ahead. Is that not simple? Is that not what he said?(according to the Bible) Is that not what many other biblical people said?(according to the Bible)

The fact is that, that point is less important then to love God. And when it comes to judgement, remember the 10 Commandments, remember God comes first, even if it means, you hate your kin, or perform an act, which you believe is right, because God might want you too.

If all you see is God, you tend to err.

hmm...Loving God definitly falls into the not undersanding categry since his love that must be expirienced to understand loving him.

There are many ways to find out if an act is of God, including prayer, bible reading, asking another christian and some others which I have forgotten but ultimately, God's will is not a complex code to those who listen.

Tell the Buddhist monks in the monastry, they gave everything up, and not even for God.

Have you sold your possessions and given to the poor?

Jesus still does not say, do not follow the OT. He just emphasize on the 10 commandments.

Did I say "do not follow the OT"? the 612 (or is it 613) laws the Jews made have been simplified to motive. It is not as if "this applies and that doesn't".

As for the rest of what you have said in that post, I reckon the above sufficiently answers it.

sockdog

13th September 2009, 06:35 PM

I'll be back, and I'll answer sinister dexter and atheist angel's Qs first then.

sockdog

13th September 2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by atheist_angel http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=27605#post27605)
What is your real purpose for creating this thread? Are you trying to show us that christians aren't so bad? Are you trying to convince us that religion is true? Are you trying to work though your mixed feelings, in regards to your fellow christians; or your own beliefs? Are you seeking a higher purpose? Are you considering non-belief? What is your real purpose for creating this thread? :confused:

Initially, to set the record straight, to show atheists what christians really believe and to show to atheists that there are 'christians' and there are disciples of christ. To show which is which.

It was not my intension to 'convert' people. I do only so much without God/Jesus revealing himself to you.

Also, I usually enjoy talking about science, particularly with regards to christianity.

Not to mention the prompting by the HS.

atm I have no doubts about christianity but I am always, or try to be, open to the opinions of others.
I know my purpose and am quite solid in my feelings toward christianity atm.

If I think of anything more to say in regards to this post/my intentions I will say so.

As for needing faith only, I'll think about it and maybe ask a more knowlegeable christian than myself.

That didn't surfice? If you have anything (and I'm now assuming you'll be serious along with everyone else) to ask, please do as I have undoubtedly missed some posts.

SinisterDexter, I have not forgotton you.

sockdog

13th September 2009, 06:54 PM

It is, by definition, what every christian, including you, is. That doesn't mean there isn't massive variation within the group, and what we have been trying to tell you is that we understand this. Probably better than you.

Ok, it's just that most have a false idea of what christianity is and tend to through them in the one bucket so to speak. It is not the term but the implications. nm

English developed punctuation to make things easier to understand. Text is easier to understand when punctuation is used correctly and consistently. Yes, emoticons can assist with the tone or timbre of a post, but on the whole a well written and punctuated post is much easier to understand than unpunctuated rambling.

If you want to make up your own language, find a different spot to do it. Here we use English.

Fair enough I suppose so I will use punctiuation here exept habbit may cause the missed comma and the lower case "I".

You have yet to say anything credible. Despite that, many of us have taken you "seriously" and have posted intelligent rebuttals to your posts which you choose not to engage with. When you do, you may be treated with more respect - but respect is earned, not granted.

Yes, that was on purpose until I felt like people were listening. I am now trying to keep up. Bare with me.

I'll be back another day to finish this reply.

Twizzle

13th September 2009, 07:30 PM

Going back to your point of athiests misunderstanding the beleifs of Christians...

...I think most people on the forum will agree with me when I say a significant amount of athiests were not born that way...most of us were born into religious families, attended religious schools, or indeed had 'faith' at some piont in our lives. Therefore, most of us actually do have an insiders perspective on how christianity generally works, what the bible says, etc....we just have better bullshit detectors than others! We don't gather our knowlege on religion by taking to other athiests (unlike how people of faith learn about atheism!), but by interacting with it personally.

I also observe the way christians (and people of other faiths) act in the real world. I have come to conclusion that religion promotes intolerance. Why? Because when you look behind almost every anti-gay marriage campaign, every anti-immigration campaign, etc, you will find it receives significant funding from religious institutions (case in point Californias Prop 8, where religious groups actually changed the constitution to remove granted rights). The fact is, I cannot feel that religion promotes tolerance, acceptance, love, etc when all around me people of faith are voicing the stark opposite of these virtues! I know not all of them are, that there are many out there who are much more liberal, but can I hardly be called ignorant from coming to these conclusions?

Sockdog, I also think it wouldn't hurt to remind you that you are 17...you claim to have spritual experiences, but to be honest, at that age your brain is flooded with hormones, you are being re-tooled, and your concepts of reality may be slightly skewed. I'm not some old miser (I'm only 20 myself), but I am doing significant study into how of how adolencence can skew interpretations of reality to bring about strange experiences such as mental illness, spiritual experiences, etc. I'm not trying to de-value your experiences at all, but your description of 'sweating and shaking' left me a little worried!

SinisterDexter

13th September 2009, 08:26 PM

Ok, it's just that most have a false idea of what christianity is and tend to through them in the one bucket so to speak. It is not the term but the implications. nm

This is just not true. Most atheists who post here (and this is the forum you chose to accuse) understand exactly what christianity, in all its manifold nefarious guises, means. You do not seem to understand that christianity is as diverse as its adherents.

Fair enough I suppose so I will use punctiuation here exept habbit may cause the missed comma and the lower case "I".

That's great, but could you also try English? I am assuming you were trying to say the following:

"Fair enough I suppose, so I will use punctuation. However, cause of habit may make me miss the odd comma or leave an "i" in lower case."

I know you are 17, but that means you have recently undergone direct education in grammar that many of us haven't had for a decade or more. If you can't write English it makes me wary as to your ability to understand what is written. For the record, I write fairly precisely. But communication is a two-way street, and if you lack the necessary education or capacity for comprehension it makes things difficult.

The English language is a beautiful, wonderfully evocative language capable of great depth of expression. It is also a cross-bred mongrel that is constantly evolving and changing to suit the needs of its users. But what you do to it counts as neither. Such crass butchery is not a skill.

Yes, that was on purpose until I felt like people were listening. I am now trying to keep up. Bare with me.

Bear with you? For how long? People listened right from the start. You let the thread run out to 200 odd posts just to make sure people were listening?!?!? Are you serious?

And you deliberately said nothing credible for that long?!? Are you seriously being serious? Seriously? I mean, like, for sure?

Come on! You haven't said anything credible because you haven't got anything credible to say. I've forgotten the remainder of my post, but I suspect your reply, if it ever comes, will not come close to "answering" it.

But, hey, go ahead and try.

I'll be back another day to finish this reply.

Whatever. How about you reply to davo's original post? You are an intellectual minnow compared to that man and I really want to see him tear your arguments apart one thread at a time.

atheist_angel

13th September 2009, 08:38 PM

Thank you for answering my question, sockdog. I really want to try to stay on topic this time. If you don't mind, after you finish replying to everyone, could you declared the topic for me, just so I won't get confused. -Thanks :)

Dave

13th September 2009, 09:09 PM

MOD REQUEST: Let's keep it tidy, people.

There appear to be many questions, and the last thread was, well, a dogpile.

Could we take it one topic to a thread or maybe regulars could ask the fellow their questions again, in new threads?

I am already confused.:confused:

Sir Patrick Crocodile

13th September 2009, 09:16 PM

In response to this sockdog's question - I can answer it from the perspective of me.

If I were to go to a car dealer who is willing to sell a 1980 Honda CB250RS for whatever reason, and yet has a shiny new 2000 Honda CB600F Hornet lying around, he will probably do whatever he can to make the CB250RS look better compared to the CB600F for example.

This is what many creationists do about their religion - say that it is peaceful and that it promotes peace - when all they mention is how their god will provide things and stuff if you give him things and stuff.

In my CB250RS vs CB600F example, an idiot would go ahead and buy the CB250RS and act like he is the most bootylicious biker on the planet. He may end up getting laughed at too when he mentions his "all new super powerful CB250RS being more powerful than the CB600F because the dealer said that and we all know the dealers know more about bikes than any other person on the planet right?" style statement.

Christianity and many other religions use a combination of scare tactics and sales representative tactics to attempt to promote their religion. Since many people are stupid they believe anything they are told. Especially if eternal life is involved.

They either have no clue what attrocities the religion has in them and/or they don't even want to make Christianity look bad in order to attempt to gain an individual's trust and ultimately control them and their decisions.

In the CB250RS vs CB600F example a smart individual would research and/or know about them - and would pick the CB600F - and then he would be able to go around to the group of CB250RS bikers and definitely look like the most bootylicious biker in the lot.

Likewise, I can rely on the Bible and what many have said about Christianithy in order to make informed educated decisions about it - I do realize that, like salespeople, these Christians could be lying. So I research - and since the core of Christianity is the Bible - After reading the Bible and finding the attrocities in it - I rember the quote that many Christians use - "I believe everything the Bible says" - and compare their true beliefs with the belief from the Bible.

Unfortunately none of them mention asterisks in their speech, so I can assume they are stupid and have no idea what the Bible says, or they do know but do not want to accept that they are wrong.

I have had one Christian admit (sort of) that "some of the Bible is stupid" yet she claims to be "smart enough to communicate with God" and all other garbage.

The reason you "see atheists telling Christians what they believe" is because we are effectively basing our research on Christianity using the most reliable source of information about Christianity - the Bible.

Using the Bible we can judge what Christians really believe - and trust me - there is not one Christian I have met who has read the Bible fully and actually believes the Bible word for word and every word of it. They tend to cherry-pick.

It is obvious from a comparison of what a Christian blabbers on about to what the Bible actually says.

Cosmic Teapot

13th September 2009, 10:16 PM

What exactly is the topic of this thread?
"A nice logical discussion" is more of a misnomer than a topic.
Can we have something a little more specific?
What is it you intend to discuss, sockdog?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

14th September 2009, 08:15 AM

Well, the thread is confused.

Perhaps if the OP was to go and select one or two of the specific matters he's actually going on with, and naming threads after them, instead of this thing which may be nice, but falls short of either "logical" or "Discussion" thus far, progress would be made.He hasn't answered my questions yet.:mad:

In fact none of the Christians I know have answered them.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

14th September 2009, 08:32 AM

Well, you could start a thread and ask him, then follow up with a PM pointing this out...
or you could formally challenge him to a one-on-one in the debate area.How do I go about with the formal debate?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

14th September 2009, 08:41 AM

Since I can't PM him - I will challenge him to the logical discussion/debate he is looking for. I will await his answer in this thread.

Any other creationist wants to do so - please feel free to let me know.

I will be willing to debate with the first person to answer - and if he/she seems fit for it.

TÐöer

14th September 2009, 09:15 AM

Sir Patrick Crocodile

14th September 2009, 09:22 AM

Good point Croc. I have now allowed Residents of the Island PM ability for this very purpose. You can now PM him for a challenge. If the challenge is accepted PM Mr Black, Fearless, me and your challenger and we will get it rolling.

Will Croc be the first?I have PM him and am now awaiting for a response. Thanks for that Protium for your assistance.

atheist_angel

14th September 2009, 10:19 PM

That didn't surfice? If you have anything (and I'm now assuming you'll be serious along with everyone else) to ask, please do as I have undoubtedly missed some posts.OK, this is a nice logical discussion about what again? :confused: Surely it's not going to be about proving your g-d is real and your religion is correct, because every attempt to prove these things has already failed. So then, where does the logical part come in? No, seriously, these are honest questions. Plus, you already have a page worth of posts, where other people are also trying to figure out what the topic is. :confused:

Sir Patrick Crocodile

14th September 2009, 10:23 PM

If he doesn't respond to my request for a logical debate then I will automatically assume he has forfeited/quit/doesn't want do do it/etc the debate opportunity.

sockdog

20th September 2009, 12:25 PM

atheist_angel

21st September 2009, 12:19 AM

That didn't surfice? If you have anything (and I'm now assuming you'll be serious along with everyone else) to ask, please do as I have undoubtedly missed some posts.Initially, to set the record straight, to show atheists what christians really believe and to show to atheists that there are 'christians' and there are disciples of christ. To show which is which.I would still like to see someone debate you on the question of whether or not an atheist can understand what a christian believes in the above context. I have indirectly offered to discuss it with you by bringing it up several times, but I still can't get you to take me seriously. Now, I am directly offering to discuss it. If you have already fully conceded on this point, tell me where because I still haven't found your statement on that.

Caio

21st September 2009, 08:57 PM

I would still like to see someone debate you on the question of whether or not an atheist can understand what a christian believes in the above context. I have indirectly offered to discuss it with you by bringing it up several times, but I still can't get you to take me seriously. Now, I am directly offering to discuss it. If you have already fully conceded on this point, tell me where because I still haven't found your statement on that.

Its right there in front of you, its so obvious I don’t even need to show you, and indeed I wont, because its there, your just ignoring it because you choose to. But seriously I wouldn’t hold my breath, if sockdog had evidence he should have provided it by now in a clear and logical manner, that’s how logical discussions work isn’t it? ;)

atheist_angel

22nd September 2009, 05:03 AM

Its right there in front of you, its so obvious I don’t even need to show you, and indeed I wont, because its there, your just ignoring it because you choose to. But seriously I wouldn’t hold my breath, if sockdog had evidence he should have provided it by now in a clear and logical manner, that’s how logical discussions work isn’t it? ;)
;) yeah, obvious...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/GreatPumpkin.jpg

TÐöer

23rd September 2009, 02:25 AM

Unfortunately I'm going to have to ditch this thread, for a few weeks anyway because I've accepted TheDoer's 1 on 1 offer. That is also why i cannot have a 1 on 1 with croc or anyone else untill we're done...who knows i might be atheist then ;) ...not likely but anyway...I'm guessing we'll both conclude that each theory is plausible, reasonable and ,of course, logical. I look forward to it.

It's alright Sockdog. Crocodile can go first. We've not started and I am currently tied up. I don't mind debating with you once, you and Crocodile are done.

Thanks for the courtesy.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

23rd September 2009, 04:57 AM

Sure. Sockdog can send me a PM when he's ready.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th September 2009, 10:42 AM

I wonder who will be the first two to make good use of the debate forum.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

27th September 2009, 12:11 PM

Looks like we'll never be saved. ;)

Digitalos

27th September 2009, 09:45 PM

Seriously, I've said I'm interested, I suggested a topic in the other thread, just make the thread already and lets go. >_<!

Cosmic Teapot

28th September 2009, 01:07 PM

Seriously, I've said I'm interested, I suggested a topic in the other thread, just make the thread already and lets go. >_<!

You didn't suggest, you demanded.
We have clearly stated why the topic you put forward is unacceptable.
Either compromise or explain why a topic regarding the rationality of a belief in god/s is not suitable.

Digitalos

28th September 2009, 10:29 PM

You didn't suggest, you demanded.
We have clearly stated why the topic you put forward is unacceptable.
Either compromise or explain why a topic regarding the rationality of a belief in god/s is not suitable.
If you don't like the topic, you don't need to debate then. I didn't demand that topic, I said it's probably the only topic worth debating and if you aren't happy with it maybe another theist will come along who feels differently to me and will debate you on a topic of your choosing.

Either way. *shrugs*

Cosmic Teapot

1st October 2009, 02:08 PM

If you don't like the topic, you don't need to debate then. I didn't demand that topic, I said it's probably the only topic worth debating and if you aren't happy with it maybe another theist will come along who feels differently to me and will debate you on a topic of your choosing.

Either way. *shrugs*

So lets get this straight, you didn't demand a topic but you flatly refuse to debate on any topic other than the one you provided? Are we redefining the definition of "demand" now? Is there some archaic Hebrew translation I should be aware of? Is it used in a special context that doesn't make it equivalent to "insist"? Is your "use my topic or don't debate me" attitude not an ultimatum?
As for the notion that "it's probably the only topic worth debating", this is complete piffle. You're a theist on an atheist forum and the only topic you believe is worth debating is one that doesn't mention god or anything else that is specific to your religion?
Once again, you reveal your intellectual dishonesty by coming here and claiming to want to debate an atheist but only on your terms, using a topic so vague and nebulous that it's no real debate at all, just a point scoring exercise to try to establish that belief can be rational without scientific proof (a correct assertion) in order to suggest that belief in god is rational and that "proof" is irrelevant (highly dubious assertion). Your claim that this "debate" isn't about god is misleading since we all know you'll apply the outcome of this debate to god the next time we ask for proof of god's existence.
No doubt you'll object to the "tone" of this post in order to avoid replying, further reducing any intellectual credibility you might have previously established.

Digitalos

1st October 2009, 06:32 PM

No doubt you'll object to the "tone" of this post in order to avoid replying, further reducing any intellectual credibility you might have previously established.
I'm not here to win points or influence people - I could care less about what you think of my views. I am under no duress to commit time and energy responding to those who are rude and disrespectful, it's as simple as that.

Worldslaziestbusker

1st October 2009, 07:39 PM

(Sound of golf clapping)
Swerve to beat all swerves.
WLB

Unsacred Cow

1st October 2009, 07:58 PM

Cosmic Teapot

1st October 2009, 08:34 PM

I'm not here to win points or influence people - I could care less about what you think of my views. I am under no duress to commit time and energy responding to those who are rude and disrespectful, it's as simple as that.

Pfft, vapid dodge confirmed.
Please, be more predictable, if that's possible.
Obviously you've chosen to (re)define "rude and disrespectful" as anything that exposes your charlatanism to such a degree, even your capacity for linguistic gymnastics can't retrieve your battered ego from the gutter.
It's nice that you don't care what I think of your views but that's moot since it's your personal attributes and conduct, not your views that I have objected to here. Aim for some reading comprehension next time.
Personally, I find it "rude and disrespectful" for a troll such as yourself to soil our forum with purile little games under the guise of "honest debate".

atheist_angel

5th October 2009, 01:32 PM

who knows i might be atheist then ;) ...not likely but anyway...I'm guessing we'll both conclude that each theory is plausible...Really...? :rolleyes:Unfortunately I'm going to have to ditch this thread, for a few weeks anyway because I've accepted TheDoer's 1 on 1 offer. That is also why i cannot have a 1 on 1 with croc or anyone else untill we're done... I look forward to it.So, since you're not debating anyone at the moment, what's your excuse for ditching the thread, again?

atheist_angel

5th October 2009, 02:26 PM

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z207/newsworthy7/Ipaintedmyassintoacorner.jpg

?

:cool: nice white a...I mean, uh, Beautiful Pale Donkey...

TÐöer

14th October 2009, 10:37 AM

I really do not know why, but theist, love to debate with me.... do I seem to be the weakess in the forum? :P

Well, anyway, I will have to state it again, sockdog, you are free to debate with anybody before me.

I'm still recuperating from the personal attacks from the last debate.

atheist_angel

9th November 2009, 09:19 AM

Hi sockdog. How have you been?

Sir Patrick Crocodile

9th November 2009, 10:21 AM

and fresh from SockGod's signature...

Good grief...Please tell me that was just a really bad joke.

atheist_angel

9th November 2009, 10:26 AM

OK. I have been ROFL for the past several minutes now. Haven't stopped yet.

Either sockdog has the world's greatest sense of humor, or he needs some serious help!

Sir Patrick Crocodile

9th November 2009, 10:27 AM

Or (judging by his original sigfile that Protium kindly posted) his inbox is full.

atheist_angel

9th November 2009, 10:34 AM

sockdog, you made my day... ;)

Now come back and let us try that nice logical discussion thing.

Sir Patrick Crocodile

9th November 2009, 10:40 AM

I think he is in the ether now.

atheist_angel

9th November 2009, 11:32 AM

Please tell me that was just a really bad joke.
For me it was a good joke, because I was thinking to post it right before I saw that Protium already had.

For some reason, it just got funnier the second time...

Caio

9th November 2009, 06:14 PM

You might want to answer the following and ask me a few questions.
How long did it take to prove the earth was round? Between the time of suggesting roundness and the time of proving should they have believed in a flat earth? I dunno but I reckon they should have been open to opinions…

Hahaha, wow, I love this guy, come back! And we can have a nice little chat about the birds and the bees and how the universe works

atheist_angel

9th November 2009, 09:57 PM

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m93/bassgirl1970/Emoticons/ROFLwithtears.gif
Hahaha, wow, I love this guy, come back! And we can have a nice little chat about the birds and the bees and how the universe works
Hahahahaahahaaaaaha!http://i641.photobucket.com/albums/uu133/starspace6/rofl.gif Hahahahahahahhhhhahaaaaahahahahah!

sockdog

17th March 2010, 06:42 PM

Well, I read the following by Davo and looked it up.

Like it saying Pi is 3 if you do the calculations of 1 Kings 7:23 then again in 2 Chronicles 4:2? Or that you could build an Ark to hold every single animal on earth? The list goes on .. I guess you are going to cherry pick and then interpret aren't you?
I looked up both those verses and read either side to see what I may find...

The result is this. The Bible says, according to the NIV:

1 Kings 7

23 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [o (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8958o)] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [p (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8958p)] to measure around it. 24 Below the rim, gourds encircled it—ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea.
25 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 26 It was a handbreadth [q (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8961q)] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths. [r (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#fen-NIV-8961r)]

Footnotes:
o.1 Kings 7:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#en-NIV-8958) That is, about 15 feet (about 4.5 meters)
p.1 Kings 7:23 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#en-NIV-8958) That is, about 45 feet (about 13.5 meters)
q.1 Kings 7:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#en-NIV-8961) That is, about 3 inches (about 8 centimeters)
r.1 Kings 7:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Kings+7&version=NIV#en-NIV-8961) That is, probably about 11,500 gallons (about 44 kiloliters the Septuagint does not have this sentence.

2 Chronicles 4:2

2 He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits [b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-11249b)] high. It took a line of thirty cubits [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-11249c)] to measure around it. 3 Below the rim, figures of bulls encircled it—ten to a cubit. [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-11250d)] The bulls were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. 4 The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. 5 It was a handbreadth [e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-11252e)] in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held three thousand baths. [f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#fen-NIV-11252f)]

Footnotes:
b. 2 Chronicles 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#en-NIV-11249) That is, about 7 1/2 feet (about 2.3 meters)
c. 2 Chronicles 4:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#en-NIV-11249)That is, about 45 feet (about 13.5 meters)
d. 2 Chronicles 4:3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#en-NIV-11250)That is, about 1 1/2 feet (about 0.5 meter)
e. 2 Chronicles 4:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#en-NIV-11252)That is, about 3 inches (about 8 centimeters)
f. 2 Chronicles 4:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%204&version=NIV#en-NIV-11252)That is, about 17,500 gallons (about 66 kiloliters)

Read it for yourself. The measurement of perimeter could very well be not on the rim of the cup but lower down. It specificully says "like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom (http://images.google.com.au/images?hl=en&gbv=2&tbs=&&ei=TqagS4WeDorEtAOf-6GECw&sa=X&oi=spellfullpage&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=2&q=lily+blossom&spell=1&start=0)."

I notice the volume there but after some thought shrug it off due to the NIV mentioning at the back on the unit convertion page that the unit for bath is disputed. If you consider this as important I can compare with more scripture where bath is used. From my volume calculations and surmising about footnote r in relation to 1 kings 7 I surmised that 3 thousand baths must equal approximately 50 kilo litres(given that 10, 30, 3000 have one significant figure). That would fit with those two chapters of the Bible but I may be wrong as we all are time to time. @Mr. Black Is this considered intellectual laziness? Please clarify if so the detail needed. Should I be posting in hebrew, aramaic and greek? I'm not being sarcastic.