Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Tables are Turned

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 9:40:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In debating religionists, it's hard not to get bogged down in all the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions the religious person makes; not to mention the religion, itself. Anyone who seriously considers that which he, or she, is saying either has an epiphany or refuses to see the illogical statements he, or she, has made. From the origins of the Universe to political issues such as gay marriage, the religionist doesn't have a leg on which to stand. That's why creationism is not considered a science, and gay marriage has gained a footing, not only among a secular society but, also, among many of its religious denominations.

Where once the atheist, agnostic, humanist, and secularists were marginalized by society, these are, now, considered respected doctors and scientists. Often, those who are seen as fanatical concerning religion are, also, labeled as quacks.
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 2:27:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 9:40:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In debating religionists, it's hard not to get bogged down in all the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions the religious person makes; not to mention the religion, itself. Anyone who seriously considers that which he, or she, is saying either has an epiphany or refuses to see the illogical statements he, or she, has made. From the origins of the Universe to political issues such as gay marriage, the religionist doesn't have a leg on which to stand. That's why creationism is not considered a science, and gay marriage has gained a footing, not only among a secular society but, also, among many of its religious denominations.

Where once the atheist, agnostic, humanist, and secularists were marginalized by society, these are, now, considered respected doctors and scientists. Often, those who are seen as fanatical concerning religion are, also, labeled as quacks.

I know it, sad, sad, world we live in.
TheAsylum
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 9:03:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 2:27:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 9:40:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In debating religionists, it's hard not to get bogged down in all the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions the religious person makes; not to mention the religion, itself. Anyone who seriously considers that which he, or she, is saying either has an epiphany or refuses to see the illogical statements he, or she, has made. From the origins of the Universe to political issues such as gay marriage, the religionist doesn't have a leg on which to stand. That's why creationism is not considered a science, and gay marriage has gained a footing, not only among a secular society but, also, among many of its religious denominations.

Where once the atheist, agnostic, humanist, and secularists were marginalized by society, these are, now, considered respected doctors and scientists. Often, those who are seen as fanatical concerning religion are, also, labeled as quacks.

I know it, sad, sad, world we live in.

I agree, most people believe in a God there is no evidence for. A very sad world we live in indeed.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 11:09:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with everything here.

To add: I am often called, "Bigot" by the theists, because I am so unwilling to bootlick them. I am out-grouped, derided, and insulted by the faith community; an honor that I will regard with pride for my entire life.

Besides ignorance, remember, a necessary component of all religions is that the occasional virgin must be tossed into a volcano. This propensity to murder makes all religions dangerous: whether it is the Israeli theocrat blowing up Palestinians, the Christian cluster bombing of Iraqis, or the Muslim murders of apostates. These lobotomized mesmers are dangerous to all civilization, wisdom and free thought.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 1:50:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What would you accept as evidence of a God?

Something Monty Python style, bursting out of the clouds?

Or would you accept the composition of the human body compared to the shapes and relationships light has to take to remain light within a spherical fixed volume?

Would you accept arithmetic and the structure of DNA compared to said fixed sphere?

What are you looking for?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2012 2:28:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 2:27:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 9:40:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In debating religionists, it's hard not to get bogged down in all the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions the religious person makes; not to mention the religion, itself. Anyone who seriously considers that which he, or she, is saying either has an epiphany or refuses to see the illogical statements he, or she, has made. From the origins of the Universe to political issues such as gay marriage, the religionist doesn't have a leg on which to stand. That's why creationism is not considered a science, and gay marriage has gained a footing, not only among a secular society but, also, among many of its religious denominations.

Where once the atheist, agnostic, humanist, and secularists were marginalized by society, these are, now, considered respected doctors and scientists. Often, those who are seen as fanatical concerning religion are, also, labeled as quacks.

I know it, sad, sad, world we live in.

We can't say that we weren't warned that it would happen though.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 1:47:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 1:50:35 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
What would you accept as evidence of a God?

Something Monty Python style, burs

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:11:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Proof can only exist for something that can be put in the form of a scientific hypothesis. That means outcomes must be both falsifiable and predictable. For example, if prayers performed under certain conditions were always fulfilled, that would prove an agent answers prayers.

However, we then slip into the semantics of what constitutes a god. I don't see how a god could be distinguished from the programmers of the Matrix or from sufficiently technically advanced aliens. Still, a good start would to be prove that something with divine powers exists. Also, revealing a logical resolution of the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Non-belief would help.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:26:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: To me the unambiguous solution is in the hands of ANY genuine Story book jebus believer -

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. (John 14:12-14) KJV Story book.

Thus proving that ANY genuine jebus believer shall do ' greater miracles than Story book jebus ' and proves also this promise IS NOT made only or restricted to the Story book apostles! & If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. (John 15:7) English Standard Version (ESV) Story book

So ANY genuine Story book jebus believer has to simply ' ask jebus ' to provide an unambiguous sign / whatever jebus deems is required to provide, to unambiguously convince ANY & ALL sceptics in such a way ONLY a divine entity knows how!

Next!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 4:39:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem is actually finding one outside of bible Story book Land but I'm certain one can be found here amongst all those that ' claim they are? ' LOL!

No doubt annanicole, Scotty, TheAsylum, godisreal or his pastas will be rushing here to strut their stuff by implementing the Story book promises already a given by their jebus (apparently?) as detailed in my previous Post?

LOL!
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:15:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 4:39:48 AM, Composer wrote:
The problem is actually finding one outside of bible Story book Land but I'm certain one can be found here amongst all those that ' claim they are? ' LOL!

No doubt annanicole, Scotty, TheAsylum, godisreal or his pastas will be rushing here to strut their stuff by implementing the Story book promises already a given by their jebus (apparently?) as detailed in my previous Post?

LOL!

You do realize ScottyDouglas and TheAsylum are the same person, right?
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2012 5:27:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 5:15:35 AM, AlwaysMoreThanYou wrote:
At 9/24/2012 4:39:48 AM, Composer wrote:
The problem is actually finding one outside of bible Story book Land but I'm certain one can be found here amongst all those that ' claim they are? ' LOL!

No doubt annanicole, Scotty, TheAsylum, godisreal or his pastas will be rushing here to strut their stuff by implementing the Story book promises already a given by their jebus (apparently?) as detailed in my previous Post?

LOL!

You do realize ScottyDouglas and TheAsylum are the same person, right?

Me Composer the ongoing successful Cult buster: I knew they were proven busted by me losers but No I didn't know they are one & the same loser, but I do know now, thanks!
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 9:36:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/24/2012 1:47:49 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 9/23/2012 1:50:35 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
What would you accept as evidence of a God?

Something Monty Python style, burs


NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

GIVE THEM THE CHAIR!
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 10:25:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The sadest world anyone could live in is a world without religion. That would be the ultimate world of the oppression of the human spirit.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 10:28:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/23/2012 2:28:08 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/23/2012 2:27:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
At 9/22/2012 9:40:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
In debating religionists, it's hard not to get bogged down in all the apparent inconsistencies and contradictions the religious person makes; not to mention the religion, itself. Anyone who seriously considers that which he, or she, is saying either has an epiphany or refuses to see the illogical statements he, or she, has made. From the origins of the Universe to political issues such as gay marriage, the religionist doesn't have a leg on which to stand. That's why creationism is not considered a science, and gay marriage has gained a footing, not only among a secular society but, also, among many of its religious denominations.

Where once the atheist, agnostic, humanist, and secularists were marginalized by society, these are, now, considered respected doctors and scientists. Often, those who are seen as fanatical concerning religion are, also, labeled as quacks.

I know it, sad, sad, world we live in.

We can't say that we weren't warned that it would happen though.

This. Claiming victory or winning lol.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:38:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 10:25:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
The sadest world anyone could live in is a world without religion. That would be the ultimate world of the oppression of the human spirit.

What's so sad, about ridding the world of division? All religion has done and will ever do is divide people into Us versus Them and We are Morally Superior to Those Who Don't Believe as We Do categories. The human spirit is not oppressed by ridding the world of these divisive tools but is set free.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 12:07:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:38:00 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/26/2012 10:25:08 AM, sadolite wrote:
The sadest world anyone could live in is a world without religion. That would be the ultimate world of the oppression of the human spirit.

What's so sad, about ridding the world of division? All religion has done and will ever do is divide people into Us versus Them and We are Morally Superior to Those Who Don't Believe as We Do categories. The human spirit is not oppressed by ridding the world of these divisive tools but is set free.


Lmao, you just started this thread in attempts to point out the difference between us and you(division), and how the tables have turned (your division is getting bigger/better).

All religion has done and will ever do is divide people into Us versus Them and We are Morally Superior to Those Who Don't Believe as We Do categories.


I hear FAR more Atheist claim to be morally superior, but I wouldn't deny it, I can be very immoral (imo).

What of the divisions set by those who are limited to science and human reason? Any person who learns by methods other then the natural is considered foolish, ignorant, delusional, sadistic, wrong.. etc.

If you remove theism, a religion of pure naturalism will rise up, and I'm sure it will be similar to the early Roman empire.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 1:25:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 12:07:58 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Lmao, you just started this thread in attempts to point out the difference between us and you(division), and how the tables have turned (your division is getting bigger/better).

No. The thread was started to point out the fact: which was once considered a marginalized section of society is now more a part of the mainstream. It's not a moral critique; it does not say one group is right and the other is wrong; it only points out a social phenomenon.

What of the divisions set by those who are limited to science and human reason? Any person who learns by methods other then the natural is considered foolish, ignorant, delusional, sadistic, wrong.. etc.

What other reason is there, if it's not human? So, you're telling me you have thoughts that do not come from human nature. Then, from where do they come?
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 2:19:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 1:25:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/26/2012 12:07:58 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Lmao, you just started this thread in attempts to point out the difference between us and you(division), and how the tables have turned (your division is getting bigger/better).

No. The thread was started to point out the fact: which was once considered a marginalized section of society is now more a part of the mainstream. It's not a moral critique; it does not say one group is right and the other is wrong; it only points out a social phenomenon.

What of the divisions set by those who are limited to science and human reason? Any person who learns by methods other then the natural is considered foolish, ignorant, delusional, sadistic, wrong.. etc.

What other reason is there, if it's not human? So, you're telling me you have thoughts that do not come from human nature. Then, from where do they come?

I am very pleased with the calm demeanor of this argument - although I go much further. I argue that one side is right, and one side is wrong. I mean this in a moral sense, but also very literally. The side of science, and wisdom, and learning makes no claim to eternal correctness. This side admits its ignorance as a means of advancing knowledge.

The result of this is that religion has been very wrong on a very many occasions. It was wrong on the cause of thunder, the shape of the earth, the nature of the sun, the cause of diseases... the list is long.

I am also convinced of the moral superiority of the side that hates the gods. I freely admit that the mortal side has normal human failures. However, I note that the secular side does not adore sadistic and mercurial gods. I contend that hating a mass-murdering god is more moral than loving that god.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:35:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 2:19:11 PM, DeFool wrote:
I am very pleased with the calm demeanor of this argument - although I go much further. I argue that one side is right, and one side is wrong. I mean this in a moral sense, but also very literally. The side of science, and wisdom, and learning makes no claim to eternal correctness. This side admits its ignorance as a means of advancing knowledge.

This is not exclusive to science, as it is a tool anyone can use. The problem your 'wise' encounter, is the same problem all men have; they learn what they want to learn, and see what they want to see.

The result of this is that religion has been very wrong on a very many occasions. It was wrong on the cause of thunder, the shape of the earth, the nature of the sun, the cause of diseases... the list is long.

Religion, yes. Christianity, no.

I am also convinced of the moral superiority of the side that hates the gods. I freely admit that the mortal side has normal human failures. However, I note that the secular side does not adore sadistic and mercurial gods. I contend that hating a mass-murdering god is more moral than loving that god.


lol, of course you are. No one is more moral then anyone. Get over it.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 5:18:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 2:19:11 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 10/26/2012 1:25:30 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/26/2012 12:07:58 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Lmao, you just started this thread in attempts to point out the difference between us and you(division), and how the tables have turned (your division is getting bigger/better).

No. The thread was started to point out the fact: which was once considered a marginalized section of society is now more a part of the mainstream. It's not a moral critique; it does not say one group is right and the other is wrong; it only points out a social phenomenon.

What of the divisions set by those who are limited to science and human reason? Any person who learns by methods other then the natural is considered foolish, ignorant, delusional, sadistic, wrong.. etc.

What other reason is there, if it's not human? So, you're telling me you have thoughts that do not come from human nature. Then, from where do they come?

I am very pleased with the calm demeanor of this argument - although I go much further. I argue that one side is right, and one side is wrong. I mean this in a moral sense, but also very literally. The side of science, and wisdom, and learning makes no claim to eternal correctness. This side admits its ignorance as a means of advancing knowledge.

The result of this is that religion has been very wrong on a very many occasions. It was wrong on the cause of thunder, the shape of the earth, the nature of the sun, the cause of diseases... the list is long.

I am also convinced of the moral superiority of the side that hates the gods. I freely admit that the mortal side has normal human failures. However, I note that the secular side does not adore sadistic and mercurial gods. I contend that hating a mass-murdering god is more moral than loving that god.

Must be quite an interesting experience living in such a black and white world.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!