Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti-chirtian Hypocrisy

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 12:16:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anti-Christians say they are against Christianity because of bigotry carried out by churches of various denominations, either independently or collectively. Such as the Catholic inquisition, or the Evangelicalist discrimination against homosexuals.

Because of discrimination by certain branches of Christianity, Anti-Christians feel they have justification to discriminate against Christians. I've heard some anti-Christians advocate the genocide of Christians. It's pure hypocrisy.

My Grandfather was an atheist and my Grandmother was a Sunday-school teacher. It's possible to be atheist and still be tolerant of Christianity.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM, phantom wrote:
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.

But Christianity is not defensible. Hell is not defensible. Prayer is not defensible. Miracles are not defensible. Souls are not defensible. The parables are not defensible. I will argue it to my grave, that Christianity is an absurd belief set that has beguiled the gullible public for 2 millennia. If it was just baseless postulations, I might not be so outraged as to side with the modus operandi of New Atheism, but no, they often contradict themselves in the same sentence. Central to my objections is the argument on the dissonance of omnipotence and applicable logic, which I already showed you in our PM. How is it that God is superior and exalted yet knowable and arguable and subordinate to logic? He isn't? Then how is it that you're making arguments in defense of his existence, yet he supposedly has properties to which your logic does not apply? How is it that he is all good yet there is such a thing as "evil"?

I've seen their defenses; these people rely on gaps in current knowledge as the basis on which to fabricate their own....if it wasn't the geocentric universe, it was the the order & circularity of nature. They constantly mistake the lack of current explanation for the inability to find a physical one and attribute any shortcoming of science to the work of ethereal forces...and with time, science demolishes it.

New Atheists have it right. Religion should not be tolerated. I will do everything in my power to shatter its influence on humanity.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:06:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM, phantom wrote:
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.

But Christianity is not defensible. Hell is not defensible. Prayer is not defensible. Miracles are not defensible. Souls are not defensible. The parables are not defensible. I will argue it to my grave, that Christianity is an absurd belief set that has beguiled the gullible public for 2 millennia. If it was just baseless postulations, I might not be so outraged as to side with the modus operandi of New Atheism, but no, they often contradict themselves in the same sentence. Central to my objections is the argument on the dissonance of omnipotence and applicable logic, which I already showed you in our PM. How is it that God is superior and exalted yet knowable and arguable and subordinate to logic? He isn't? Then how is it that you're making arguments in defense of his existence, yet he supposedly has properties to which your logic does not apply? How is it that he is all good yet there is such a thing as "evil"?

I've seen their defenses; these people rely on gaps in current knowledge as the basis on which to fabricate their own....if it wasn't the geocentric universe, it was the the order & circularity of nature. They constantly mistake the lack of current explanation for the inability to find a physical one and attribute any shortcoming of science to the work of ethereal forces...and with time, science demolishes it.

New Atheists have it right. Religion should not be tolerated. I will do everything in my power to shatter its influence on humanity.

And.......... we wonder why people think bad of atheist that are theists.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:30:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I will do everything in my power
Sit behind your computer screen and write angry posts? Ok.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 1:52:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM, phantom wrote:
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.

But Christianity is not defensible. Hell is not defensible.

You make the same mistake as so many people. I didn't believe in hell in my later years of Christianity. At least not the hell I'm sure you're referring to. I was an annihilationist as are many. There's also universalism which I think PCP conforms to. An eternal hell is a blatantly immoral concept to plenty of Christians. Don't assume it's a necessary doctrine of Christianity otherwise you're generalizing. It was an assumption that immensely annoyed me when I was Christian.

Prayer is not defensible.

I have to admit, it is pretty hard to defend but I don't know if all Christians even believe silent prayer works. Some Christians actually mix deism into their religion so that they don't believe God is even personal any more. If I ever returned to Christianity I probably wouldn't believe God hears every ones prayers. In the Bible people went to much greater lengths than simply silent prayer to talk to God. I think Christians usually have it wrong and the concept of prayer has developed into something it was not initially.

Miracles are not defensible.

Depends. Christians have made some good arguments for the logical plausibility of some miracles.

Souls are not defensible.

Really? I think mind-body dualism is a very defensible position. I have to concede that consciousness is a problem for naturalism. It just doesn't seem conceivable. I'm still a naturalist since I just believe we're ignorant of the the mind but consciousness makes sense under religion and the concept of a soul while it's puzzling under naturalism. That's only one factor in favor of dualism. I'm a materialist but it's still a respectable theory.

The parables are not defensible.

Parables are just analogous stories. Not sure what you mean.

I will argue it to my grave, that Christianity is an absurd belief set that has beguiled the gullible public for 2 millennia.

Does it cause any impact on you that many intelligent people have been converted to it? I know that would be fallacious as an argument in support of it, but what I have realized is we all have different brains and the way our mind works intellectually is somewhat relative. For example, I'm very skeptical which is one of the main reasons I'm atheist. But I've realized that maybe my skeptical nature is just a hindrance to objectively evaluating what is true. It is definitely a hindrance in one way since it makes me naturally lean towards lack of belief. It's a natural inclination that gets in the way of things. This epistemic subjectivity entails that we can never be too sure of things because our minds just work differently than others which is why we are so sure. So when I see very intelligent people who are convinced of the arguments of Christianity while I am not convinced by those arguments, I just have to wander whether there is more credibility to them than my intellect tells me. Arguments leave different impressions on every body. The way our mind works somewhat decides the impressions it makes on us. If someone with a more intelligent mind than me gets a different impression from the argument than I do, than who am I to be certain my inferior mind is the one that accurately and more objectively processed the information?

If it was just baseless postulations, I might not be so outraged as to side with the modus operandi of New Atheism, but no, they often contradict themselves in the same sentence.

You're generalizing Christianity. Plenty of Christians are like that but not Christianity as a whole. If Christians always contradicted themselves, you'd have a more credible position, but they obviously do not and plenty of atheists also contradict themselves it's just less likely sense they don't have as many beliefs.

Central to my objections is the argument on the dissonance of omnipotence and applicable logic, which I already showed you in our PM. How is it that God is superior and exalted yet knowable and arguable and subordinate to logic? He isn't? Then how is it that you're making arguments in defense of his existence, yet he supposedly has properties to which your logic does not apply?

Okay we've been over this. Omnipotence can either mean the ability to do absolutely everything, independent of what is logical, or the ability to do everything that correlates with logic. Christianity actually quite obviously conforms to the second definition. Ask any Christian whether God can sin and he will most likely say he cannot. You raised good points in the PM but Christian worldview does not entail that viewpoint. Christians usually believe God cannot contradict his nature, therefore God has to act according to what is logical and your objection fails.

How is it that he is all good yet there is such a thing as "evil"?

The problem of evil is overrated. First off, if God defines morality, it completely fails. Secondly, it's hard to even prove gratuitous evil. That's because God by definition is almost incomprehensible. It's hard to understand humans outside of your culture, how much harder would it be to understand the omnipotent ruler of the universe with our incredibly limited perspective? The Bible even says that Gods ways are unfathomable so even by the Christians worldview it's not fathomable why God allows evil. Taking this into account, you could not know Gods purpose for evil but it's impossible to discount it because you have such a limited perspective of what Gods plan could be. Especially if you take the Christian universalist position it's not so strong.


I've seen their defenses; these people rely on gaps in current knowledge as the basis on which to fabricate their own....if it wasn't the geocentric universe, it was the the order & circularity of nature. They constantly mistake the lack of current explanation for the inability to find a physical one and attribute any shortcoming of science to the work of ethereal forces...and with time, science demolishes it.

Science demolished the biological design argument but it has yet to disprove the physical teleological argument. Even Antony Flew was convinced by it and Dawkins admits science can't explain it. Yes, theists often commit the God of the gaps fallacy but atheists too often accuse them of it. The teleological argument does have its credibility and so do some other arguments.

I joined a book study with some Christian friends and we're covering Lee Strobels book on the historical and archeological evidence for Christianity. He does a lot of interviews with different people and while none of it has convinced me, it certainly has broadened my respect for Christianity because it's hard to refute. It's difficult to refute Christianity so I'm strongly against being intolerant of it.

New Atheists have it right. Religion should not be tolerated. I will do everything in my power to shatter its influence on humanity.

And I will always do whatever is in my power to fight the unjustified intolerance that currently plagues humanity. Therefore I will fight against New Atheism and religious intolerance because they are both an intellectual plague.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 2:34:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Phantom:

Intelligent Christians
It doesn't matter how intelligent people are, because as you said, we all have different minds and different influences of bias (conscious or subconscious). What permits us to change opinions is the objective base of logic, and ultimately all our arguments answer to it. The atheists who converted to theists were in most cases, never truly atheists (as I'm starting to realize that I was never truly a theist)...or, the individuals that were fervent atheists and then became theists are intellectually volatile and will vacillate between the conflicting positions for several years...which seems more the product of ambivalence than pragmatic skepticism. In short, even intelligent people are subject to the influence of bias, and what they have to say should not be given special authority over what the average person may have to say.

Omnipotence

If you don't respond to everything here, at least respond to this. Omnipotence means ALL powerful...all conceivable power. Period...."ALL" being the operative clause. There is no way in hell that you can use the word all and then produce an exception...that would be contradictory. All powerful means all powerful. If you want to say that it is all power within the purview of logic, then fine, just don't call it omnipotence, because it isn't. Logic is a preexisting constraint. If it applies to God, then there are powers imaginable, that he does not wield. There's no way of getting around this...unless you want to redefine the meaning of "all".

Mind-Body Dualism

The only possible convincing arguments in favor of this concern the exploitation of gaps in current knowledge. There is no single positive piece of evidence that suggests that the soul exists, nor is there really a serious explanation of how such substances would interact. In my modest opinion, it's a contradiction for an ethereal substance to affect a physical substance, because the act of affecting is physical in itself. I'll admit, that consciousness is the most unclear part of my model of how I think the world works....but a materialistic explanation fits so perfectly with all other propositions I can say with a degree of certainty, are true...that I am willing to reject dualism, not on proof without a shadow of a doubt, but based on a preponderance of the evidence.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:10:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:16:17 PM, DanT wrote:
Anti-Christians say they are against Christianity because of bigotry carried out by churches of various denominations, either independently or collectively. Such as the Catholic inquisition, or the Evangelicalist discrimination against homosexuals.

Because of discrimination by certain branches of Christianity, Anti-Christians feel they have justification to discriminate against Christians. I've heard some anti-Christians advocate the genocide of Christians. It's pure hypocrisy.


My Grandfather was an atheist and my Grandmother was a Sunday-school teacher. It's possible to be atheist and still be tolerant of Christianity.

I agree 100%. I have no problem with Christianity, I just find is saddening that grown intelligent men believe the outrageous supernatural fairy tale stories.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:48:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I disagree with the assertion, although I would like to be wrong. It is possible for atheists to tolerate Christianity, but the inverse is not true; Christians are commanded to kill non-believers for a long list of reasons. These include disobedience towards parents and working on the Sabbath.

Additionally, my bigotry towards these people comes from a simple catch-22:

It is impossible to believe in heaven and remain alive for more than a few seconds.
It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes in heaven honestly.

This requires that every self-professed Christian is criminally insane or a liar.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:48:12 PM, DeFool wrote:
I disagree with the assertion, although I would like to be wrong. It is possible for atheists to tolerate Christianity, but the inverse is not true; Christians are commanded to kill non-believers for a long list of reasons. These include disobedience towards parents and working on the Sabbath.

Additionally, my bigotry towards these people comes from a simple catch-22:

It is impossible to believe in heaven and remain alive for more than a few seconds.
It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes in heaven honestly.

This requires that every self-professed Christian is criminally insane or a liar.

Heaven is just a story to keep people in line and help their fear of death, and hell is a story to make them feel better about the people that get away with bad things. Since the world isn't perfect (we all die, and bad people get away with things), these fairy tales are inevitable.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:59:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol

I think he is calling you out on the grown intelligent men comment.

Do you normally dress like you did in your profile picture?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol
Nope, I just thought one of the atheist militants would be willing to debate. LordKnukle and Wallstreetatheist are pulling out all the time. Not sure what to do.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:14:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM, phantom wrote:
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.

But Christianity is not defensible. Hell is not defensible. Prayer is not defensible. Miracles are not defensible. Souls are not defensible. The parables are not defensible. I will argue it to my grave, that Christianity is an absurd belief set that has beguiled the gullible public for 2 millennia. If it was just baseless postulations, I might not be so outraged as to side with the modus operandi of New Atheism, but no, they often contradict themselves in the same sentence. Central to my objections is the argument on the dissonance of omnipotence and applicable logic, which I already showed you in our PM. How is it that God is superior and exalted yet knowable and arguable and subordinate to logic? He isn't? Then how is it that you're making arguments in defense of his existence, yet he supposedly has properties to which your logic does not apply? How is it that he is all good yet there is such a thing as "evil"?

I've seen their defenses; these people rely on gaps in current knowledge as the basis on which to fabricate their own....if it wasn't the geocentric universe, it was the the order & circularity of nature. They constantly mistake the lack of current explanation for the inability to find a physical one and attribute any shortcoming of science to the work of ethereal forces...and with time, science demolishes it.

New Atheists have it right. Religion should not be tolerated. I will do everything in my power to shatter its influence on humanity.

lol...You're charm and personality, reminiscent of someone who has been bound up and unable to take a dump for 2 months, is likely to win over so many followers.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:20:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 1:30:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I will do everything in my power
Sit behind your computer screen and write angry posts? Ok.

ROFL.

Yeah, ike is the face on new atheism. Lol, we got this bro. ;)
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:22:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:26:08 PM, phantom wrote:
New atheism is just as bad as much of what they're against. It's about as bad as religious intolerance. I can't understand it. Christianity in itself is a respectable worldview. Many intelligent people have been converted to it and it's certainly defensible.

But Christianity is not defensible. Hell is not defensible. Prayer is not defensible. Miracles are not defensible. Souls are not defensible. The parables are not defensible. I will argue it to my grave, that Christianity is an absurd belief set that has beguiled the gullible public for 2 millennia. If it was just baseless postulations, I might not be so outraged as to side with the modus operandi of New Atheism, but no, they often contradict themselves in the same sentence. Central to my objections is the argument on the dissonance of omnipotence and applicable logic, which I already showed you in our PM. How is it that God is superior and exalted yet knowable and arguable and subordinate to logic? He isn't? Then how is it that you're making arguments in defense of his existence, yet he supposedly has properties to which your logic does not apply? How is it that he is all good yet there is such a thing as "evil"?

I've seen their defenses; these people rely on gaps in current knowledge as the basis on which to fabricate their own....if it wasn't the geocentric universe, it was the the order & circularity of nature. They constantly mistake the lack of current explanation for the inability to find a physical one and attribute any shortcoming of science to the work of ethereal forces...and with time, science demolishes it.

Children and thier tantrums, too cute.

Try taking deep breaths and count to a hundred, and maybe a cold washcloth against your face, breath in, breath out, relax and try to think happy thoughts.

New Atheists have it right. Religion should not be tolerated. I will do everything in my power to shatter its influence on humanity.

The idle talk of the powerless...when you bring religious faith to an end, be sure to let us know LOL.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 4:53:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:48:12 PM, DeFool wrote:
I disagree with the assertion, although I would like to be wrong. It is possible for atheists to tolerate Christianity, but the inverse is not true; Christians are commanded to kill non-believers for a long list of reasons. These include disobedience towards parents and working on the Sabbath.

There is no Law for Christians to kill non-believers; the law you're referring to was actually for israel, amongst themselves. The only Laws you do have, for a person being executed, is in the OT under the old covenant; while there isn't one mention of a person actually being executed due to any of the old covenant laws, I believe their executions were completely lawful. F*cked up, but lawful-- who says we have to like it?

Additionally, my bigotry towards these people comes from a simple catch-22:

It is impossible to believe in heaven and remain alive for more than a few seconds.
It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes in heaven honestly.

This requires that every self-professed Christian is criminally insane or a liar.


Lol, It never ceases to amaze me how much I have in common with some people; I think something similar...

It is delusional to deny the truth of the Bible

It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes there is no God, honestly.

This requires that every Christ/God denying person is either unregenerate, or unregenerate and insane.
: 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.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:21:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:59:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol

I think he is calling you out on the grown intelligent men comment.

Then why not just ask for a debate with that resolution? I fail to see how the Quran specifically, and whether or not it was written by a man or not, has much to do with what I'm saying here.


Do you normally dress like you did in your profile picture?

Do you normally dress like a boat?
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:24:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:21:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:59:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol

I think he is calling you out on the grown intelligent men comment.

Then why not just ask for a debate with that resolution? I fail to see how the Quran specifically, and whether or not it was written by a man or not, has much to do with what I'm saying here.

Might have something to do with why grown intelligent men can believe certain things.


Do you normally dress like you did in your profile picture?

Do you normally dress like a boat?

Lol, not all the time. Care to answer the question?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:27:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 4:53:08 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:48:12 PM, DeFool wrote:
I disagree with the assertion, although I would like to be wrong. It is possible for atheists to tolerate Christianity, but the inverse is not true; Christians are commanded to kill non-believers for a long list of reasons. These include disobedience towards parents and working on the Sabbath.

There is no Law for Christians to kill non-believers; the law you're referring to was actually for israel, amongst themselves. The only Laws you do have, for a person being executed, is in the OT under the old covenant; while there isn't one mention of a person actually being executed due to any of the old covenant laws, I believe their executions were completely lawful. F*cked up, but lawful-- who says we have to like it?

Additionally, my bigotry towards these people comes from a simple catch-22:

It is impossible to believe in heaven and remain alive for more than a few seconds.
It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes in heaven honestly.

This requires that every self-professed Christian is criminally insane or a liar.


Lol, It never ceases to amaze me how much I have in common with some people; I think something similar...

It is delusional to deny the truth of the Bible

You mean, delusional to believe in it's fairy tales and myths that science keeps debunking on a regular basis.


It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes there is no God, honestly.

It's very possible. I don't see how someone could actually believe in a God, it seems like just a psychological or emotional crutch to feel better about death and to have an answer for when there is a mystery, not something that actually exists.


This requires that every Christ/God denying person is either unregenerate, or unregenerate and insane.

Nope, just not gullible and skeptical about claims there is 0 evidence for. If you believe that bodies can be supernaturally raised from the dead like zombies, and that serpents can talk, then it's you who has the problem. You would probably buy into ouija boards, or other types of mythical nonsense.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:24:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:21:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:59:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol

I think he is calling you out on the grown intelligent men comment.

Then why not just ask for a debate with that resolution? I fail to see how the Quran specifically, and whether or not it was written by a man or not, has much to do with what I'm saying here.

Might have something to do with why grown intelligent men can believe certain things.

It might, but he even said in this thread that his debate request didn't have anything to do with the discussion. So, really, no.



Do you normally dress like you did in your profile picture?

Do you normally dress like a boat?

Lol, not all the time. Care to answer the question?

Why are you so interested in my fashion sense? I don't know if you are aware, but this is the religious section of a debate website. I'm sure they have sites for men to discuss other men's fashion, but unfortunately for you, this is not one of them.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 5:52:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:33:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:24:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 5:21:54 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:59:56 PM, jharry wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:56:26 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:54:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
Rational_Thinker, Are you up for the resolution: "There is no evidence that the Quran had a human author"?

Not really. That subject doesn't interest me, and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about lol

I think he is calling you out on the grown intelligent men comment.

Then why not just ask for a debate with that resolution? I fail to see how the Quran specifically, and whether or not it was written by a man or not, has much to do with what I'm saying here.

Might have something to do with why grown intelligent men can believe certain things.

It might, but he even said in this thread that his debate request didn't have anything to do with the discussion. So, really, no.

Could be.




Do you normally dress like you did in your profile picture?

Do you normally dress like a boat?

Lol, not all the time. Care to answer the question?

Why are you so interested in my fashion sense? I don't know if you are aware, but this is the religious section of a debate website. I'm sure they have sites for men to discuss other men's fashion, but unfortunately for you, this is not one of them.

Wow, it's just a question. No need to be so defensive about it. So I can assume you will not answer a simple question?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:15:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:48:12 PM, DeFool wrote:
I disagree with the assertion, although I would like to be wrong. It is possible for atheists to tolerate Christianity, but the inverse is not true; Christians are commanded to kill non-believers for a long list of reasons.
Please provide a bible passage that commands Christians to kill all non-believers
These include disobedience towards parents and working on the Sabbath.

Those are the 10 commandments for the Hebrews, who god led out of Isreal. It is not enforced by penalty of death. 1 of the commandments is thou shall not kill. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Additionally, my bigotry towards these people comes from a simple catch-22:

It is impossible to believe in heaven and remain alive for more than a few seconds.
Originally Christians tried provoking others to murder them. When people didn't murder them, they threw themselves off cliffs. That's why the church deemed suicide a sin, and claimed it to be a form of murder.
It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes in heaven honestly.

Unless suicide is considered murder, and therefore a sin that would damn the soul.
This requires that every self-professed Christian is criminally insane or a liar.
How so?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:22:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 1:30:02 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/29/2012 12:42:54 PM, 000ike wrote:
I will do everything in my power
Sit behind your computer screen and write angry posts? Ok.

That is the power of the internet: disguise and an absence of constraint, LOL.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 6:25:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
For reference:

1) Prayers for wish fulfilment are indefensible, imo, theologically.

2) The New Atheist modus operandi is more along the lines of being intolerant of intolerance, then going too far. That doesn't mean the philosophical side of New Atheism (i.e. Grayling, Carrier, Shermer, for example) is defunct or faulty or lacking merit, just that, as with all theories, some take it too far.

3) The idea that new atheists propose the genocide of Christians seems for me too far fetched to even be plausible for a single credible individual to say seriously.
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...
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 7:47:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:27:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 10/29/2012 4:53:08 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
Lol, It never ceases to amaze me how much I have in common with some people; I think something similar...

It is delusional to deny the truth of the Bible

You mean, delusional to believe in it's fairy tales and myths that science keeps debunking on a regular basis.

Lol, I hear that spouted out every now and then. What do you think is the most obvious claim the Bible makes that science disproves? (this should be good)

It is impossible to be alive and say that one believes there is no God, honestly.

It's very possible. I don't see how someone could actually believe in a God, it seems like just a psychological or emotional crutch to feel better about death and to have an answer for when there is a mystery, not something that actually exists.

I don't think so. Why would I be worried about death? Either Christ is God, and I'm lucky to have been chosen, or he isn't and I face non-existance; win-win.

This requires that every Christ/God denying person is either unregenerate, or unregenerate and insane.

Nope, just not gullible and skeptical about claims there is 0 evidence for. If you believe that bodies can be supernaturally raised from the dead like zombies, and that serpents can talk, then it's you who has the problem. You would probably buy into ouija boards, or other types of mythical nonsense.


Thats a subjective claim; what I consider evidence, you may not and vice versa.

I don't think they rise like zombies, but I do believe we are risen for judgement. I think your opinion is overwhelemed with hate and bias. It's amazing how predictable people are; if the Gospel is ever brought up among non-believers (including some so-called Christians), people turn into f*ckin animals.. they try to come up with the most wicked sh*t to say to that person.. very sad.

Ouija boards, or any other attempts to contact dead people/spirits, can have negative effects.
: 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.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 12:51:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 2:34:03 PM, 000ike wrote:
@ Phantom:

Intelligent Christians
It doesn't matter how intelligent people are, because as you said, we all have different minds and different influences of bias (conscious or subconscious). What permits us to change opinions is the objective base of logic, and ultimately all our arguments answer to it.

I never mentioned bias. I was pointing out how impressions arguments have on us is somewhat subjective. So even though great minds are convinced by arguments whereas yours and my lesser mind is not. But it's all up to how your mind works so you should be very careful about being sure of things. Logic is objective but it's impossible to argue our minds objectively process logic. Our empirical and rational faculties are all prone to flaws and subjectivity. Our minds work to evaluate logic rationally or intuitively. The impressions logic leaves on us are decided by our faculties of reasoning and intuition. The better the mind, the more objective it is. No one has such objective faculties. Now you consider that very intelligent minds, more so than your are I, find the logic behind Christianity to be sound. It follows that the strength of your convictions are intellectually unjustified. That is because your rationale cannot really be argued as any better or more objective than theirs. Taking into account the subjectivity and flaws of our rational and empirical faculties it can only lead to cautious belief. The more you see intelligent minds following a belief, the less justified you are in being convinced that that belief is bull.

The atheists who converted to theists were in most cases, never truly atheists (as I'm starting to realize that I was never truly a theist)...or, the individuals that were fervent atheists and then became theists are intellectually volatile and will vacillate between the conflicting positions for several years...which seems more the product of ambivalence than pragmatic skepticism. In short, even intelligent people are subject to the influence of bias, and what they have to say should not be given special authority over what the average person may have to say.

Not really my point but I heard Josh McDowell speak and he was, before becoming Christian, basically a militant secularist and intelligent too. He was neither intellectually volatile nor vacillated between conflicting positions. Antony Flew also argued against God from an early age and was a big atheist philosopher for the majority of his life until he was converted to deism his latter years. None of your objections apply to him. It's funny how you admit any one is subject to bias influences but aren't willing to admit your conviction of atheism and secularism might be due to biases and subjectivity. If you were, you wouldn't be so sure of it.


Omnipotence

If you don't respond to everything here, at least respond to this. Omnipotence means ALL powerful...all conceivable power. Period...."ALL" being the operative clause. There is no way in hell that you can use the word all and then produce an exception...that would be contradictory. All powerful means all powerful. If you want to say that it is all power within the purview of logic, then fine, just don't call it omnipotence, because it isn't. Logic is a preexisting constraint. If it applies to God, then there are powers imaginable, that he does not wield. There's no way of getting around this...unless you want to redefine the meaning of "all".

Wittgenstein stated that language is just a tool that often leads to much philosophical confusion. Discovering the meaning of language, the goal to which the tools were put into use, is much more important than playing semantics. You're just saying omnipotence is poorly used which just says Christians shouldn't use the term rather than poking holes in their religion, ergo you haven't raised a sound argument against Christianity at all. The meaning of omnipotence that Christians use is what is important. Argue against what they mean by it not what should be meant by the word. Besides that, all-powerful is often considered as maximal power. Maximal is what is to the greatest possible extent. The greatest possible extent quite obviously must conform to logic because what is possible can only be what is in correlation to what is logical.

Mind-Body Dualism

The only possible convincing arguments in favor of this concern the exploitation of gaps in current knowledge. There is no single positive piece of evidence that suggests that the soul exists, nor is there really a serious explanation of how such substances would interact. In my modest opinion, it's a contradiction for an ethereal substance to affect a physical substance, because the act of affecting is physical in itself. I'll admit, that consciousness is the most unclear part of my model of how I think the world works....but a materialistic explanation fits so perfectly with all other propositions I can say with a degree of certainty, are true...that I am willing to reject dualism, not on proof without a shadow of a doubt, but based on a preponderance of the evidence.

I'm not going to go out of my way arguing dualism since I'm obviously against it but your objection is quite common. I do think it's a problem but not a massive one. Just consider, according to dualism the mind is immaterial. Immaterial substances do not conform to the same laws that bind material ones. You're arguing that it does not makes sense for the immaterial to interact with the material by using material rules. I'd have to say no one could know the laws that bind the immaterial if it existed so you can't really prove the immaterial could not interact with the material. Also considering we would have no knowledge of what immaterial substances really are if they existed. I'm glad you concede consciousness is unclear. Don't you admit it's also prima facie confusing to say material substances can conceive of their own existence? That's one of the main arguments for dualism and I say it's a tough one. How can materialism account for such phenomena? I've found it to be one of the hardest objections to my world view so I'm surprised you would raise it as one of your main objections to Christianity.

Seeing as you've dropped more than half your arguments I don't think you're doing everything in your power to refute religion as you said you would...
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2012 12:59:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 5:27:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nope, just not gullible and skeptical about claims there is 0 evidence for. If you believe that bodies can be supernaturally raised from the dead like zombies, and that serpents can talk, then it's you who has the problem. You would probably buy into ouija boards, or other types of mythical nonsense.

What is your number one objection to the resurrection?