Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Godphobia

Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If you are trying to equate these two things, I would say that this is one of your multiple false equations of things.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:51:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Criss Angel had resources for his tricks that Jesus didn't have. You can't put pillars in that big a body of water like Angel did in a swimming pool. So try again and use less shallow examples. Once Angel feeds 5000 with a meal from Ivar's, then you can dismiss Jesus. Who's using false equations now?
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 6:59:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:51:25 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Criss Angel had resources for his tricks that Jesus didn't have. You can't put pillars in that big a body of water like Angel did in a swimming pool. So try again and use less shallow examples. Once Angel feeds 5000 with a meal from Ivar's, then you can dismiss Jesus. Who's using false equations now?

Well we have zero contemporary records of Jesus. Herod died eight years before Jesus was supposedly born, and others involved in Jesus's birth were not in power during that time period.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:03:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you start the argument with "well" like that, it indicates weakened resolve. Also don't change to a tangent or whatever. That hurts as well.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:07:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:03:12 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
When you start the argument with "well" like that, it indicates weakened resolve. Also don't change to a tangent or whatever. That hurts as well.

How do you account for such a messy timeline?
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:12:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
By not dwelling on the past. The future of Christianity may be more certain than its history, so that is where my focus is.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:12:47 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
By not dwelling on the past. The future of Christianity may be more certain than its history, so that is where my focus is.

Why has no contemporary historian ever captured the story of Jesus? Why was Herod dead before Jesus? Why is there a twenty year gap in the life of Jesus?

If you can't answer these questions, that shows how weak YOUR argument is.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:29:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all, you appealed to a weak magic authority. If you want to know about Jesus' youth so much, ensure your afterlife is heaven bound. There are a lot things history can't account for confidently. So your argument is that if someone wrote it down, it happened that way. Ancient people can't have an agenda? Obviously they can, because you're implicitly accusing the human authors of the bible of that.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 7:54:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:29:42 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
First of all, you appealed to a weak magic authority. If you want to know about Jesus' youth so much, ensure your afterlife is heaven bound. There are a lot things history can't account for confidently. So your argument is that if someone wrote it down, it happened that way. Ancient people can't have an agenda? Obviously they can, because you're implicitly accusing the human authors of the bible of that.

It's not just that. it's historical records by reliable historians. It's various writings of soldiers and nobles. it's records of noble families by their own kingdoms. Our records are reliable.

Why are there zero contemporary records of Jesus. And the other events and people mentioned are either also not recorded, or completely off of the supposed timeline in either direction. The supposed entire empire census was a regional one of Judea that didn't require you to go to your homeland, only the nearest counting place near your residence, and took place four years after Jesus. Approximately 12 years after the death of Herod.

In case it meant the younger Herod, he was exiled alone and held no power or people.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:11:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Faith is not based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. You can only have faith in something, in as much as you have knowledge of it.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 3:29:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If that were true, wouldn't this be true of any belief? Any belief you have in the public sector would then affect my ability to worship freely, no?
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:50:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 3:29:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If that were true, wouldn't this be true of any belief? Any belief you have in the public sector would then affect my ability to worship freely, no?

Yes it would be true of any belief. I mean you in the plural, as in "you all". No belief should be injected into the public. Science should be taught in schools because that is proven, and in schools we can teach about the beliefs of various cultures from a historical context. However, we cannot do things such as, put a Christmas tree in front of a public building. Place the bible in the non-fiction part of the library. (unless the library puts any religious texts in that area. I don't know where they usually are in the library) They cannot have mandatory prayer in school. They cannot force people to say "under god". They cannot make laws based solely on religious belief.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:51:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:11:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Faith is not based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. You can only have faith in something, in as much as you have knowledge of it.

Please elaborate for me. I am unsure what you are saying.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:50:17 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:29:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If that were true, wouldn't this be true of any belief? Any belief you have in the public sector would then affect my ability to worship freely, no?

Yes it would be true of any belief. I mean you in the plural, as in "you all". No belief should be injected into the public. Science should be taught in schools because that is proven, and in schools we can teach about the beliefs of various cultures from a historical context. However, we cannot do things such as, put a Christmas tree in front of a public building. Place the bible in the non-fiction part of the library. (unless the library puts any religious texts in that area. I don't know where they usually are in the library) They cannot have mandatory prayer in school. They cannot force people to say "under god". They cannot make laws based solely on religious belief.

So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:33:01 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:50:17 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:29:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If that were true, wouldn't this be true of any belief? Any belief you have in the public sector would then affect my ability to worship freely, no?

Yes it would be true of any belief. I mean you in the plural, as in "you all". No belief should be injected into the public. Science should be taught in schools because that is proven, and in schools we can teach about the beliefs of various cultures from a historical context. However, we cannot do things such as, put a Christmas tree in front of a public building. Place the bible in the non-fiction part of the library. (unless the library puts any religious texts in that area. I don't know where they usually are in the library) They cannot have mandatory prayer in school. They cannot force people to say "under god". They cannot make laws based solely on religious belief.

So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.

I meant legislation being passed, or teaching children in schools that creation is true. That is forcing religion on others. If you want to organize prayer in public areas, that's great. Whoopty doo for you. The government cannot endorse this. The government cannot tell you no.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:51:45 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:11:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Faith is not based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. You can only have faith in something, in as much as you have knowledge of it.

Please elaborate for me. I am unsure what you are saying.

You can't have faith in something of which you have no knowledge.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:43:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 8:15:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:51:45 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:11:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Faith is not based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. You can only have faith in something, in as much as you have knowledge of it.

Please elaborate for me. I am unsure what you are saying.

You can't have faith in something of which you have no knowledge.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of faith.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:11:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 7:41:35 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/25/2013 6:33:01 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:50:17 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:29:20 AM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 6:42:09 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Well, atheists don't have a fear of faith. My opinion is believe whatever you want to. If you want to believe in a possibly non-existent Jewish carpenter who's tricks have all been repeated by Chris Angel then go ahead. However, I debate it here because I believe that it's stupid and this is a debate site. I don't do this in real life.

If you want to inject religion into the public sector, that is the line. That is where your beliefs start to effect my freedom to believe what I want.

If that were true, wouldn't this be true of any belief? Any belief you have in the public sector would then affect my ability to worship freely, no?

Yes it would be true of any belief. I mean you in the plural, as in "you all". No belief should be injected into the public. Science should be taught in schools because that is proven, and in schools we can teach about the beliefs of various cultures from a historical context. However, we cannot do things such as, put a Christmas tree in front of a public building. Place the bible in the non-fiction part of the library. (unless the library puts any religious texts in that area. I don't know where they usually are in the library) They cannot have mandatory prayer in school. They cannot force people to say "under god". They cannot make laws based solely on religious belief.

So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.

I meant legislation being passed, or teaching children in schools that creation is true. That is forcing religion on others. If you want to organize prayer in public areas, that's great. Whoopty doo for you. The government cannot endorse this. The government cannot tell you no.

Why can't the government endorse or oppose it? It's been going on for years and years.

If creation is true, why shouldn't it be taught? Isn't that the point of education? All you offer as an alternative is a set of statistically improbable theories accepted by a set of scientists with a known set of beliefs. How is an anti-religious belief set any better than religion?
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 12:40:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.

I meant legislation being passed, or teaching children in schools that creation is true. That is forcing religion on others. If you want to organize prayer in public areas, that's great. Whoopty doo for you. The government cannot endorse this. The government cannot tell you no.

Why can't the government endorse or oppose it? It's been going on for years and years.

If creation is true, why shouldn't it be taught? Isn't that the point of education? All you offer as an alternative is a set of statistically improbable theories accepted by a set of scientists with a known set of beliefs. How is an anti-religious belief set any better than religion?

I meant the government shouldn't endorse or oppose. It should, based in the establishment clause and respect for people's rights to believe what they want to believe without the government supporting other religions and thereby saying one religion is better then another.

Of course they have to power to endorse certain beliefs. Who's going to stop them? The supreme court? They'll just pull an Andrew Jackson.

Prove to me that creation is true. Not just creation, but your creation. We must stick to science in the public sector. Evolution has helped us so much. What if we had gone to the bible for our answers to medicine? Do you think we would have been able to respond to certain infections that evolved to become resistant to drugs? No. In the public sector, we cannot put forward beliefs. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is not science.

It is not anti-religious belief. It is simply science and what it tells us. Is teaching what we have learned about the nature of our world by testing suddenly anti-religious? There is no anti-religion in the public sector. They just cannot put forward a religion either. They may not endorse, nor put down any belief.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 1:13:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Indeed. Religion is far more disruptive to society than homosexuality ever could be. I have yet to meet a gay man who proclaims I have to have sex with men or suffer the consequences.

Are you offering a cure, because I think we should start with Pat Robertson to make sure it works.
Human_Joke65
Posts: 127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 1:22:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 1:13:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Indeed. Religion is far more disruptive to society than homosexuality ever could be. I have yet to meet a gay man who proclaims I have to have sex with men or suffer the consequences.

Are you offering a cure, because I think we should start with Pat Robertson to make sure it works.
----------------
Vicarious homophobia is the consequence of defying homosexuality.
God's a comedian and atheism is a punch line waiting to happen.
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 1:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 1:22:15 PM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
At 11/26/2013 1:13:30 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Indeed. Religion is far more disruptive to society than homosexuality ever could be. I have yet to meet a gay man who proclaims I have to have sex with men or suffer the consequences.

Are you offering a cure, because I think we should start with Pat Robertson to make sure it works.
----------------
Vicarious homophobia is the consequence of defying homosexuality.

Faith is the consequence of defying common sense.

I would imagine I would have an easier time proving a larger percentage of people with religious faith are wrong than proving a larger percentage of homophobes are homosexuals. Ironically, many of the second set are in the first set.

You first when wrong when trying to equate disliking religion to disliking gays.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 7:05:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 12:40:30 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.

I meant legislation being passed, or teaching children in schools that creation is true. That is forcing religion on others. If you want to organize prayer in public areas, that's great. Whoopty doo for you. The government cannot endorse this. The government cannot tell you no.

Why can't the government endorse or oppose it? It's been going on for years and years.

If creation is true, why shouldn't it be taught? Isn't that the point of education? All you offer as an alternative is a set of statistically improbable theories accepted by a set of scientists with a known set of beliefs. How is an anti-religious belief set any better than religion?

I meant the government shouldn't endorse or oppose. It should, based in the establishment clause and respect for people's rights to believe what they want to believe without the government supporting other religions and thereby saying one religion is better then another.

Of course they have to power to endorse certain beliefs. Who's going to stop them? The supreme court? They'll just pull an Andrew Jackson.

Prove to me that creation is true. Not just creation, but your creation. We must stick to science in the public sector. Evolution has helped us so much. What if we had gone to the bible for our answers to medicine? Do you think we would have been able to respond to certain infections that evolved to become resistant to drugs? No. In the public sector, we cannot put forward beliefs. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is not science.

It is not anti-religious belief. It is simply science and what it tells us. Is teaching what we have learned about the nature of our world by testing suddenly anti-religious? There is no anti-religion in the public sector. They just cannot put forward a religion either. They may not endorse, nor put down any belief.

Adaptation is not proof of evolution. Evolution cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's built on a huge list of assumptions and endorsed by a prejudice against God.

Teaching that religion has no place in the public sector is anti-religious. Replacing it with a set of standards that deliberately excludes religion, but fills the same niche is a hilarious example of the blind leading the blind.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 7:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Adaptation is not proof of evolution. Evolution cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's built on a huge list of assumptions and endorsed by a prejudice against God.

Teaching that religion has no place in the public sector is anti-religious. Replacing it with a set of standards that deliberately excludes religion, but fills the same niche is a hilarious example of the blind leading the blind.

What assumptions? Science makes no unreasonable assumptions. That being said, it makes the assumption for most things that gravity will be in force, and that certain organic reactions continue, as we have seen no evidence to contradict either of these in most circumstances. Science never accepted evolution until we had massive evidence for it.

Just look through any high school biology textbook. They have plenty of examples of fossil records and other natural phenomena not explained by Noah's flood.

Religion has its place in the public sector. As a part of the public, not endorsed or discriminated against by the government. Secularism is based on facts and rationality. If we were to allow a theocracy, that could lead us back to stoning gays, and burning witches.

It's funny that the people most opposed to Sharia law are the ones who most want to, or are most willing to do things to enable the arrival of the Christian version of Sharia law.

And freedom of religion, and protection of your religion only really applies to the Jesus religions I guess. Maybe we'll let Jews slide if we're feeling especially generous, but it is freedom. You have the freedom to worship Jesus and Yahweh.

I may be an atheist, but I am trying to protect not only my rights to not believe in god and not be harassed or discriminated against by the government, but your right. What if Christians were the minority? We can clearly see this in Jews. The minority Jews in the US are heavily against anything that looks like theocracy, because that hurts their religious freedom, even though their views are more in line with that of the Christian right.

I have family (my family is Jewish) that don't believe in gay marriage, and they will stand for it, because the opposition represents the theocracy that hurts every minority faith.

78% of this nation is Christian. And when you divide it up into protestants and Catholics and others, it doesn't look so much like a majority anymore.

19.7% of this country is unaffiliated. 13.8% of them still have faith, but are unattached to any specific faith.

2% are unknown.

This is not a Christian nation.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 8:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 8:43:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/25/2013 8:15:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:51:45 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:11:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 12:20:58 AM, Human_Joke65 wrote:
Faithphobic atheists want a cure for religion, homophobes want a gay cure.

Faith is not based on ignorance; it's based on knowledge. You can only have faith in something, in as much as you have knowledge of it.

Please elaborate for me. I am unsure what you are saying.

You can't have faith in something of which you have no knowledge.

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of faith.

That's what it is the Church wants its flock to believe; therefore, it can tell them pretty much anything; yet, if they listen to reason, chide them for not having faith.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 8:46:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 7:46:53 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
Adaptation is not proof of evolution. Evolution cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's built on a huge list of assumptions and endorsed by a prejudice against God.

Teaching that religion has no place in the public sector is anti-religious. Replacing it with a set of standards that deliberately excludes religion, but fills the same niche is a hilarious example of the blind leading the blind.

What assumptions? Science makes no unreasonable assumptions. That being said, it makes the assumption for most things that gravity will be in force, and that certain organic reactions continue, as we have seen no evidence to contradict either of these in most circumstances. Science never accepted evolution until we had massive evidence for it.

Just look through any high school biology textbook. They have plenty of examples of fossil records and other natural phenomena not explained by Noah's flood.

Religion has its place in the public sector. As a part of the public, not endorsed or discriminated against by the government. Secularism is based on facts and rationality. If we were to allow a theocracy, that could lead us back to stoning gays, and burning witches.

It's funny that the people most opposed to Sharia law are the ones who most want to, or are most willing to do things to enable the arrival of the Christian version of Sharia law.

And freedom of religion, and protection of your religion only really applies to the Jesus religions I guess. Maybe we'll let Jews slide if we're feeling especially generous, but it is freedom. You have the freedom to worship Jesus and Yahweh.

I may be an atheist, but I am trying to protect not only my rights to not believe in god and not be harassed or discriminated against by the government, but your right. What if Christians were the minority? We can clearly see this in Jews. The minority Jews in the US are heavily against anything that looks like theocracy, because that hurts their religious freedom, even though their views are more in line with that of the Christian right.

I have family (my family is Jewish) that don't believe in gay marriage, and they will stand for it, because the opposition represents the theocracy that hurts every minority faith.

78% of this nation is Christian. And when you divide it up into protestants and Catholics and others, it doesn't look so much like a majority anymore.

19.7% of this country is unaffiliated. 13.8% of them still have faith, but are unattached to any specific faith.

2% are unknown.

This is not a Christian nation.

You're making arguments against claims not made. That's funny. As is your dance with statistics. When you split the 78% that is the Christians in this country into their different Christian denominations, we're not actually Christians? That's an astounding logic. I'd say nearly 80% is quite a majority.

Secularism is as based on facts and rationality as any other human philosophy, which is when it suits its cause. Otherwise, it's ruled by prejudice and impulse.

Your reasonable assumptions are a matter of opinion. A collection of fossils is not proof of evolution. There are a huge amount of holes in the theories of evolution. We just don't talk about those, because they're just not that convenient.

Christians are the minority in a lot of countries. They get killed and harassed at times and they get left alone at times. I'm not really sure what your point is. The claim that any idea endorsed or endorsing religion shouldn't be heard isn't really touched by who is in the majority.

The morals of this nation are declining. The ethics that built this country are being abolished as people swallow this ridiculous philosophy of secularism. Why should I work? Why should I help others? Why should I care about anything but my little circle of concerns? You can't replace those justifications with secularism because it outlaws any moral standard other than shut up and leave me alone to do as I please. It all becomes about what I can get for myself and that's what we're seeing now.

Oh and don't forget the attitude of "How dare you have a standard?" We can all agree to get together and crush that. Which is what we're seeing in places like Canada where it's illegal to tell people God thinks homosexuality is a sin. And attempting to force religious organizations to pay for insurance to perform functions that they consider immoral. And attempting to sue churches to force them to marry gays. Which will win long term, no doubt. It's just a matter of getting the right activist judges in the right spots.

This myth of secularism being live and let live is not at all true. Its main goals is to abolish religion altogether for whatever reason. We just have to silence it long enough to choke it out when no one's looking. Which is why Christians need to be more outspoken, not less in the public sector.
bulproof
Posts: 25,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 10:03:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 7:05:39 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/26/2013 12:40:30 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
So your beliefs that we shouldn't be able to do those things are wrong. And you should be quiet and not issue them in public. Any beliefs preferred in a public forum, religious or not, inhibit others' freedoms. It's all a form of censorship by preference and hence wrong.

I meant legislation being passed, or teaching children in schools that creation is true. That is forcing religion on others. If you want to organize prayer in public areas, that's great. Whoopty doo for you. The government cannot endorse this. The government cannot tell you no.

Why can't the government endorse or oppose it? It's been going on for years and years.

If creation is true, why shouldn't it be taught? Isn't that the point of education? All you offer as an alternative is a set of statistically improbable theories accepted by a set of scientists with a known set of beliefs. How is an anti-religious belief set any better than religion?

I meant the government shouldn't endorse or oppose. It should, based in the establishment clause and respect for people's rights to believe what they want to believe without the government supporting other religions and thereby saying one religion is better then another.

Of course they have to power to endorse certain beliefs. Who's going to stop them? The supreme court? They'll just pull an Andrew Jackson.

Prove to me that creation is true. Not just creation, but your creation. We must stick to science in the public sector. Evolution has helped us so much. What if we had gone to the bible for our answers to medicine? Do you think we would have been able to respond to certain infections that evolved to become resistant to drugs? No. In the public sector, we cannot put forward beliefs. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is not science.

It is not anti-religious belief. It is simply science and what it tells us. Is teaching what we have learned about the nature of our world by testing suddenly anti-religious? There is no anti-religion in the public sector. They just cannot put forward a religion either. They may not endorse, nor put down any belief.

Adaptation is not proof of evolution. Evolution cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It's built on a huge list of assumptions and endorsed by a prejudice against God.

Teaching that religion has no place in the public sector is anti-religious. Replacing it with a set of standards that deliberately excludes religion, but fills the same niche is a hilarious example of the blind leading the blind.

Yeah, let's revert to the morality of the bible where genocide, infanticide, rape and slavery are righteous deeds.

Yay for god.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin