Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What should we replace with all this religion

annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 3:45:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Haha ... religion isn't intended to replace a cup of tea. Why would u want to replace a cup of tea anyhow?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:16:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 3:17:24 AM, KingDebater wrote:
My answer: A cup of tea, a tea break, and a nice bulldozer.

I would enjoy the cup of tea with some rational discussion that actually solves problem.
KingDebater
Posts: 687
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:58:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:16:15 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 11/24/2013 3:17:24 AM, KingDebater wrote:
My answer: A cup of tea, a tea break, and a nice bulldozer.

I would enjoy the cup of tea with some rational discussion that actually solves problem.
Now, we shouldn't show off or try to come off as fancy. Just a cup of tea, thanks!
dadman
Posts: 272
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:30:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
man's ability to believe .. you cannot eliminate .. no matter how hard you try
And he (God) gave some apostles .. and some prophets .. and some evangelists .. and some teaching pastors .. for the perfecting of the saints .. for the work of the ministry .. for the edifying of the body of Christ .. till we all come in the unity of the faith .. and of the knowledge of the Son of God .. to a perfect (complete) man .. to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ . . . . Ephesians 4:12 .. http://dadmansabode.com... .. come and learn
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 4:45:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We could convert all of the Sunday School property into day-cares where we indoctrinate children into believing things without evidence.

Or we could change all of the property into Bull farms. Then collect the sh*t and throw it at the ruins of the old buildings.
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
11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?
Sleevedagger
Posts: 129
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nothing, which is the point. If religion was proved wrong tomorrow , would anything really change? We would still be faced with all the mysteries and problems yet to be solved.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

Thinking?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 6:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.

Agreeing with "the herd" does not imply a lack of independent thinking.

Tell me some of your original and independent ideas. I'm very curious.

Also, do you consider yourself a socialist by any chance?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 7:01:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:37:47 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.

Agreeing with "the herd" does not imply a lack of independent thinking.

Tell me some of your original and independent ideas. I'm very curious.

Also, do you consider yourself a socialist by any chance?

Just out of curiosity, why would you think he is a socialist? I don't see anything in what was said to imply socialist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 6:37:47 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.

Agreeing with "the herd" does not imply a lack of independent thinking.

Tell me some of your original and independent ideas. I'm very curious.

Also, do you consider yourself a socialist by any chance?

It's not about having original ideas; I believe there is nothing new under the sun. It's about having sincere ideas. Ideas that are so personal to the believer it's as though they originated from one's heart and no place else. Ideas that are held, even if it means going against the entire world, to hold on to your beliefs.

No. I believe in democracy.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 9:06:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 8:40:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2013 6:37:47 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.

Agreeing with "the herd" does not imply a lack of independent thinking.

Tell me some of your original and independent ideas. I'm very curious.

Also, do you consider yourself a socialist by any chance?

It's not about having original ideas; I believe there is nothing new under the sun. It's about having sincere ideas. Ideas that are so personal to the believer it's as though they originated from one's heart and no place else. Ideas that are held, even if it means going against the entire world, to hold on to your beliefs.

No. I believe in democracy.

So how do you justify your blanket assumptions about religious types? Taking on someone else's beliefs as your own even to the point that it's as though they originated from you, doesn't really qualify as an independent thought.

And what does democracy have to do with anything?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 9:31:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 9:06:12 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 8:40:52 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2013 6:37:47 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/25/2013 7:07:51 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:04:04 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 11/24/2013 9:33:51 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/24/2013 7:17:17 PM, Naysayer wrote:
The implication that you have any right to the property or philosophies of religion being incorrect, I'd say you should just run along and not hurt yourself doing anything dangerous like "thinking".

That sounds like something a religious person would say. The Church has been teaching, that, thinking is dangerous, for two-thousand years. That's why it calls the congregation the laity, meaning the ignorant and the priests and ministers the clergy , meaning the learned.

Hm. Whom do you propose to be in the "thinker" position, for all us out of control religious types? Yourself?

Anyone who's not afraid to think independently of the herd.

Agreeing with "the herd" does not imply a lack of independent thinking.

Tell me some of your original and independent ideas. I'm very curious.

Also, do you consider yourself a socialist by any chance?

It's not about having original ideas; I believe there is nothing new under the sun. It's about having sincere ideas. Ideas that are so personal to the believer it's as though they originated from one's heart and no place else. Ideas that are held, even if it means going against the entire world, to hold on to your beliefs.

No. I believe in democracy.

So how do you justify your blanket assumptions about religious types? Taking on someone else's beliefs as your own even to the point that it's as though they originated from you, doesn't really qualify as an independent thought.

"It's about having sincere ideas.... Ideas that are held, even if it means going against the entire world, to hold on to your beliefs."

It's not agreeing with people just to agree; it's about sincere beliefs, disagreeing with anyone: your pastor, priest, prophet, or pope, political party, country, or people, parents, brothers, sisters, or best friends, celebrities, idols, or gods.

"Believe nothing because a wise man said it.
Believe nothing because it is generally held.
Believe nothing because it is written.
Believe nothing because it is said to be divine.
Believe nothing because someone else believes it.
But believe only what you yourself judge to be true." - Buddha


And what does democracy have to do with anything?