Total Posts:113|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Wow... Not really what I expected.

ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:10:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Welcome!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:30:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:10:30 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Welcome!

Much appreciated, sir.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:32:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

I must be clear about this: I fear no hell, and seek no heaven. Since I have no belief in your deity, your statement is quite useless. No one is "leaving me" in any particular state. Indeed, if I was to change my belief, what would your deity or his offspring have to do with it?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:41:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:32:51 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

I must be clear about this: I fear no hell, and seek no heaven. Since I have no belief in your deity, your statement is quite useless. No one is "leaving me" in any particular state. Indeed, if I was to change my belief, what would your deity or his offspring have to do with it?

Well, then, if God casts you into Hell for your lack of concern, then he will be quite just in doing so.

And if he is pleased to save you by his own sovereign grace, he will also be just in doing so.

And if you do come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, then God will have had EVERYTHING to do with it.

It's only by grace that one is saved, through faith in Jesus Christ. And that faith is the gift of God. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 1:58:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

...or not. (That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)

Rationally, reasonably and logically, there isn't the slightest hint of a reason to believe any of this mind-rot about God killing his innocent son as his way of circumventing his own rule and offering salvation to people he sees, as wicked, vile, sinful, evil, and worthy of an eternity of continual torment.

Tell me; would you arrange for the torturous death of your most beloved son as a means to allow the worst criminal filth in prison into your special eternal playground of pure paradise?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:06:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:58:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

...or not. (That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)

Rationally, reasonably and logically, there isn't the slightest hint of a reason to believe any of this mind-rot about God killing his innocent son as his way of circumventing his own rule and offering salvation to people he sees, as wicked, vile, sinful, evil, and worthy of an eternity of continual torment.

Tell me; would you arrange for the torturous death of your most beloved son as a means to allow the worst criminal filth in prison into your special eternal playground of pure paradise?

No, because my son is not CHRIST, who ALONE can save sinners, and who came into this world for that very purpose.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:38:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

I assume this question was directed at me. If I've assumed in error, please disregard.

Agnostic is simply an answer to the question: is there a deity, or "god."
My answer is: I don't know. What I do know is that I have never been offered any evidence or reason to have faith in one. That which is put forth as evidence amounts to nothing more than induction, based on presupposition, leading to conjecture which, ultimately, becomes a blind assertion.

What you see directed at religion is not hostility, it's fear. The beast that is not feared is the most dangerous of all. No defenses are raised against it, and no preparations are made against its attack. Attack is what religion seems to do best. The last resort of the ignorant is violence, and violence seems to be the bulk of religious behavior.

The history of religion is a bloody one, replete with tyranny, bloodshed, and warfare. It has only come to be "tame" in the last couple of centuries. In addition, "tame" is only by comparison to its previous free-reign of "divinely-authorized" oppression and malevolence.

While I am fully able to respect a person's right to believe as they wish, I don't believe in anyone's right to impose those beliefs on others. Whenever the opportunity has arisen, religion has done exactly that, by trick or by treason. I mistrust and despise the clergy, for what they have done to both family members and friends (of mine). No abuse of station is worse than the violation of trust in one that is supposed to espouse "peace, harmony, love, and piety."

I see more violence, hatred and vitriol expressed by the religious, every day, than by any other group. What is a christian really saying, when they condemn one of us to "hell?" Let's say someone drops their belief in their teen years, and lives to be seventy... For fifty-five(ish) years of not believing in a deity, one will suffer an eternity of torment? Scathing, unimaginable flames and despair is a just and balanced reciprocation for less than six decades? And you call your deity "just?"

Look around at churches, and their love of money. This is money that they receive freely, from believers and those that are guilted into giving, and no taxes are required. Where does all that money go? Ever read about the untold wealth of the catholic church? Even amongst themselves, christians can't even agree on doctrine, ceremony or belief.

Please understand that my hostility is not directed at the "believer." The laity is as much a victim as the unbeliever. It's the clergy and church leadership that is the villainous and treacherous serpent, here. I don't trust a single creature that puts forth the impression that they are "holy," in any way. I guess I mistrust and despise the clergy for exactly the same reason that I despise politicians and lawyers: They're supposed to have been better people than the laity, and they have become the people least worthy of trust or respect. It's simply disgusting.

The book on which all this is supposed to be based is nothing but lies, contradictions, violence, bloodshed (both animal and human); all of it, senselessly so. As Heinlein stated, never insult anyone by accident. It is no accident that I mistrust and despise the clergy. Anyone that defends them merits the collateral damage of vitriol, as far as I am concerned. Quite frankly, the people that I see acting the LEAST like christians are those that assert their christianity the loudest.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:39:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

Nice call. Succinct, to the point, and a clear example of exactly the point I was making. Thank you.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:51:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:58:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

...or not. (That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)

Rationally, reasonably and logically, there isn't the slightest hint of a reason to believe any of this mind-rot about God killing his innocent son as his way of circumventing his own rule and offering salvation to people he sees, as wicked, vile, sinful, evil, and worthy of an eternity of continual torment.

Tell me; would you arrange for the torturous death of your most beloved son as a means to allow the worst criminal filth in prison into your special eternal playground of pure paradise?

To be perfectly honest, I must say this was well-stated. I have long since contended that the death of one is no "balance" of the "scale" that has been "tipped" by the evil of another. I stand accountable for my decisions, and expect the same of those with whom I interact. The person who would accept, let alone desire, that the suffering of another be used as "payment" for one's own misdeeds is nothing short of a coward. This is, perhaps, the most reprehensible of all christian beliefs. The ceremonial but meaningless slaughter of animals was sick enough, in ancient times (when nomadic superstitious fools ruled by fear). But the slaughter of one's own son? Though I've never had a child, I couldn't even begin to imagine the fury I would unleash upon the humans that did that to my child, being just human. If I was omnipotent, and my child was treated that way? I think I would have to create a "special kind" of hell; one in which fire and ultimate despair would be something to look forward to (every other Tuesday, I would say...).
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 2:57:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 2:06:08 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:58:50 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:59:06 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 12:50:03 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
Hello, all.

Brand new to the forum, and I didn't really see any other way to publicly introduce myself, so my summation:

Belief: Agnostic
Love: Reason and Logic
Despise: Religion and the intellectual laziness of faith.
Clergy: Self-important, self-indulgent, self-serving swine, bent on living well at the expense of others' guilt.
Philanthropy: The belief that other people praising your behavior is more important that doing the right thing, quietly.
Faith: The acceptance of the preposterous followed by the attempt to reconcile it with evidence.
Religious Respect: The belief that the ridiculous is owed some place among thinking humans despite having earned nothing.
Sexual love: That which religion condemns, while enjoying the most perverse variations in secret.

Two quotes from Robert A Heinlein:

The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by H.Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the sacharrine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not recieve this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.

A religion is sometime a source of happiness, and I would not deprive anyone of happiness. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a religionist, having accepted certain propositions by faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both.

Clever stuff.

But if God leaves you in the state you are currently in, and does not give you faith in his Son, Jesus Christ, you will burn in Hell for all eternity, without one millisecond of relief.

...or not. (That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.)

Rationally, reasonably and logically, there isn't the slightest hint of a reason to believe any of this mind-rot about God killing his innocent son as his way of circumventing his own rule and offering salvation to people he sees, as wicked, vile, sinful, evil, and worthy of an eternity of continual torment.

Tell me; would you arrange for the torturous death of your most beloved son as a means to allow the worst criminal filth in prison into your special eternal playground of pure paradise?

No, because my son is not CHRIST, who ALONE can save sinners, and who came into this world for that very purpose.

To be perfectly honest with you, you sound like one who is hopelessly brainwashed and deluded. You are exactly the type of which I spoke, before. You are so adamant that it's plain to see that you are not trying to convince anyone but yourself. You want so desperately to believe what you are saying that you attempt to will it into the realm of truth, by sheer force. I'm here to tell you: It will never work.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:28:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.

Did you not take notice of the fact that I stated very plainly that I hold no grudge against the laity? I don't blame you, I blame those that have actually "picked up the sword," in the name of religion/deities. While you, personally, may not have perpetrated such acts in the name of your deity, those acts HAVE been perpetrated in the name of said deity. Those acts, to my knowledge, have NEVER been perpetrated in the name of Heinlein. If you pay closer attention, you might improve your reading comprehension and be less likely to respond emotionally to a rational question.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:36:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:28:02 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.

Did you not take notice of the fact that I stated very plainly that I hold no grudge against the laity? I don't blame you, I blame those that have actually "picked up the sword," in the name of religion/deities. While you, personally, may not have perpetrated such acts in the name of your deity, those acts HAVE been perpetrated in the name of said deity. Those acts, to my knowledge, have NEVER been perpetrated in the name of Heinlein. If you pay closer attention, you might improve your reading comprehension and be less likely to respond emotionally to a rational question.

Well, what does it matter if atrocities are committed in the name of Christ, when Christ never commanded them to be done in the first place?

What if someone actually did commit atrocities in the name of Heinlein, even though he never advocated such things?

Would you then accuse Heinlein of somehow being responsible, even though he had nothing to do with it?
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:38:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Applause, Bravo. (from a Heinlein fan)
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:43:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:36:49 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:28:02 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.

Did you not take notice of the fact that I stated very plainly that I hold no grudge against the laity? I don't blame you, I blame those that have actually "picked up the sword," in the name of religion/deities. While you, personally, may not have perpetrated such acts in the name of your deity, those acts HAVE been perpetrated in the name of said deity. Those acts, to my knowledge, have NEVER been perpetrated in the name of Heinlein. If you pay closer attention, you might improve your reading comprehension and be less likely to respond emotionally to a rational question.

Well, what does it matter if atrocities are committed in the name of Christ, when Christ never commanded them to be done in the first place?

What if someone actually did commit atrocities in the name of Heinlein, even though he never advocated such things?

Would you then accuse Heinlein of somehow being responsible, even though he had nothing to do with it?

Maybe you should look to Yahweh.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:45:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:38:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Applause, Bravo. (from a Heinlein fan)

Well, where do you think Heinlein is right now?

Yep, you guessed it.
He's in Hell right now,
wishing to God that he had believed in Jesus Christ.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:50:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:36:49 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:28:02 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.

Did you not take notice of the fact that I stated very plainly that I hold no grudge against the laity? I don't blame you, I blame those that have actually "picked up the sword," in the name of religion/deities. While you, personally, may not have perpetrated such acts in the name of your deity, those acts HAVE been perpetrated in the name of said deity. Those acts, to my knowledge, have NEVER been perpetrated in the name of Heinlein. If you pay closer attention, you might improve your reading comprehension and be less likely to respond emotionally to a rational question.

Well, what does it matter if atrocities are committed in the name of Christ, when Christ never commanded them to be done in the first place?

What if someone actually did commit atrocities in the name of Heinlein, even though he never advocated such things?

Would you then accuse Heinlein of somehow being responsible, even though he had nothing to do with it?

If the christ ever existed, no, he gave no such order. His "daddy," however, did; on multiple occasions.
Please don't bother me with extremist "What if?" questions. If ... would create a completely different reality; one in which I would not have made those statements. The reality in which I live is the one in which my statements are both accurate and true.
If Heinlein wrote a book that (intentionally) started a religion, yes, I would blame him. The church actually ordered the deaths of millions, in the name of their perceived deity (assuming they actually believed). You want all the "glory" given to an entity that is actually the depiction of a monster, but that he be blameless in the face of the actions of those who obey him. The bible was written by humans. So it is not the "fault" of any christ or deity, it is the fault of those that wrote the falsehood laden parchments, and those who rose to political power as a result of imposing those disgusting manuscripts upon the public. I never blamed your precious deity. I blamed the INSTITUTION of religion. That means the clergy and leadership. In other words, I blame the con-men who have foisted religion upon the laity. Period.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:51:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:38:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Applause, Bravo. (from a Heinlein fan)

*-graceful bow-*
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
bulproof
Posts: 25,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 3:52:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:45:50 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:38:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Applause, Bravo. (from a Heinlein fan)

Well, where do you think Heinlein is right now?

Yep, you guessed it.
He's in Hell right now,
wishing to God that he had believed in Jesus Christ.

Provide evidence to support this claim.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:02:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 3:43:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:36:49 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:28:02 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:23:34 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:20:49 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:10:37 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/27/2014 3:04:43 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:55:27 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 2:53:45 AM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:52:11 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:50:16 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/27/2014 1:47:51 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I'm curious, why do you consider yourself agnostic with such hostility towards religion or belief in God?

Look @ the post directly above yours.

I'm not wondering why he's hostile, I'm wondering why he remains agnostic despite his implied hostility.

Do you mean "remains agnostic" as opposed to going full-on atheist?

Yes

Because there is so much about this universe (and other potential universes) that we don't know, that asserting NO deity is every bit as arrogant and unfounded as asserting any deity that has ever been suggested by "holy" parchments.

We haven't even gained full knowledge of our very own planet, and we're already well on our way to destroying it. As a species, if humanity is so stupid that we are willing to wipe out our own habitat, how can anyone presuppose enough knowledge to blindly assert that no such deity exists? I, for one, am not willing to make such an arrogant statement. I do, however, maintain my contention that Robert A Heinlein got it right. The statement you see in my signature says it all. All deities that have ever been suggested are the mere invention of man's fearful ignorance, and intellectual laziness.

OK, so, you won't arrogantly assert that there is no God.
But you will arrogantly assert that all who believe in the Biblical account of God are fearfully ignorant and intellectually lazy.

That's great.

By the way, your love of Robert Heinlein borders on religious mania.

No, I am not willing to assert the complete absence of a deity. My statement of disbelief in the bible is neither arrogant nor an assertion. It is a conclusion drawn from many years of careful contemplation. If one takes the time to investigate all the falsehoods, vile atrocities, genocides, contradictions, and utter stupidity that is written on that collection of parchments, one cannot rationally conclude otherwise.

While you may assess my love of Robert Heinlein as religious mania, I will pose to you just one question: How many people have been slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Robert Heinlein, by comparison to those suffering the above in the name of your deity/religion? I would go so far as to defy you to name a single individual ever having been brutalized (let alone killed), in the name of Heinlein...

Yeah, sure....

Just as soon as you name one person that I, PERSONALLY, have slaughtered, tortured, mangled, burned alive, mutilated, or war-ravaged in the name of Christ.

Did you not take notice of the fact that I stated very plainly that I hold no grudge against the laity? I don't blame you, I blame those that have actually "picked up the sword," in the name of religion/deities. While you, personally, may not have perpetrated such acts in the name of your deity, those acts HAVE been perpetrated in the name of said deity. Those acts, to my knowledge, have NEVER been perpetrated in the name of Heinlein. If you pay closer attention, you might improve your reading comprehension and be less likely to respond emotionally to a rational question.

Well, what does it matter if atrocities are committed in the name of Christ, when Christ never commanded them to be done in the first place?

What if someone actually did commit atrocities in the name of Heinlein, even though he never advocated such things?

Would you then accuse Heinlein of somehow being responsible, even though he had nothing to do with it?

Maybe you should look to Yahweh.

Christ IS Yahweh.
And YES, he did command the ancient Israelites to commit genocide.
And therefore, it was JUST and RIGHT to OBEY those commands.

God gives life, and he takes it away.
And sometimes he uses human instruments to accomplish that for him.

You see, the Lord Jesus Christ, as GOD, has the RIGHT to use whatever means he pleases to accomplish his purpose.

But if you knew the Scriptures, you would know that he has NOT commanded Christians to commit genocide in this Gospel age.