Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kovnik Obama wrote:In the spirit of what Mannahnin said,

I'm an apathetist, with the exception that I think there's an interest in developping one's argumentative skills, and that the God debate is an excellent way to do that.

I also like to debate (as long as it is friendly) because quite often you will be asked questions by non-believers (or believers who have doubts) that force you to go back and take another look at your faith. Debating people has helped my faith mature.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.

I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.

Almost sounds like the Church of Trolling .

But there is a purpose to debating without having an endpoint in mind as well though.

I'm an ordained universalist minister, all faiths are a valid path to the divine. It's all based on you and your personal perception of the universe even within the bigger faiths like Catholicism.

dogma wrote:

The Bringer wrote:
Also Dogma, please elaborate. I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just saying that I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. I see it as a chain of dominoes, where there has to be a beginning to the chain, yet you could set them up forever and have a chain that goes on forever - starting when you set the off.

Well, my immediate contention would be that its impossible for absolute nothingness to exist, and that when we use the term "nothing" we're generally doing so relatively. For example, if I say there is nothing in a box I mean "nothing relevant" as even an "empty box contains air. Similarly, I generally have found that when people say there was nothing before the universe as we know it existed, they really mean "Nothing like the universe as we know it." which is actually a reasonable position to take for a number of reasons.

But, to elaborate, a beginning is also an end to whatever state existed prior to the beginning. To use your domino analogy there was once a time when there were no dominoes, and once the first domino appeared, or began to exist, the time when there were no dominoes ended. This is important because it demonstrates that no series of events, or state of being, can truly be infinite as we have already introduced a bound (the beginning/end event), and established that there exist conditions which disrupt the "normal" functioning of reality.

A lot of people find this confusing, which is fair because "infinite" is actually a pretty difficult concept, but the basic idea is that once you introduce a single end point when discussing the universe as a whole it becomes logically impossible for the universe, or anything else, to go on forever.

Unless the event created it's own parameters, as I've said it is possible to literally have nothing before the beginning of the universe, because the creation of the universe entailed the creations of time. before the big bang (or the first day) nothing existed beforehand because time itself didn't exist, So there was no before, once the big bang happened then space time expanded infinitely. You could say that after the big bang then the universe can be treated as not having a beginning as space-time is expanding into the future and into the past simultaneously, so the current universe has no end and no beginning. (It does, just not one that we can ever observe though)

xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.

I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.

Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.

I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.

"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."

"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"

"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"

LoneLictor wrote:

xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.

I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.

Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.

I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.

"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."

"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"

"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"

I should store this somewhere.

youbedead wrote:
Unless the event created it's own parameters, as I've said it is possible to literally have nothing before the beginning of the universe, because the creation of the universe entailed the creations of time.

At which point terms like "before" have no meaning.

You're basically just talking about an infinite series.

The Bringer wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

The Bringer wrote:

youbedead wrote:But the argument of "what created the thing that created the universe?" can also be applied to God or Gods.

To God it cannot be applied, because outside of our reality there is no sense of time or timeline... God simply is.

This could be one of the worst arguments ever applied. "God simply is." does not get a point across at all. You have not shown me any evidence or proof. He is simply there? No thanks.

[according to Christianity as I understand it]

God created time and he exists outside of it. There is no sense of time outside of what we know as reality. There is no argument here. God does not exist in what we understand time to be and thus does not have a beginning nor an end, and needs no creator to exist.

Oh yeah, I forgot the bible has one of those weird Plot Device/Deus Ex Machina systems going on.

Well, that completely disproves my theory, it says so in the book.

<-- PS: Finally hit 1k Posts, I am a real boy now!

Dreadwinter wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot the bible has one of those weird Plot Device/Deus Ex Machina systems going on.

I think you mean "Deus Ex Logos"

No one will get that.

I did! I think...

xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.

I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.

There room for one more? Also, I'll tell you whether I believe in a god if you tell me first... :trollface:

xole wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:

xole wrote:I'm starting to become a donkey-cave theist, which means that I just like to argue with people without actually expressing my own views.

I've been thinking about starting a cult, if anyone is interested.

Actually, I think a 40k cult might be fun.

I knew a guy who switched religions depending on who he was talking to.

"Oh, you're a Christian? Well I'm Scientologist. Have you considered letting the Church into your life? We could definitely help with your Thetan levels."

"Oh, you're a Scientologist? Well I'm a Jehovah's Witness. Have you considered letting Christ into your life?"

"Oh, you're an atheist? Well I'm Hindi. Have you considered letting Vishnu into your life?"

I should store this somewhere.

That's awesome

Reminds me of a story my dad would tell me...

Whenever a Jehovah's Witness would knock on the door, he'd invite them in EVERYTIME.

He's a good sport... he'll sit there and listen to what they have to say and offer drinks/snacks.

Then, he'll get out a can of sardines, open it up and eat it right in front of them (??!?!)... says "This is what I worship... nothing beats a good can".

First time I heard this... I was like.. .Wha-what? o.O it's so off the wall, how do you address that?

Eventually, they got the message... bless 'em, they're persistent.

I'm an Atheist. Or a "Secular Humanist" as I tell the Christians. Seems to make them less intolerant.

I don't believe in anything spiritual (though I do quite like Buhdist teachings nonetheless.) I think given enough time, science could explain everything, because as far as I'm concerned, everything happens in the natural world.

Also I think space exploration is the most important thing we can do as a species, and that's a big part of my life as well.

Sometimes I just don't get why people have to "search for something deeper/greater" in life. It's all around us. Look up at the night sky, or the latest picture sent back from Curiosity, or even just some mold on a piece of bread, and realize how special our existence is. That all of this happened without some form of intelligent design is a beautiful thing indeed.

I'm not an atheist, there might be a God, there is feth all evidence for it, but you never know.

But I am an anti-theist.

Basically, I don't much care if there is a God or not, but I properly fething hate devoutly Religious people.

Muslims first, followed by Christians and Jews, and then everyone else.

I must also point out that I don't hate normal Religious people, the wishy washy "each to their own" types that are most common in the world. I don't class them as Religious. A "Muslim" that drinks beer, watches football and eats bacon ain't a fething Muslim as far as I'm concerned.. same with all these lapsed Catholics. If you use contraception and like gay people, as far as I'm concerned your a wishy washy fence sitter and thus we can be friends.

But devout?

Then I hate you, because you are helping to seriously feth the world up, and deep down, you must know it. Iron rules make it inevitable. How can you ever be really fair, or really just, or really impartial, when there is a text you dogmatically follow that demands you act in a certain way?

Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.

Its just another divide, another reason to hate those different from yourself, and its not like angry apes need much of an excuse in the first place.

How the feth can that possibly be a good thing?

That's our Dakka...

Not like we need to do research or anything.

mattyrm wrote:Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.

I refute your claim, as it is clearly possible to do.

I don't care if my neighbor is lesbian or not, I don't care if my neighbor is an atheist or not. I don't care if they disagree with my beliefs or not. And the Bible isn't filled with this so called hate that you claim it is filled with. We are called to love people regardless of their choices in life, mattrym. Saying what you say so strongly doesn't make it any more correct. I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

I cannot argue that there are many Christians who fail to honor the Lord's commandment to love their neighbor as theirself...

In the eyes of God all sins are of the same weight, and thus the homosexual is not worse nor better than the slanderer, or the murderer, or the thief... and I see things the same way.

You might say it is unfair to call homosexuality sinful because some people are born with homosexual tendencies, just like others are born with heterosexual tendencies. I do not disagree that different people are born with different sexual orientations. Sin is common to all man, and so the person born with homosexual tendencies is just like the man born with impatience or hateful tendencies. There is no discrimination against the homosexuality as a sin anywhere in the Bible, it is regarded as another sin and is treated as such throughout the Bible with the utmost consistency.

edit: I would just like to let you know that I am not excited or mad, and I only spoke using stronger language because of your strong claim.

Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?

One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.

The Bringer wrote:I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

Does this mean you believe in Genesis? *rubs hands together* This could be fun
I respect you more than other christians who cherry-pick for the fact that you accept it's either all true or we can't take any of it seriously, however if you do believe in genesis then suddenly my respect evaporates once again. Prepare to be converted to agnosticism

TheBringer, why is homosexuality a sin? It's not a choice and it hurts no one. Do you think the Bible is rational when it says sodomy is an abomination and calls for killing gay people?

The Bringer wrote:
I refute your claim, as it is clearly possible to do.

Oh ok, I love a good debate me..

The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

Ok I win then.

feth me, that was easy.

mattyrm wrote:

Spoiler:

I'm not an atheist, there might be a God, there is feth all evidence for it, but you never know.

But I am an anti-theist.

Basically, I don't much care if there is a God or not, but I properly fething hate devoutly Religious people.

Muslims first, followed by Christians and Jews, and then everyone else.

I must also point out that I don't hate normal Religious people, the wishy washy "each to their own" types that are most common in the world. I don't class them as Religious. A "Muslim" that drinks beer, watches football and eats bacon ain't a fething Muslim as far as I'm concerned.. same with all these lapsed Catholics. If you use contraception and like gay people, as far as I'm concerned your a wishy washy fence sitter and thus we can be friends.

But devout?

Then I hate you, because you are helping to seriously feth the world up, and deep down, you must know it. Iron rules make it inevitable. How can you ever be really fair, or really just, or really impartial, when there is a text you dogmatically follow that demands you act in a certain way?

Gays, lesbians, women, kids, and almost everyone else who doesn't happen to share your Religion of choice would be far far better off if dogmatic Religious zealots didn't exist, and it is clearly impossible to refute the claim. A cursory glance at any of their scriptures contains enough xenophobia and hatred to make me vomit, I don't care how much of the good stuff people cherry pick, they are packed to the rafter with divisive hate as well.

Its just another divide, another reason to hate those different from yourself, and its not like angry apes need much of an excuse in the first place.

How the feth can that possibly be a good thing?

I'm surprised I'm saying this again, but I totally agree.

There are plenty of pleasent Religous people, but sure as hell, there are still far more sly and passive aggressive Religous.

The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!

Or if he shaved his beard! By god, he's doomed!

Wait, what if a woman has a beard?

Because, by man, the Bible means humanity, right?

So a woman can't shave her beard?

I don't believe in any organized religion

I do though believe we are all one and that we are all "GOD"

rubiksnoob wrote:

The Bringer wrote: I am not a cherry-picking Christian, I accept the entirety of Scriptures, and I dislike those who do cherry pick.

Oh boy, I hope you don't wear cotton/polyester blends. . . that's a sin!

Hence my easy win!

feth me.. there must be literally thousands of demonstrably insane gak in there! I cant be arsed looking for the best ones, but even off the top of head there are some absolute pearlers!

What about, people who have flat noses cannot go to the altar of God?

Bringer, how often do you sacrifice animals, as leviticus chapters 1-9 tells you to do?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?

One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.

I must respectfully disagree.

(Quran 9:30)"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

This is merely one of many, and this is actually one of the nicer verses as it doesn't call Muslims to violence, it merely asks Allah to kill them.

(Quran 17:16) "And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, and afterward they commit abomination therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it with complete annihilation. "

It should be noticed that before 9/11 Osama Bin Laden issued a call for Americans to join Islam.

In truth we shouldn't even look at the Qur'an alone, but also at the Hadith and Sira, as they detail the lives of Muhammad himself. Strictly in percentages, the Qur'an isn't even the majority of their text by a longshot.

Truth be told, I don't think a lot of Muslims read their texts, similar to how many Christians don't read their bibles.

Xole is on the ball.

Anyone who claims that Islam is a "Religion of Peace" know nothing about Islam and have clearly never read the Qur'an.

It is a warlike Religion, like most of them lets be honest!

The only good fortune for us is that the majority of so called "Muslims" do not practice Islam properly and happily ignore large parts of their holy book.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Bringer makes a good point, most hate caused by the devout of the Jehovah family of faiths (Judeism, Christianity and Islam) is the individual in question twisting faith to fit their own intolerant and hate filled attitudes. There's no justification for suicide bombing in the Koran, but if some evil jackass can manipulate illiterate shepherd's sons to /think/ there is then really what's the difference?

One of the more illuminating conversations I had on Islam was with a fellow Marine. The man himself was a practicing muslim and I asked him what he thought about the whole mess overseas. He explained to me that the terrorists and other certain unsavory aspects of the Islamic faith had about as much correlation to the actual Muslim faith as the Westboro Baptist Church did to the non fethed up portions of Christianity.

Actually, the extremists claims to Islam are just as legitimate as apologists and moderates. Suicide bombing isn't prohibited or condemned in the Quran. However, these kinds of attacks are approved of within the sharia tradition. Take a moment to look up Ibn Tamiyya, Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, Shayk Burhanuddin Ali, Al-Mawardi-- four of the most influential jurists from the medieval period. Tamiyya is particularly vehement in his "anything goes" attitude (he advocated the use of siege equipment against enemy civilian populations if it would also kill enemy soldiers). It's worth noting that the so-called sword verses almost universally abrogate the verses of peace in the Quran. Reformers and apologists tend to characterize the sword verses as referring to spiritual struggle, but the weight of historical evidence as well as explicit statements within the Sharia, Jurisprudential, and Hadith (and I'm talking about the so-called "sound" Hadith compiled by Bukhari and Muslim) traditions are against them. There is no indication that Jihad meant anything other than armed conflict before the colonial period (even within the Sufi tradition).
Umar, Muhammad's immediate successor, (according to tradition) said before the conquest of the Iraqi region: "Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (this is to say accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse may pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Quran 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted."
And it's no secret that Muhammad had his political opponents assassinated, and exterminated the Jewish tribes that failed to convert in Medina.
This is not to say that the reformers are absolutely wrong, or that their vision isn't legitimate-- all religions are subject to change and revisionism; I'm just pointing out that groups like Al-Qaeda have plenty of textual and historical justification to point to. Contrary to what reformers and apologists say (who largely write and live in the western world) they are not "bad" or "ignorant" Muslims; groups like the taliban, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood actually enjoy a great deal of support from what one might call the "mainstream" Muslim world. , though this also has a great deal to do with their political stance.

Thing is, (although I have no evidence to back this up) I expect that there are plenty of times it says that simply attacking something isn't the best way to go, just as the bible contradicts itself on this subject. You can't just quote those things and say "Therefore true muslims always attack people". You could, however, say "There is no way to always follow holy books as they contradict themselves".