A very dark topic...Read at your own risk.

Status
Not open for further replies.
DEAR ROB,
I'm so sorry you feel that one exististence in this world is only rather a debate and not a living person! You quote what was previously mentioned but you left out who you are responding to! Did you forget or do you like to hide in your cave away from attack or possible rebuttal, because it's safer that way? No to answer your 1/2 statement 1/2 question, the Old Testament is not to be forgotten, but as the world in which we live in changes everyday, so do things higher than us! You also quote what was mentioned earlier about there not being any attacks against others---WHAT IS YOUR ARGUEMENT? I don't understand why you would quote that---it is a fact---do you read? (i'm not trying to be sarcastic here) if you read any of the replies you would know that to be a fact! Although I am exceedingly glad you did not look around your house for a bible and scan through the pages for some little sentence or verse to contradict your unbelief in it, I do however feel sorry for you because you would enter into a discussion where you are not ready to use fact, instead you run off of flames from maybe your insecurities, (a lot of people have been hurt--that's life, but to feed the flame is to conform to a more easy way out--you know when you are a kid and you feel insecure about yourself so you point out someone else and start to hurt them so the attention will be off of you and so also you might fit in?) Well I have no ill thoughts of you, but rather like I said feel pity you that you would actually consider in your head to DEBATE A LIFE! WHO ARE YOU? AM I REALLY BEYOND DELUSIONAL? NO I'M NOT--If you consider me delusional than what do you consider yourself? Do you consider yourself to be NORMAL and is that NORMAL you perceive by SOCIETY'S Standard? Than if that is your reasoning, than I think that I should THANK YOU for your assesment of me being delusional, because I would rather be that and weird or a freak than to be JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, AGREEING WITH EVERYONE ELSE, THINKING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, AND THANKFUL THAT I'M NOT SENDING MYSELF TO THE SLAUGHTER WITHOUT AN INDIVIDUALLY FORMED OPINION OF MY OWN MAKING, Yes I'm very glad that my reasoning is of my own and that i do not sit blindly by and allow the WORLD to lead me on a leash, I guess you are one of the many FOLLOWERS, too afraid (and i'm not trying to hurt your feelings here) to walk out into the wilderness on your own--just you (if you can allow your spirit the room to understand what I'm saying) and I guess that I'm just one of the FEW LEADERS, SPIRITUAL FIGHTERS, READY TO WALK PROUDLY WITH MY HEAD HELD HIGH FOR WHAT I BELEIVE IS RIGHT WITHIN MY HEART, AFRAID AT TIMES BUT NOT LETTING THAT FEAR OVERCOME ME!
I can only PRAY that in time you might just look around yourself and try to understand what that hidden voice in your heart has been trying to tell you for so long!
PEACE
SKYE
 
^
|
|
"To rest one's case on faith means to concede
that reason is on the side of one's enemies-
that one has no rational arguments to offer."
-Ayn Rand
 
"I'm not scared to believe in God, But to believe such dreadful things about him. The conclusion i dred is not "So there is a God after all", but "so this is what God is really like..."
I don't know if i believe in God, but i do think it's better to have some faith then nothing.
 
"I'm not scared to believe in God, But to believe such dreadful things about him. The conclusion i dred is not "So there is a God after all", but "so this is what God is really like..."
I don't know if i believe in God, but i do think it's better to have some faith then nothing.
"Hope til the end" ~ Peter 1:13
 
Stasis,
I HAVE gone over all the posts. I have read them. And I think you are putting a lot of time and energy into ill-constructed and illogical arguments (as I said above) and you are attacking people, although you childishly deny it. I'm sorry if you didn't get Mere Christianity. I know I always understand a book by reading the first few chapters of it!! Maybe if they created a cliff's notes version you could understand it. I realize I am attacking you now. I wasn't in my first post, but your attacks forced me to defend myself. You put a lot of your time into laughing at other people's beliefs! Who are you trying to convince? Why don't you just live your life and leave us who believe alone? Does it make you feel intelligent?
Reading your posts gives me a headache. It's like listening to a child throw a tantrum. Please, please stop. You're not changing anyone's mind, proving to anyone that you're intelligent (far from it!), in fact you're just wasting everyone's time.
Also in response to your post about the different saviors throughout religions in the world- funny, that's the reason I believe in God. God planted in everyone a knowledge of himself. Why would anyone just up and choose to worship a higher power? Why would the stories be so similar? Thanks for that post.
[This message has been edited by sublimeroll (edited 28 September 2000).]
 
Skye, No offence but what are you talking about?
"the Old Testament is not to be forgotten, but as the world in which we live in changes everyday, so do things higher than us!"
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not" (Not "Sometimes", "Once and a while" he says NOT)
Also see Matt 5:17-19 "Till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all is fulfilled" etc.
Sublimeroll, if you think you understand the bible you are mistaken.
There are over 1500 different sects of Christians that alone is proof the bible is vague and contradictory.
For instance I could site 20 verses of the bible in support drinking alcohol and just as easily find 20 verses opposing alcohol.
 
Ok, there's already twelve pages of response to this original insite, so I don't know if mines gonna get read or not, but I hope it does.
The thought that man created god out of a fear of death is not an original one. Read some Kubler-Ross, death and dying, thanatology.
Maybe we created a God because a final end is to scary, and maybe we guessed right about it being there and maybe not. No amount of thought will really clear it up. The only way to know for sure is to die.
Maybe God only exists for the believers.
------------------
"I don't believe in God, but I am afraid of him" -Kevin Spacey (the usual suspects)
 
Sublimeroll, keep in mind as you attempt to insult my intelligence that YOU chose to interject here. You had every option to just ignore what was being said. Would you walk into a debate and say, "Guys, stop arguing, this offends me!"? If you did that and had no rational arguments to offer you would just be laughed at. I don't feel that I'm wasting my time trying to get people to open their minds, question what they have been told and understand why they believe what they do. I'm not trying to convert anyone, unless you consider getting someone to think for themselves "conversion". You chose to come here and claim your own personal dogma as absolute truth. If you KNEW it was the absolute truth you probably wouldn't feel the need to defend it. If you had complete confidence (or valid evidence) in this dogma then you might have a leg to stand on.

"Why would anyone just up and choose to worship a higher power? Why would the stories be so similar?"

What kind of reasoning is this? Do you really think that it would be possible for the concept of God NOT to exist? If you think that this is a valid reason for the existence of God you need to stop reading my posts because they're not going to register in that narrow paradigm of yours. If you want to keep believing this go ahead, it obviously makes you feel better about your existence. If you want to try to understand why we as humans think what we do, read on. A little knowledge never hurt anyone (unless of course they feared burning in hell for questioning what they were told).

Since you asked the question above, I'm going to answer it for you. Just like Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

Do you know what memes are?

Memes are beliefs that spread from individual to individual; that is, they replicate somewhat as genes do.

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leading from body to body via sperm or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.

How do memes get established?

Memes can evolve spontaneously in a group in response to some problem. That is, the meme evolves, somewhat like genes, by adapting to conditions and continuously changing. Most likely our meme for compassion probably evolved this way since it made life better for everyone in the group.

It is obvious, however, that many memes are "planted" in the group by certain individuals for their own reasons. The politicians, the schools, the press, the clergy and others are guilty of sowing a constant stream of memes within the populace and encouraging their growth.

Just like genes, the survivability of a meme depends on its environment. In that sense, memes that are compatible support each other's growth and survivability. The meme for religion, for examples, is helped a great deal by the meme that says we should have "blind faith".

Can we think without being influenced by memes and genes? While we can't completely eliminate the influence of memes and genes we certainly can diminish their impact. Further, we can adopt the "Scientific Method" which requires that all conclusions be subject to verification. That is, we can keep an open mind for errors in our thinking and try to minimize accepting anything on blind faith.

- (Paraphrased from http://www.spectacle.org/1095/meme.html Click on this link to learn about other notions which you may believe that were planted in your mind via memes)

What about the God meme?

"Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent 'mutation.' In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have such high survival value? Remember that 'survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal.

It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be rectified in the next. The 'everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. There are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains.

God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture."

[Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"]
If you're willing to admit that what you believe has no other basis than blind faith then you have no business trying to debate here. This isn't a discussion of "my God can beat up your God". As long as mystics like you stumble upon this thread and find out that their beliefs aren't based on any real evidence they're going to feel compelled to interject their own personal reasoning for why they believe, and this thread could possibly out live us all.
smile.gif


"A mystic is a person who is puzzled before the obvious but who understands the nonexistent." - Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
------------------
The truth will set you free, but first it's going to piss you off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As incoherent as that was, I’ll give it a shot
wink.gif


“I'm so sorry you feel that one exististence in this world is only rather a debate and not a living person! “

Ok, I’ll admit that makes no sense to me
wink.gif


“You quote what was previously mentioned but you left out who you are responding to! Did you forget or do you like to hide in your cave away from attack or possible rebuttal, because it's safer that way?””

I’d made the assumption that you were capable of recognizing your own text, looks like you were.

“No to answer your 1/2 statement 1/2 question, the Old Testament is not to be forgotten, but as the world in which we live in changes everyday, so do things higher than us!”

Does “not to be forgotten” mean you still have to follow it? Turbo Monk compared it to CMOS (I’ll make the assumption that he meant BIOS. BIOS=Basic Input Output System, the basic hardware instructions in the computer. CMOS= Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor, BIOS is normally stored on CMOS chips) and said the “New testament” to the operating system. Well, if you don’t follow the rules set down in the BIOS to the letter, the operating system will come to a screeching halt. And just who gets to make this judgment call? You? SolarFlare6 summed up this point for me quite well.

“You also quote what was mentioned earlier about there not being any attacks against others---WHAT IS YOUR ARGUEMENT?”

Once I come out of my cave, I’ll answer this one.

“I don't understand why you would quote that---it is a fact---do you read? (i'm not trying to be sarcastic here)”

What was that? Hard to hear anything in this cave.

“if you read any of the replies you would know that to be a fact!”

Ok, I’m ready to come out, was getting cold in that cave. I used to read Turbo Monks replies, but he claimed that my views were “Vomited upon this planet”, and I stopped taking him seriously. Outside of this board, the vast majority of the bible reading population will gladly attack anyone who disagrees with them. Or are you claiming that doesn’t happen either.

“Although I am exceedingly glad you did not look around your house for a bible and scan through the pages for some little sentence or verse to contradict your unbelief in it,”

Yeah, a direct quote would be hard to refute, wouldn’t it? I’m just glad that those religious types NEVER use those “little sentences” to prove their points.

“I do however feel sorry for you because you would enter into a discussion where you are not ready to use fact”

What fact did I make up? Bible-readers attacking non-believers? Did I make up those bible passages?

“instead you run off of flames from maybe your insecurities, (a lot of people have been hurt--that's life, but to feed the flame is to conform to a more easy way out--you know when you are a kid and you feel insecure about yourself so you point out someone else and start to hurt them so the attention will be off of you and so also you might fit in?)”

Good thing you are above flaming
wink.gif


“Well I have no ill thoughts of you, but rather like I said feel pity you that you would actually consider in your head to DEBATE A LIFE!”

Debate a life? NOW you’ve lost me.

“WHO ARE YOU?”

Me Rob. You Skye. You feeling ok?

“AM I REALLY BEYOND DELUSIONAL?”

See previous two quotes.

“NO I'M NOT--If you consider me delusional than what do you consider yourself?”

Not delusional? I dunno, you’re the one with the all powerful invisible friend who is deeply interested in my sex life.

“Do you consider yourself to be NORMAL and is that NORMAL you perceive by SOCIETY'S Standard?”

Not by a long-shot. Society thinks “normal” people have a large, invisible imaginary friend(s), although there sometimes are arguments over whose imaginary friend is the best one. I think the Pope just made a public statement that his is the best one. I bet all the other people are all unhappy now that it has been proven that their friend isn’t as big.

“Than if that is your reasoning, than I think that I should THANK YOU for your assesment of me being delusional, because I would rather be that and weird or a freak than to be”

It isn’t, do I still get thanked?

“JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, AGREEING WITH EVERYONE ELSE, THINKING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, AND THANKFUL THAT I'M NOT SENDING MYSELF TO THE SLAUGHTER WITHOUT AN INDIVIDUALLY FORMED OPINION OF MY OWN MAKING,”

As hard as I try, I cannot use the terms “Individually formed opinion” and “religion” in a sentence without laughing. What if your “opinion” went against the bible? Uh-oh! Better change it to fit quick! That was close, almost had an opinion that went against everyone else’s!

“Yes I'm very glad that my reasoning is of my own and that i do not sit blindly by and allow the WORLD to lead me on a leash, I guess you are one of the many FOLLOWERS”

Unlike, say, the people who follow Geeeee-zus!

“, too afraid (and i'm not trying to hurt your feelings here) to walk out into the wilderness on your own--just you (if you can allow your spirit the room to understand what I'm saying) and I guess that I'm just one of the FEW LEADERS, SPIRITUAL FIGHTERS, READY TO WALK PROUDLY WITH MY HEAD HELD HIGH FOR WHAT I BELEIVE IS RIGHT WITHIN MY HEART, AFRAID AT TIMES BUT NOT LETTING THAT FEAR OVERCOME ME!”

Maybe that’s the difference… Ever since I dropped the shackles of religion, I have not been afraid… unless you count spiders. Yes, I am no-longer afraid of even death. (And no, that does not mean I WANT to die.)

”I can only PRAY that in time you might just look around yourself and try to understand what that hidden voice in your heart has been trying to tell you for so long!”

You pray for me, I’ll think for you (Thanks Stasis!
wink.gif
)
-Rob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since this thread may indeed "outlive us all", I've decided to make a brief comment.

Stasis, you say that if your antagonist had leg to stand on, they wouldn't be so defensive about their beliefs. With all due respect, and not to pick a bone, though, I think you represent this stance yourself.

If someone is *totally* confident in their beliefs, why should they feel the need to substantiate it? If one is *totally* confident, why bother with things one considers to be outrageous or patently ridiculous? If someone came up to you and said, "The sky is really pink, and grass is really blue," would they be worth your time?

Would they be worth convincing? If someone from the Flat Earth Society came up to a geologist and tried to explain his or her views, would they be worth talking to? Probably not. The truth (if there is such a thing) is so blatantly obvious, and their rejection of it so total, that it isn't worth spending a calorie of energy in its defense. The truth will always prevail, whether it's accepted or not.

In short, if one is confident in their beliefs--true, false, or neutral--then defending it probably tells more about one's insecurity in their beliefs than their supposed confidence.

I can see some objections to this view already:

O: Hey man, the beliefs of others have a major impact on my life, and the lives of others for that matter. I can't sit around while millions make fools of themselves and suppress the truth.

R: The beliefs of others do have an impact on our lives. But we can still choose to accept or reject them, regardless of whether we pay lip service to them or not. I don't know about you, but I'm not responsible for whatever ten, a hundred, or a million people think. To adapt a quote of the mythical Cain, I'm not the keeper of my brother's beliefs. To take a paternalistic / condescending attitude toward them is to make one just as guilty as the accused.

O: You're dodging the real issue. The beliefs of the majority and the powers that be are still oppressive.

R: I have a hypothesis that seems reasonable--maybe beliefs are just a veneer for basic facets of human nature, universal characteristics unaffected by one's gods or lack thereof. Take racial discrimination--almost universal, regardless of whether it's rationalized by religion or not. Same with sexism, war, societal reaction to deviance, and others. If the world turned atheist tomorrow--would it solve anything? Probably not; it would just remove one rationalization for action (religion), and there are plenty more.

O: How do you know?

R: I don't. It just seems to fit my experience, and it sounds reasonable. Since you seem to be an empiricist, perhaps you can understand. Then again, we can always apply Cartesian doubt to any belief, which is something I abide by--nothing is 100% sure, not even our own existence. Science itself acknowledges room for the possibility of error, though the overriding sense of logic and adherence to empiricism keeps it under wraps.

O: Well, I'm still going to spread the truth.

R: I assume, much the same way Christians spread the truth--by stating their beliefs as bald fact, as well exhibiting a need for others to join their cause, one that seems to feel threatened by outsiders.

O: Gimme a break! They only have fantasies to stand on!

R: Remember Cartesian doubt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unfortunetly it's not as simple as ignoring the beliefs of others and not paying lip service.
When you have that many people who have their opinion of anything from Sex to Nuclear weaponry based on a particular book you can't avoid it's influence.
As a quick example, Gay people are not allowed to marry.
Most of the social battles fought in north America are fought against existing Christian opinion.
 
Beli, good post. I agree for the most part, except for my stance. My stance is that there is no stance. Beliefs are not necessary, they can never change what is.

My goal is to just get people to THINK. If someone is going to try and push their dogma down my throat, I want them to completely understand what it is that they're pushing. I am always up for intelligent discussion about this subject but I'm not interested in reading yet ANOTHER personal version of the same old dogma. They're just old memes that are being recycled, altered and redistributed. If someone takes the time to address me with their own dogma I'm going to at least take the time to help them understand it. Once they understand why they dismiss all the other possible gods, they'll understand why I dismiss theirs.
And unfortunately SolarFlare is right about a lot of the problems we're facing today being a result of religious beliefs. I was just talking about this on another thread.

There's a great book by Peter McWilliam's called, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do."

that talks about this issue.

To quote:

"Why are some consensual activities considered crimes while others are not? The short answer is religious beliefs. Almost all of the consensual crimes find the basis of their restrictions and prohibitions in religion. Even the idea that one should take good care of oneself has a religious base. ("The body is the temple of the soul.")

Prudent participation in consensual crimes, however, is not necessarily anti-God, anti-religion, or even anti-biblical. The prohibitions against certain consensual activities grew from a misinterpretation and misapplication of biblical teachings. (This is discussed in the chapter, "What Jesus and the Bible Really Said about Consensual Crimes.")

End quote

You can read the whole book online at: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/toc.htm
It's an excellent read. He touches on every topic (including drugs). McWilliams is the one who died recently because the Government took his medicinal marijuana away from him as a result of court decision (he could no longer keep the multitude of pills down without the marijuana, he choked on his own vomit).
"Christian doctrine was shredded to pieces by biblical scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, but the information didn't get out to the bulk of people beyond the academic world. With the Information Age, this will all change." [Farrell Till, _The Skeptical Review_]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Belisarius and Stasis-excellent posts, both. In similar discussions with my good friend LOVELIFE, I have often posed Belisarius' same query-if it is indeed irrational to believe in a monotheistic God, why then are you, the professed atheist(LOVELIFE), seemingly more vexed by the question of the existence of God then I? (Which, somewhat amusingly, vexes him all the more-sorry LOVELIFE
smile.gif
)
Stasis, although I have not read Mr. McWilliams' material that you cited, I imagine that a persuasive case can be made for the religious influence on the denomination of many consensual activities as crimes, particularly those involving sexual interaction. I hope you're not arguing, though, that Mr. McWilliams' death can be persuasively attributed to a religious influence in the government's prohibition on medicinal use of marijuana. That seems to be stretching the argument a bit tautly. I would argue that the influence-peddling of the corporate pharmaceutical interests had far more to do with Mr. McWilliams' death than did the religious beliefs of legislators in enacting the prohibition. In general, I would argue that the rationales for the prohibition of many consensual crimes, e.g., drug use and gambling, are far more securely rooted in economic and class-based sociological policies than those based upon religion.
[This message has been edited by glowbug (edited 29 September 2000).]
 
Glowbug, no, the statement about the Government keeping his Marijuana away from him had nothing to do with the previous statement about religion. I am well aware of the political and race-based reasons behind the prohibition of marijuana. I was just offereing a tidbit of information on who McWilliams is. Gimme some credit will ya?!
The answer to your first question is simple. We're free-thinkers, it's what we do.
smile.gif

"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless." - Leo Tolstoy, On Life and Essays on Religion
 
Stasis:
Since we're trading book suggestions, I suggest you read "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold", or "Why People Believe Weird Things".
Click to expand...
I think evolution is weird. How do you know any of it to be true? It's from what you've read in books. I find it odd that scientists can accurately clock the speed of light in a vacuum but were off 100+ million years with the horseshoe crab.
Hello hairsplitters: 100 million years?
Since we're never going to agree on our start, how about where we end up? Bible bashers are quick to point out discrepancies in OT scripture, well how about the NT book of Revelations, the number of the beast, etc.?
GPS and a one-world currency, work-to-bank-to-electronic transaction-for-everything isn't far off folks.
I'm glad I won't be around for that.
Did you ever think that when you drive down the freeway that the billboard you see may be a lie? Books created by man, spawned from the pits of hell, and cleverly disguised as science have made their way into classrooms all over this planet and continue to keep people in darkness.
Putting all religious crap you've heard or read or experienced in the past I challenge you to ask God to reveal himself to you. Do it right before you go to sleep at night.
You may not change overnight, but in time you will change for the better.
Adios.
[This message has been edited by Turbo Monk (edited 29 September 2000).]
 
"GPS and a one-world currency, work-to-bank-to-electronic transaction-for-everything isn't far off folks. I'm glad I won't be around for that."

What in the world are you talking about? I would LOVE to be around for that! I'd love to hear your reasonings WHY.

"Books created by man (BIBLE, SCIENTIFIC METHOD, MEMES) spawned from the pits of hell (MEME), and cleverly disguised as science have made their way into classrooms all over this planet and continue to keep people in darkness."

Hmmmm... sounds like your describing Creation Science, but I'll bet you're not.

So I take it you believe in magic?

Nothing wrong with that.

Any intelligible use of the term creation must imply the existence of a creator, and because the creator of all of nature must be, quite literally, super-natural, we see that the fundamental force operating in "creation science" is a super-natural force - which is a polite term for MAGIC. Science, however, involves the study of natural forces only, and ceases to be science when it attempts to explain phenomena by means of super-natural forces.

Try not to confuse science with what science really is. Science is allowing us to have this conversation, so be careful when you start spouting things like, "cleverly disguised as science" when science obviously yields tangible results. Disguised? What for? Science cannot hide from itself. You may not always like what science finds out, but it doesn't really care what you think. This is all we have to study the tangible.

Let me ask you a few hypothetical questions.

Do you think the advancement of science somehow signals the end of time?

Why does evolution have to necessarily disagree with God? It's obvious that we observe evolution, we're using what we know about it to advance our understanding of genetic engineering. So we can see that organisms change over time in response to stimuli and environmental changes. Scientists aren't debating whether or not it happens, they're studying the rate and intensity that it happens. Why couldn't those changes be little teeny tiny acts of God? It's clear that God doesn't think we're perfect, and he would know that in order for us to survive we must be able to adapt to ever changing environments. I would think in your world that denying evolution should be seen as denying one HUGE beautiful act of God. Denying a system he designed and referring to it as "spawned from the pits of hell".
Ahhhh... if God exists... it's possible that you're insulting It.... BADLY.

I'll let "God" define Itself thank you.
smile.gif


"I do not believe in God, but I am afraid of him." - Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects)

Just thought you could use a new perspective.

"Do you want real TRUTH in capital letters? Then search yourself for why you believe the things you do. Don't be afraid to analyze why your religion gives you the high it does. Answer yourself this question: Is TRUTH important enough for me to give up my religion if that is required? Until you answer yes to this you are not being honest with yourself." - Dave Trissel
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"I think evolution is weird. How do you know any of it to be true? It's from what you've read in books."
Evolution is irrefutable. Evolution = change over time. How do you think that we have all those funky looking breeds of dogs that are still the same species yet look nothing alike? Humans have selectively bred these animals over thousands of years to suit our liking. Change in genetic characteristics = evolution.
Can we prove without a doubt that homo sapiens evolved from prokaryotes? No. But that does not mean that we don't evolve. Because we do.
What is wrong with the concept of evolution anyway? It and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. If you believe that God created everything, then is it so hard to believe that he could have allowed his creations to change? adjust? adapt? grow? mutate? reproduce? Evolution involves all of these things which are proven beyond a doubt to occur.
An excellent experimental investigation of evolution: Certain types of yeast exist which lack a gene to produce an essential amino acid. The yeast can only grow on a medium which supplies the amino acid. However, by depriving the yeast of the nutrient causing it to die and introducing a factor such as UV light, gamma radiation, etc. the yeast will eventually mutate to a form which can produce its own amino acids.
It evolves, helped along by mutagenic factors that are abundant in our environment.
Again- evolution is simply *change*. Things change.
Now how about this?
"I think CHRISTIANITY[substitute any religion] is weird. How do you know any of it to be true? It's from what you've read in books."
EXACTLY.
 
DEAR ROB

I can't believe you actually don't remember anything you previously stated:

"If you actually believe that, there is no point in even trying to debate you... you are beyond delusional" ---DOES THAT SOUND A LITTLE FAMILIAR? YEP, that's all YOU!-----

"Debate a life? NOW you’ve lost me."----YEP that's you again in your last post!
NOW put two and two together and what do you get?

“I'm so sorry you feel that one exististence in this world is only rather a debate and not a living person!" That's me!

What is so INCOHERENT about this statement?

Do you NOW understand the TEXT we are discussing here!
Oh, i guess you forgot what you stated that : "there is no point in even trying to debate you... you are beyond delusional.

ARE YOU THERE ROB? YOU MAKE NO SENSE at all!
TOO MANY DRUGS THIS WEEK? PLEASE RE-READ your old posts in the future for yourself, so you don't look as stupid as you do to me right at this moment!

ARE you asking me why I replied to your insults? SOCIAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE A GREAT WEAKNESS OF YOURS I CAN SEE!

"Yeah, a direct quote would be hard to refute, wouldn’t it? I’m just glad that those religious types NEVER use those “little sentences” to prove their points."

No a direct quote would not be hard to refute! But those RELIGIOUS TYPES you are talking about actually STUDY the bible and they are NOT using the bible to they're advantage and then turning around and calling it CRAP! THAT'S HYPOCRISY!
I guess my reply actually did hit home otherwise you wouldn't be acting as a child with your hands over your ears as you hum la,la,la,la so you can't hear what it is anyone's saying!
I'm sorry if you can not understand the way I write---that's your problem, maybe you should go back to school----or wait a minute
didn't you say you were going to THINK FOR ME? NO OFFENSE, BUT NO THANKYOU! I am doing quite well! But really I am taking CREATIVE WRITING, JOURNALISM and have already attained the copyrights for literature, spoken word and poetry I've written. SO if a sentence like this one is too hard for you to understand, then like I said GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

I really have no time to sit here and argue back and forth with someone who has acheived great ignorrance such as yourself. LET ME GO OVER WITH YOU WHAT I JUST MENTIONED---"who has achieved great ignorrance such as yourself." I don't believe anyone in this world is born with that much ignorrance!
I HONESTLY don't remember the messed up text you call your reply and I REALLY DON'T FEEL like wasting my energy re-writing everything you said and i said into a screenplay, just so you can understand what is actually being discussed---You know it's FUNNY my nephew started first grade a couple of months ago and he's already reading at 2 levels higher than where other 6 yr. olds are at and again I'm not trying to hurt your feeling here, but even he would not have had the problem understanding or the problem of discussing a topic like this one with an adult! But you know come to think of it I don't think any 6 yr. old would have!

If you want other ADULTS to take you SERIOUSLY than I suggest you EDUCATE yourself and at least try to ACT your appropriate age!

PEACE
smile.gif
smile.gif
smile.gif

SKYE*
"You pray for me, I’ll think for you"---like I said NO THANKYOU--but I will pray for you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TurboMonk,
I'm really curious what verses in Revelation refer to "GPS and One world currency".
Please do tell.
And secondly about people being quick to point out "Discrepencies" as you call them in the OT, you do realize the NT is filled with them also?
example: Matt 12:40 Jesus wrongly predicts he will be buried for three days and three nights when the actual time Jesus spent in the grave was a mere 1 1/2 days.
 
Skye, your post was NOTHING but ad hominem attacks.
What are you doing here? If you have nothing rational to say, please, save us the thread space.
I'm sure you were a real vital member of the debate team.
"I don't believe anyone in this world is born with that much ignorrance!"
Real good point there. Impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top