Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums: Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality

Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425702 is a reply to message #425675]

Wed, 14 April 2010 05:44

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:21

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

then the "so this part doesn't apply now because he was talking to the israelites" point is nonsense.

How does that relate to what I said at all?

you said that these particular verses only apply to the israelites, because god's talking to this group whom he gave land to. it's only the people to whom god gave such a large gift who need to pay attention.

well, if he gave all of us life, that would seem to qualify as well.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

does it follow that one particular crime will have the same punishment as a less heinous one? quite possibly, if it's everlasting.

Very possibly.
I don't see any passage hinting at a person going from one to the other after they've arrived (remember the gulf).

well, there you go. the punishment for any "sin" is the same as another. for my honest criticism of christianity, i'm in for the same punishment as any mass murderer you care to name.

that's justice, is it?

Quote:

Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

From what I found as I resarched this, there are disputes as to the original meaning of the phrase, 'enter into rhe congregation of the LORD'.

then there's another critique of the incompetence of the revelation.

Quote:

Fossils created? No, the living beings they used to be...
If life slowly spread over Earth and not just suddenly appeared, there wouldn't be fossils just mass-appearing in groups. They'd be showing up in small but increasing numbers.

i've never heard anybody suggest that the population (in animal terms) of the earth at 4000 BC was very small.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 10 April 2010 00:29

Quote:

Or,
"When the carbon-14 dating method is "correctly" calibrated, and 25-thousand radiocarbon dates are graphed, the result shows evidence of a great peak of deaths about 4-thousand years ago."

even more vague

I don't see how this is vague.
Although it concerns the flood and not creation.

how does this even prove the flood is true? there was a catastrophic event and lots of animals died? that's happened quite a few times.

On this scale?
There were other events that killed off nearly the entire planet?

on what basis does he claim that this thing 4 thousand years ago killed off nearly the entire planet?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse...

...and who put us into that situation?

Quote:

in this case, you're blaming him for not 'saving' people from punishment who've done nothing in return.

'saving' seems to be a euphemism for 'deciding not to inflict horrific punishment after all'

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

the second question was simply to remind you that god is not telling us about the punishment. men wrote the bible.

Well, as I have already stated, I don't believe that.

you already acknowledged that the bible was written by men. and who's spreading the bible around? who's spreading the word of god? men. it's no different to islam.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

First time I've heard this from a Christian...

I'm surprised...
What do the Catholics/Christians in your area think, then?

i hear all the time that god is intervening in world affairs... every time a natural disaster happens, for example. there's no "christians in my area" about this; we get it from christians all over the world all the time. you're the first christian i've ever heard suggest that god does not interfere in current events.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

wow, lol... so if i say unicorns are real, you'd have to accept there is a 50% probability that they actually are?

At base, yes. Then you look at the evidence and proof.

well, let's just say you're not the first person i've actually pressed for evidence.

half of the people i've asked this said evidence is not applicable, the other half tried to prove it and failed.

the second half are more honest and respectable, fyi.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

My grounds is my belief, I'm not trying to declare it as absolute fact.

you don't really believe it, then?

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

[Updated on: Wed, 14 April 2010 05:46]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425716 is a reply to message #425702]

Wed, 14 April 2010 08:25

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

back to the catholic church for a moment. i hope the catholic church will be prosecuted for this, and i hope it'll have to face some kind of justice for its actions on AIDS as well, but here are the defences i've heard from catholic spokesmen in the last couple of weeks re: child rape and the ensuing systematic coverups

- the problem is homosexuality
- the problem is secularism
- the problem is a jewish conspiracy

haven't heard any catholics say the problem might just be that the pope ordered a conspiracy of silence around cases of sexual assault, and threatened to excommunicate anybody who talked to anyone outside the church - the law, for example. (i'm not aware of anybody who's been threatened with excommunication for actually raping a defenceless child)

it's very ironic that this is going to happen on his state visit to britain. his plan is to come here and lecture us on stuff like sexual morality, which would be a bit like robert mugabe lecturing us on democracy. and it's a disgrace that nobody has seriously suggested prosecuting the catholic church until now.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425772 is a reply to message #425716]

Wed, 14 April 2010 17:02

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

update- another excuse to the list offered by a catholic priest on fox news: it's the fault of the sexual revolution, we should never have let these filth into the church

(the priest who said that was earlier on bill o'reilly's show publicly calling for kids to be booted out of school if they happened to have homosexual parents.)

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425796 is a reply to message #425772]

Wed, 14 April 2010 22:08

raven
Messages: 595
Registered: January 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Karma: 0

Colonel

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 19:02

(the priest who said that was earlier on bill o'reilly's show publicly calling for kids to be booted out of school if they happened to have homosexual parents.)

sigh.

-Jelly Administrator
-Exodus Administrator

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #425810 is a reply to message #425796]

Thu, 15 April 2010 01:17

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

yeah. it's just another example of the problem all along; the view that the catholic doctrine trumps the welfare of actual human beings, especially children.

everyone ought to ask themselves: does religion exist for the benefit of humanity, or do humans exist for the benefit of religion? if you say it's the second premise then you might have missed the point of it, if there ever was one in the first place.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426024 is a reply to message #425702]

Fri, 16 April 2010 18:03

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Altzan wrote on Tue, 13 April 2010 23:21

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

then the "so this part doesn't apply now because he was talking to the israelites" point is nonsense.

How does that relate to what I said at all?

you said that these particular verses only apply to the israelites, because god's talking to this group whom he gave land to. it's only the people to whom god gave such a large gift who need to pay attention.
well, if he gave all of us life, that would seem to qualify as well.

"it's only the people to whom god gave such a large gift who need to pay attention."
That's not it at all. It had to do with their situation, not theirn material wealth or reward.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

He created it all, and he set the standards. There is punishment for those who don't follow.
If there was a sign warning people not to stray near thin ice, it wouldn't matter who walked over it: a punk who wants to show off, a man who thinks it's safe enough, a person who doesn't think that the ice will break if he's careful - if they walk that ice, it will break.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
From what I found as I resarched this, there are disputes as to the original meaning of the phrase, 'enter into rhe congregation of the LORD'.

then there's another critique of the incompetence of the revelation.

It's a small detail. It's obvious that the phrase has to do with the culture in some way, it doesn't mean that bastards aren't going to heaven.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

i've never heard anybody suggest that the population (in animal terms) of the earth at 4000 BC was very small.

Isn't that the point?

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse...

...and who put us into that situation?

I already answered that.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

in this case, you're blaming him for not 'saving' people from punishment who've done nothing in return.

'saving' seems to be a euphemism for 'deciding not to inflict horrific punishment after all'

If you don't do 'A', then 'B' will occur. If you do, 'C' will occur.
Why blame the system for allowing 'B'? Why should the system care if you don't think it's proper?

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

the second question was simply to remind you that god is not telling us about the punishment. men wrote the bible.

Well, as I have already stated, I don't believe that.

you already acknowledged that the bible was written by men. and who's spreading the bible around? who's spreading the word of god? men. it's no different to islam.

I acknowleged it was written by men, but not that man was its author.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

That's really strange. Practically nobody around here suggests that.
That Baptist Group I mentioned was the first I've heard in awhile.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

half of the people i've asked this said evidence is not applicable

Depends on the evidence... some aspects of historical data can be, but some things in the past have virtually no trace remaining in today's time.

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

the other half tried to prove it and failed.

That's the problem, it can't be proven... otherwise, virtually everyone would be Christians. Even God knew that wasn't going to happen. (Follow the strait and narrow path, there will be few who walk it.)

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

My grounds is my belief, I'm not trying to declare it as absolute fact.

you don't really believe it, then?

I just said I did...
But to clarify, what is 'it'?

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426064 is a reply to message #426024]

Sat, 17 April 2010 02:55

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Fri, 16 April 2010 20:03

"it's only the people to whom god gave such a large gift who need to pay attention."
That's not it at all. It had to do with their situation, not theirn material wealth or reward.

again, you're deciding for yourself which parts apply to you. the bible itself does not give you a list of which bits don't apply any more.

for example, i'll still waiting to hear in which part of the new testament we hear a repudiation of the disgusting laws on rape, and an apology for inflicting such a sick system upon us and an even greater apology for all the womens' lives that have been completely ruined by its application.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

He created it all, and he set the standards. There is punishment for those who don't follow.

the same feeble defence could be offered for any dictatorship with crappy laws.

Quote:

If there was a sign warning people not to stray near thin ice, it wouldn't matter who walked over it: a punk who wants to show off, a man who thinks it's safe enough, a person who doesn't think that the ice will break if he's careful - if they walk that ice, it will break.

then what will you say when you stand before god and he asks you why you didn't follow his more recent revelation to you through his prophet Mohammed?

you didn't think the ice was real? it's still gonna break!

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
From what I found as I resarched this, there are disputes as to the original meaning of the phrase, 'enter into rhe congregation of the LORD'.

then there's another critique of the incompetence of the revelation.

It's a small detail. It's obvious that the phrase has to do with the culture in some way, it doesn't mean that bastards aren't going to heaven.

it's not clear at all that this is not what it means. obviously you aren't sure what it does mean.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

i've never heard anybody suggest that the population (in animal terms) of the earth at 4000 BC was very small.

Isn't that the point?

uh no, it's the opposite of the point.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse...

...and who put us into that situation?

I already answered that.

sure, but you didn't seem to hear what you were saying.

the mafia protection analogy still holds.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

in this case, you're blaming him for not 'saving' people from punishment who've done nothing in return.

'saving' seems to be a euphemism for 'deciding not to inflict horrific punishment after all'

If you don't do 'A', then 'B' will occur. If you do, 'C' will occur.
Why blame the system for allowing 'B'? Why should the system care if you don't think it's proper?

why should the system not be an unchallengeable dictatorship?
why should the system not have such appalling laws?

well, these are very old questions. i'm by no means the first to ask them. asking them is basically the beginning of the road to freedom, and freedom starts when religion ends.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

the second question was simply to remind you that god is not telling us about the punishment. men wrote the bible.

Well, as I have already stated, I don't believe that.

you already acknowledged that the bible was written by men. and who's spreading the bible around? who's spreading the word of god? men. it's no different to islam.

I acknowleged it was written by men, but not that man was its author.

ah, "inspired by god"... shame there's absolutely no good reason to think that's true.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

That's really strange. Practically nobody around here suggests that.
That Baptist Group I mentioned was the first I've heard in awhile.

*shrug*

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

half of the people i've asked this said evidence is not applicable

Depends on the evidence... some aspects of historical data can be, but some things in the past have virtually no trace remaining in today's time.

actually, the usual justification is what you say in a minute: "it can't be proven, duhhh"

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

the other half tried to prove it and failed.

it's very easy to notice that the only reason christians keep saying this is because the "evidence" is so laughably feeble. if they did have proof of christianity, they'd raise the roof and everybody knows it.

the "evidence doesn't apply here, duhhh" (aka 'faith') is the biggest con trick mankind ever played on itself, it's extremely easy to see through but it's astonishing how many people have fallen for it.

and if god chose to set up a system that will reward "faith" (i.e. believing things for which you have no reason to believe, and abandoning your own morality) and will punish anyone who exercises their scepticism or moral objections, then there's another reason to think he's an evil piece of shit, and why it's so comforting that there's no reason at all to think any of it is true.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

My grounds is my belief, I'm not trying to declare it as absolute fact.

you don't really believe it, then?

I just said I did...

i don't find that very convincing. if you don't think it's a fact i don't see how you can say you believe it.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426277 is a reply to message #426064]

Sun, 18 April 2010 17:11

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony said:

Quote:

He created it all, and he set the standards. There is punishment for those who don't follow.

the same feeble defence could be offered for any dictatorship with crappy laws.

Mmm-hmm.
Yet it still hasn't been shown that every single dictatorship is wrong. The only seemingly-bad aspect is how the people don't have equal status.

Spoony said:

Quote:

then what will you say when you stand before god and he asks you why you didn't follow his more recent revelation to you through his prophet Mohammed?
you didn't think the ice was real? it's still gonna break!

I'd rather believe in a sign that has evidence of being placed there by someone who knew what they were talking about, and not a sign placed by one man who had a vision.

Spoony said:

it's not clear at all that this is not what it means. obviously you aren't sure what it does mean.

Oh, its obvious it doesn't mean what you were trying to pass it off as.

Spoony said:

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

i've never heard anybody suggest that the population (in animal terms) of the earth at 4000 BC was very small.

Isn't that the point?

uh no, it's the opposite of the point.

How? If nobody ever hinted at the animal population starting small, that's against evolution and for creation.

Spoony said:

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse...

...and who put us into that situation?

I already answered that.

sure, but you didn't seem to hear what you were saying.
the mafia protection analogy still holds.

I hear what you're saying, and I made a response for it.
Then you tunneled into one specific aspect...

Spoony said:

why should the system not be an unchallengeable dictatorship?

Why can't it be? What is it about the basic definition of a dictatorship that's so horrible?

Spoony said:

why should the system not have such appalling laws?

If the system decided to conform to anyone's standards, you can bet there will be people arguing against it just as vehemently as you are now.

Spoony said:

well, these are very old questions. i'm by no means the first to ask them. asking them is basically the beginning of the road to freedom, and freedom starts when religion ends.

Right, the freedom to believe that you can do whatever you want in this world... and when you die, you will cease to exist.
People will forget you, your actions will have been for nothing.

Spoony said:

ah, "inspired by god"... shame there's absolutely no good reason to think that's true.

Correction: you think there's absolutely no good reason to think that's true.

Spoony said:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

Spoony said:

the "evidence doesn't apply here, duhhh" (aka 'faith') is the biggest con trick mankind ever played on itself, it's extremely easy to see through but it's astonishing how many people have fallen for it.

Let me ask you then: do you think man as a whole is rational?

Spoony said:

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

if you're making no distinction as to the actual likelihood of the claim, i'm not sure on what grounds you say one god is real and all the others aren't.

My grounds is my belief, I'm not trying to declare it as absolute fact.

you don't really believe it, then?

I just said I did...

i don't find that very convincing. if you don't think it's a fact i don't see how you can say you believe it.

I'm not trying to decare it as absolute fact to whoever I mention it to. I acknowledge it as unproven.
But that does NOT translate to "I don't believe it."

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426292 is a reply to message #426277]

Sun, 18 April 2010 18:44

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 19:11

Spoony said:

Quote:

He created it all, and he set the standards. There is punishment for those who don't follow.

the same feeble defence could be offered for any dictatorship with crappy laws.

Mmm-hmm.
Yet it still hasn't been shown that every single dictatorship is wrong. The only seemingly-bad aspect is how the people don't have equal status.

perhaps you can name one true dictatorship that worked out well?

Quote:

Spoony said:

Quote:

then what will you say when you stand before god and he asks you why you didn't follow his more recent revelation to you through his prophet Mohammed?
you didn't think the ice was real? it's still gonna break!

I'd rather believe in a sign that has evidence of being placed there by someone who knew what they were talking about, and not a sign placed by one man who had a vision.

you still fall into the "doesn't think the ice will break" category by saying that.

Quote:

Spoony said:

it's not clear at all that this is not what it means. obviously you aren't sure what it does mean.

Oh, its obvious it doesn't mean what you were trying to pass it off as.

actually, what i "tried to pass it off as" was one of the many examples in the bible of god holding one person accountable for the actions of others, which shows just how crappy his morals are (or, rather, how crappy are the morals of the men who invented this fictional character)

if god takes the view that having a child out of wedlock is sinful, then the people to punish would be the parents, right? the child was not consulted in the matter, could not have possibly avoided the conditions of his/her birth.

Quote:

Spoony said:

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

i've never heard anybody suggest that the population (in animal terms) of the earth at 4000 BC was very small.

Isn't that the point?

uh no, it's the opposite of the point.

How? If nobody ever hinted at the animal population starting small, that's against evolution and for creation.

i said nobody said that the population of the earth at 4000 BC was small. life's been on this planet for a lot longer than that.

Quote:

Spoony said:

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

so it's the same as the mafia protection, then. we're being "saved" by the guy who put us in the danger in the first place.

We're always 'in the danger' as it is from the start, then, because there are no other options other than accept or refuse...

...and who put us into that situation?

I already answered that.

sure, but you didn't seem to hear what you were saying.
the mafia protection analogy still holds.

I hear what you're saying, and I made a response for it.
Then you tunneled into one specific aspect...

the fact the whole "saved" concept is a tendentious and immoral racket?

Quote:

Spoony said:

why should the system not be an unchallengeable dictatorship?

Why can't it be? What is it about the basic definition of a dictatorship that's so horrible?

you said that you find islamic morality objectionable. it doesn't seem like you need this explained to you.

Quote:

Spoony said:

why should the system not have such appalling laws?

If the system decided to conform to anyone's standards, you can bet there will be people arguing against it just as vehemently as you are now.

...which is precisely why we need democracy, free inquiry and freedom of speech.

Quote:

Right, the freedom to believe that you can do whatever you want in this world... and when you die, you will cease to exist.

If this life is the only one we have (and nobody has made a good case that it is otherwise), then it would make our life even more precious.

As for doing whatever we want, no. We do want laws, to uphold the basic human rights, to protect citizens, their rights and their property. But when it comes to the laws, we want the right to decide them democratically.

Quote:

People will forget you, your actions will have been for nothing.

You don't think anything in your life is worthwhile?

Quote:

Spoony said:

ah, "inspired by god"... shame there's absolutely no good reason to think that's true.

Correction: you think there's absolutely no good reason to think that's true.

I've gone to extraordinary lengths to allow your side to support your claims, and I'm still open to evidence.

No rush.

Quote:

Spoony said:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

And why did the author write and publish this book?

Quote:

Spoony said:

Let me ask you then: do you think man as a whole is rational?

Partially. Our brains are more advanced than animals, but they're still evolving; they're far from perfect.

Quote:

I'm not trying to decare it as absolute fact to whoever I mention it to. I acknowledge it as unproven.
But that does NOT translate to "I don't believe it."

Whatever.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426332 is a reply to message #425702]

Mon, 19 April 2010 12:47

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

First time I've heard this from a Christian...

I'm surprised...
What do the Catholics/Christians in your area think, then?

Muslims too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric

Where do you think they got this idea? Quite obviously the old testament.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426442 is a reply to message #426332]

Tue, 20 April 2010 11:42

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

@ Altzan,

Religion, like ideas, progress in different levels. The type of chritianity that I see widely practiced in America is what I call "phoney religion." It is nowhere close to what was practiced 200 years ago. The fact that only a few renegade churches remain as a remnant of the past shows how much your religion has "modernised" itself by discarding anything that seems absurd.

The "new age" type christians that go to the mega non-denominational churches simply prove this point beyond doubt.

Most of the silly parts of christianity are outright rejected because it is just plain absurd. For example, saying out loud that you got sick because god is judging you for your sins won't fly here (anymore). But it is absolutely accepted back among Indians over there (btw, they think they are the real christians compared to American christians). They are just not advanced enough yet in their thinking. Give it a hundred more years and future generations of Indian christians will be just like American christians...i.e, clueless phoney religious folks enjoying life under christian branding.

I am only saying this because you (2nd time I believe in this thread) have tried to shake off this important aspect from your religion in a way that suggests to me "that because we don't do it over here, what they do over there doesn't count and is not part of my religion." Sorry, but that is just incorrect.

Many christians I have spoken seem to understand this and say that atheists cannot blame the past versions of christianity because, similar to what you said here earlier, life was different back then. They are just too thick to understand what this really means; that this is a man made story that has been garbled and re-garbled over and over again.

In fact this is true of all religions. I had an opportunity to observe the lifestyle of some younger Hindu friends when I stayed over at their place couple weeks ago; they are basically modernized Hindus. Their religion is also undergoing the same generational changes as yours.

Quote:

(Follow the strait and narrow path, there will be few who walk it.)

This is another spin off the ancient superstitious practice of sacrifice and self-sacrifice to obtain certain rewards. "If you give up this and that, you have greater reward blah blah."

Let's see if this "narrow path" was all worth it a thousand years from now...it will be as worthy as the actions of misinformed priests throwing away their lives and vowing to a life of celibacy for the greater [illusionary] reward.

Spoony wrote on Mon, 19 April 2010 14:47

Spoony wrote on Wed, 14 April 2010 07:44

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Mon, 12 April 2010 10:13

Quote:

When Jesus established his church and ascended to Heaven, God's direct influence ceased and won't return until the second coming.

First time I've heard this from a Christian...

I'm surprised...
What do the Catholics/Christians in your area think, then?

Muslims too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/19/women-blame-earthquakes-iran-cleric

Where do you think they got this idea? Quite obviously the old testament.

It's a big deal when a christian tells that god doesn't interfere.

I was told the entire opposite and instead of listing everything, the impression of the christian god given to me was that of a cosmic Big Brother. Enough said. I would instantly reject anything that says he is not because its obvious that's just another "interpretation" from the new age christians. So obvious how bogus these new age christians are...modernized folks who are keeping up with the times.

The other side of this is how much undeserving credit this god gets for no reason whatsoever.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/8746/buzzsigfinal.jpg

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426532 is a reply to message #422616]

Wed, 21 April 2010 10:16

kadoosh
Messages: 90
Registered: April 2004

Karma: 0

Recruit

Remembered seeing this and thought it was kinda funny. Also seeing as how this has gone from adoption to "Religion - an opinion piece", figured it would help, or humor.

Link

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426566 is a reply to message #422616]

Wed, 21 April 2010 18:55

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

perhaps you can name one true dictatorship that worked out well?

Seeing as how every dictatorship I know of was run by fallible human beings, no.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I'd rather believe in a sign that has evidence of being placed there by someone who knew what they were talking about, and not a sign placed by one man who had a vision.

you still fall into the "doesn't think the ice will break" category by saying that.

Correct, yes.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

i said nobody said that the population of the earth at 4000 BC was small. life's been on this planet for a lot longer than that.

Well, I don't think the Earth has been around longer than over 8 millenia or so.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I hear what you're saying, and I made a response for it.
Then you tunneled into one specific aspect...

the fact the whole "saved" concept is a tendentious and immoral racket?

No, the aspect of "God's the one who set up the punishment."

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

Why can't it be? What is it about the basic definition of a dictatorship that's so horrible?

you said that you find islamic morality objectionable. it doesn't seem like you need this explained to you.

Islamic morality hardly involves the definition of dictatorship being wrong.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

If this life is the only one we have (and nobody has made a good case that it is otherwise), then it would make our life even more precious.

I believe our life is precious, of course.
For different reasons than its finality, however.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

As for doing whatever we want, no. We do want laws, to uphold the basic human rights, to protect citizens, their rights and their property. But when it comes to the laws, we want the right to decide them democratically.

The system can be as perfect or corrupt as it can or will.
That doesn't chenge the fact that once it and the people within it are gone, they're gone for good... if there's no afterlife.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

People will forget you, your actions will have been for nothing.

You don't think anything in your life is worthwhile?

Of course I do. What I do in life determines where I go in death.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

I've gone to extraordinary lengths to allow your side to support your claims, and I'm still open to evidence. No rush.

So you're ignoring the other stuff I mentioned earlier?

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

And why did the author write and publish this book?

Do I really have to explain? It's obvious as to why he published an article of that nature.

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

Spoony said:

Let me ask you then: do you think man as a whole is rational?

Partially. Our brains are more advanced than animals, but they're still evolving; they're far from perfect.

Well, man has been naturally religious for quite some time. The vast majority of every tribe or civilization has had some sort of higher power in their beliefs.
Do you believe then, that man is irrational in this aspect?

Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)

Do you agree with this statement?

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Religion, like ideas, progress in different levels. The type of chritianity that I see widely practiced in America is what I call "phoney religion." It is nowhere close to what was practiced 200 years ago. The fact that only a few renegade churches remain as a remnant of the past shows how much your religion has "modernised" itself by discarding anything that seems absurd.

Yes, religion does progress. Seeing as how custosms, technology, and dialect change over time, it would be hard for religion to stay exactly the same in terms of buildings to worship in, proper attire, and so on.
What should NOT change is what is practiced and what is believed. Ufortunately, many seem to think changing beliefs or practices in order to blend into the modern world is perfectly OK.

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

The "new age" type christians that go to the mega non-denominational churches simply prove this point beyond doubt.

Those types of churches surely have some sort of mutual belief system, unless they all believe that faith is all you need, and they go to that church to praise God for the heck of it.

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

I am only saying this because you (2nd time I believe in this thread) have tried to shake off this important aspect from your religion in a way that suggests to me "that because we don't do it over here, what they do over there doesn't count and is not part of my religion." Sorry, but that is just incorrect.

Why?
Why should I be blamed for the belief choices made by other "Christians"?
Are you telling me that I'm to be associated with Catholics, for example, because they call themselves Christians?
Because that is just absurd.

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Many christians I have spoken seem to understand this and say that atheists cannot blame the past versions of christianity because, similar to what you said here earlier, life was different back then. They are just too thick to understand what this really means; that this is a man made story that has been garbled and re-garbled over and over again.

What?

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Quote:

(Follow the strait and narrow path, there will be few who walk it.)

This is another spin off the ancient superstitious practice of sacrifice and self-sacrifice to obtain certain rewards. "If you give up this and that, you have greater reward blah blah."

Again, what?

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Let's see if this "narrow path" was all worth it a thousand years from now...

I look forward to it.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426586 is a reply to message #426566]

Thu, 22 April 2010 03:58

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Wed, 21 April 2010 20:55

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

perhaps you can name one true dictatorship that worked out well?

Seeing as how every dictatorship I know of was run by fallible human beings, no.

so is the dictatorship you propose.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

i said nobody said that the population of the earth at 4000 BC was small. life's been on this planet for a lot longer than that.

Well, I don't think the Earth has been around longer than over 8 millenia or so.

well, that's not a view you can come to by actually studying evidence critically.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I hear what you're saying, and I made a response for it.
Then you tunneled into one specific aspect...

the fact the whole "saved" concept is a tendentious and immoral racket?

No, the aspect of "God's the one who set up the punishment."

...which goes some way to proving what a racket it is.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

Why can't it be? What is it about the basic definition of a dictatorship that's so horrible?

you said that you find islamic morality objectionable. it doesn't seem like you need this explained to you.

Islamic morality hardly involves the definition of dictatorship being wrong.

you said you objected to islamic morality. what if the islamic revelation was correct? if you object to it, if you think its rules are evil, then the concept of dictatorship falls...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

The system can be as perfect or corrupt as it can or will.

sure, and you'll invariably find that the more religious a society is, the more corrupt it is.

Quote:

That doesn't chenge the fact that once it and the people within it are gone, they're gone for good... if there's no afterlife.

Yes, but the party will go on. The human race goes on, the planet's still here, our friends and relatives are still here...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

People will forget you, your actions will have been for nothing.

You don't think anything in your life is worthwhile?

Of course I do. What I do in life determines where I go in death.

There it is, ladies and gentlemen.

"Your actions will have been for nothing" if there's no afterlife. If there is, then your actions will mean a better deal for you.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

I've gone to extraordinary lengths to allow your side to support your claims, and I'm still open to evidence. No rush.

So you're ignoring the other stuff I mentioned earlier?

Excuse me? I've gone to quite some trouble to respond to the "evidence" you posted, and pointed out how laughably feeble it was. If you've got any more, go ahead. Don't post a whole mess of links though; put it all in one place.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

And why did the author write and publish this book?

Do I really have to explain? It's obvious as to why he published an article of that nature.

I would like you to answer the question.

Quote:

Well, man has been naturally religious for quite some time. The vast majority of every tribe or civilization has had some sort of higher power in their beliefs.

And I expect you would probably agree that the overwhelming majority of religions that have been believed over the centuries have been incorrect.

Furthermore, let's never forget the way religions propagate; through violence, threats, and most importantly, by lying to children.

Quote:

Do you believe then, that man is irrational in this aspect?

Sure.

Quote:

Also, here's another question:
"The creative power of the mind amounts to nothing more than the faculty of combining, transposing, augmenting, and diminishing the materials afforded to us by sense and experience." (David Hume)

Do you agree with this statement?

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Quote:

So you think the proportion of Muslims who live peacefully are in the wrong, then?

What about that evil rape law we discussed earlier? It was never repudiated, remember. You made some weak bleating about how it must have been something to do with the culture at the time.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426704 is a reply to message #426586]

Fri, 23 April 2010 20:29

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Altzan wrote on Wed, 21 April 2010 20:55

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

perhaps you can name one true dictatorship that worked out well?

Seeing as how every dictatorship I know of was run by fallible human beings, no.

so is the dictatorship you propose.

Whether you believe in a God or no, surely you don't think he's human...

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Well, I don't think the Earth has been around longer than over 8 millenia or so.

well, that's not a view you can come to by actually studying evidence critically.

Actually, it is and it was.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Islamic morality hardly involves the definition of dictatorship being wrong.

you said you objected to islamic morality. what if the islamic revelation was correct? if you object to it, if you think its rules are evil, then the concept of dictatorship falls...

Why?
Islam may believe in a dictatorship, but not agreeing with it hardly topples the dictatorship system.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

The system can be as perfect or corrupt as it can or will.

sure, and you'll invariably find that the more religious a society is, the more corrupt it is.

Not accounting for the religions that did help a society's way of life?

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

That doesn't chenge the fact that once it and the people within it are gone, they're gone for good... if there's no afterlife.

Yes, but the party will go on. The human race goes on, the planet's still here, our friends and relatives are still here...

For a time. But it all will be gone eventually, it isn't eternal.
Then what's left?

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

"Your actions will have been for nothing" if there's no afterlife. If there is, then your actions will mean a better deal for you.

Or a worse deal. There's two sides to the coin.
And the deal applies to everyone, not just me.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

I'm not going to run it by you again, because you've already proved that you aren't interested.
If I did, you'd likely laugh it off and ignore parts of it again.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

And why did the author write and publish this book?

Do I really have to explain? It's obvious as to why he published an article of that nature.

I would like you to answer the question.

Since I don't see where you're getting at, I won't.
I'm sure you're capable of making a point without it.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Well, man has been naturally religious for quite some time. The vast majority of every tribe or civilization has had some sort of higher power in their beliefs.

And I expect you would probably agree that the overwhelming majority of religions that have been believed over the centuries have been incorrect.
Furthermore, let's never forget the way religions propagate; through violence, threats, and most importantly, by lying to children.

Sure, sure. But this basic human attribute of looking toward a higher power had to have come from somewhere.
Which leads to...

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

What about that evil rape law we discussed earlier? It was never repudiated, remember. You made some weak bleating about how it must have been something to do with the culture at the time.

It's a sensible point, one you countered with, "You don't know that for sure."

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426708 is a reply to message #422616]

Fri, 23 April 2010 23:02

NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch

Karma: 0

Colonel

To paraphrase a quote that's become quite popular in the Science Fiction genre: anything we are not yet advanced enough to understand is indistinguishable from the supernatural.

Also, human beings are stubborn creatures. Because how we live our lives is shaped by our perceptions and beliefs, we will always tend to resist any outside influence that challenges those beliefs (even if we dedicate ourselves to challenging our beliefs, rarely will we seek to shake their foundations). The unspoken assumption is that if we can be wrong about one thing, we can be wrong about anything, and we most emphatically do not like being wrong.

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426721 is a reply to message #426704]

Sat, 24 April 2010 03:43

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Fri, 23 April 2010 22:29

Whether you believe in a God or no, surely you don't think he's human...

Nobody's given any reason to think Jesus was anything more than human. (I don't have too much of a problem accepting that a man called Jesus existed at a particular time and place, although there isn't much evidence for it. the evidence that he was in any way supernatural is absolutely nil)

Nobody's given any reason to think that the bible was not written in just the same way as any other book; the product of the imagination of humans.

And even if you did set up a Christian theocracy, who will be in charge of it? Who'll be enforcing the rules in the here and now? Either humans or nobody, it seems.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Well, I don't think the Earth has been around longer than over 8 millenia or so.

well, that's not a view you can come to by actually studying evidence critically.

Actually, it is and it was.

I don't doubt that you believe that.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Islamic morality hardly involves the definition of dictatorship being wrong.

you said you objected to islamic morality. what if the islamic revelation was correct? if you object to it, if you think its rules are evil, then the concept of dictatorship falls...

Why?
Islam may believe in a dictatorship, but not agreeing with it hardly topples the dictatorship system.

i didn't mean it topples the system, i meant it shatters the concept that it could be a good thing. the whole point of a dictatorship is: if you don't like something (or everything) about it, there's nothing you or any of your fellow humans can do about it.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

The system can be as perfect or corrupt as it can or will.

sure, and you'll invariably find that the more religious a society is, the more corrupt it is.

Not accounting for the religions that did help a society's way of life?

You use the plural... are you saying that a religion other than Christianity has had a positive benefit?

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

That doesn't chenge the fact that once it and the people within it are gone, they're gone for good... if there's no afterlife.

Yes, but the party will go on. The human race goes on, the planet's still here, our friends and relatives are still here...

For a time. But it all will be gone eventually, it isn't eternal.
Then what's left?

I don't know why you're asking me, frankly.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

"Your actions will have been for nothing" if there's no afterlife. If there is, then your actions will mean a better deal for you.

Or a worse deal. There's two sides to the coin.
And the deal applies to everyone, not just me.

You missed the point.

You started off by saying that the heaven/hell concept was better because otherwise, if there's no afterlife, you can indulge your own selfish desires, do whatever you like because it won't matter once you're dead. Selfishness, lack of care for others, that must be the problem.

Well, a couple of quick questions later and it turns out that your number one reason for preferring the Christian concept is selfishness. You act the way you do in life because you think there's something in it for you later on. That was the point.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

I'm not going to run it by you again, because you've already proved that you aren't interested.
If I did, you'd likely laugh it off and ignore parts of it again.

I'm not gonna let you get away with lying about this again.

Pages and pages ago, I asked: what's the evidence supporting the biblical account reported in Genesis? I've asked this question again and again and again, and you still haven't supplied anything tangible. What little you did provide, not that any of it even answered the question, was very very easy to debunk.

Of course, you aren't the first religious person I've challenged them for evidence; there are usually two ways they react. Either they arbitrarily declare that evidence is inadmissible, or they try to prove it and come up with something really pathetic that shouldn't convince a child, and then they isolate themselves from counterargument.

But it's ok - we have a summary of the situation right there in your post.
Spoony: "Excuse me? I've gone to quite some trouble to respond to the "evidence" you posted, and pointed out how laughably feeble it was. If you've got any more, go ahead. Don't post a whole mess of links though; put it all in one place."
Altzan: "I'm not going to run it by you again, because you've already proved that you aren't interested.
If I did, you'd likely laugh it off and ignore parts of it again."

it's fine, you see, because anyone reading this thread can clearly see you're just lying to try to evade the question... you have a very clear demand for evidence (again), and you have a flat refusal on the grounds that I won't even look at it. I do say you're lying on this point rather than just stupid, because you don't seem to be that stupid.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sun, 18 April 2010 20:44

Quote:

I've been studying something called "The Case for the Existence of God", and the "evidence" is anything but laughable - a lot of it makes sense.

And why did the author write and publish this book?

Do I really have to explain? It's obvious as to why he published an article of that nature.

I would like you to answer the question.

Since I don't see where you're getting at, I won't.
I'm sure you're capable of making a point without it.

I wish I understood why you're so extraordinarily evasive on this point.

It's a simple question. What was the purpose the author had of writing this book? You say it was obvious. So what was it?

Quote:

Sure, sure. But this basic human attribute of looking toward a higher power had to have come from somewhere.

And you've already agreed that the overwhelming majority of the attempts we humans have made on the subject... have been completely wrong.

As for where it comes from, seems like we went over that in terms of morality. I answered where morals come from, you didn't...

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.

Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

What about that evil rape law we discussed earlier? It was never repudiated, remember. You made some weak bleating about how it must have been something to do with the culture at the time.

It's a sensible point, one you countered with, "You don't know that for sure."

[/quote]
I have no idea why you keep lying about this stuff.

I pressed you again and again on this evil piece of garbage in your holy book. I asked you over and over: do you think there's anything wrong with this rule? Eventually you got this far:

Spoony: "do you think that is a good rule for cases of rape?"
Altzan: "Of course not, we live in different times now. Civilization was a lot different back then.
I have never lived in those times so I can't say how good or bad that law was."
Spoony: "what a cowardly, euphemistic answer.

the law is sick and immoral, there's no two ways about it. and if it came from god, then god's sick and immoral too.

yes, civilisation was different back then. they had really shitty morals. you can tell just by reading books written at the time, most obviously the bible. thank god we don't have huge numbers of people trying to live their lives based on the moral standards of primitive middle-east barbarians.

oh wait, we do, don't we."

it's odd, my response doesn't look much like "you don't know that for sure". it looks more like "the rule is evil, and if it came from god, god's evil too."

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426839 is a reply to message #422643]

Sun, 25 April 2010 12:30

Mr.Mom
Messages: 88
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

Recruit

Quote:

and the whole idea of what is "natural"...

"homosexuality is perfectly natural. it isn't a choice, some people simply are homosexual. it also occurs in other species. and yet another thing that must be challenged is the idea that "natural" is automatically a synonym for "desirable". rape, for example, is very common in nature, very common indeed. most of us condemn rape, even though the bible does not."

I completely disagree. I believe it is a choice. Everybody has free will to choose whether they want to be heterosexual or homosexual. That is just my opinion.

Do you have any hard proof to support your statement? Other than opinions of other people. I mean hard proof.

Edit: I did not read through this whole thread so if you already showed evidence of your statement then my apologies. If you did not; I await the evidence.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 April 2010 12:33]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426862 is a reply to message #426839]

Sun, 25 April 2010 18:17

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Altzan wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 11:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

"Belief choices?" rather odd choice of words tbh about christians all across the world following their religion. It is by belief that a huge majority of christians blame earthquakes on human actions and a fatal car accident on your god's wrath. It ain't a choice. It's very real and biblical.

This is what I was getting at. They are as christian as you are. As mentioned earlier, from what's quiet apparent, the western versions of your religion is modernized and phoney. It's quiet amazing that this coincides with the fact that the west has been leading human progress for thousands of years.

Altzan wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 11:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

What?

Altzan wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 11:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Quote:

(Follow the strait and narrow path, there will be few who walk it.)

This is another spin off the ancient superstitious practice of sacrifice and self-sacrifice to obtain certain rewards. "If you give up this and that, you have greater reward blah blah."

Again, what?

When an atheist points to previous versions of christianity that used to be practiced, there is nothing but denial followed up with a "life used to be different then" excuse.

You can come that close to finding the right answer (i.e, "life used to be different then") but then stop yourself there. Yes, life used to different then and the earth was considered to be flat and the center of the universe and humanity as a whole was a lot more idiotic level than it is now.

It's the same deal with the concept of sacrifice. They used to sacrifice live humans at one point before moving on to valuable goods like food. Now it's down to "self-sacrifice" by giving up what are obviously natural human traits but mistaken for "lust." You get this all the time with sexuality...it's completely natural yet the religious see it as something to be treated with "caution" and control. That's "religious sacrifice thru the ages" for you in a nutshell.

Altzan wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 11:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Tue, 20 April 2010 13:42

Let's see if this "narrow path" was all worth it a thousand years from now...

I look forward to it.

One sunday last summer in church (after I became atheist in May), I went to drop off my brother at the sunday school. The old staff guy asked me who I am...to which I replied that I am his brother. He looked puzzled at me and wondered out loud if I am even old enough have any authority to drop off my brother. He wasn't rude at all. Well, I was 22 then but I am one of those people that get mistaken for being 16 all the time (due to looking younger I suppose). I took out my drivers licence and showed it to him and he went ape! He was like "wow awesome! god has blessed you with young looks" and he said how god was also going to "strip away my old body and give me a brand new one so I can be young again like you after the resurrection."

I smiled and left. The man apparently has faith and hope about something he would certainly like to have in real life that he didn't get to have. tbh, I cannot blame him. I can understand how futile his hope is but if it keeps him trucking, I am not going to bother him.

You here is in a similar situation though it leans more toward the condensed concept of some form of self-sacrifice to get faith-based rewards in the afterlife. "Make your body a living sacrifice" said the new-age pastor of the nondenominational megachurch a couple months ago. Well, quiet risky (I bet you think the 9/11 hijackers didn't get their reward for all their hard work). While I do think the reward that you feel "will be worth it" is quiet illusionary and not worth gambling your life away for, I am not interested in intruding into that area as it does not affect me...only you.

Altzan wrote on Fri, 23 April 2010 22:29

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

Well, man has been naturally religious for quite some time. The vast majority of every tribe or civilization has had some sort of higher power in their beliefs.

And I expect you would probably agree that the overwhelming majority of religions that have been believed over the centuries have been incorrect.
Furthermore, let's never forget the way religions propagate; through violence, threats, and most importantly, by lying to children.

Sure, sure. But this basic human attribute of looking toward a higher power had to have come from somewhere.
Which leads to...

This definitely does lead to the proof that the god of abraham is real and that he did make us, pre-programmed us, and gave us our moral compass.

Not.

You jumped from "basic human attribute" to "god maybe real" which is not quiet surprising from religious people (who jump at gaps). I have heard this argument from many folks that use it in debates like this and I myself used this argument here when I used to be christian. I rejected this argument eventually because it gets easily untenable when more facts are brought in to the mix.

If any supernatural creatures did come down and gave humanity our moral compass, wouldn't the early religions be based around and worship these very same supernatural beings? Why then did pre-historic humans worship nature initally before moving on to spirits...

Whatever way you look at it, its obvious humanity is like a person in a dark room trying to make sense of who and what they are. Most definitely not a person in a dark room with a flashlight (courtesy of gods) and knowing where exactly to go. If that had been the case, there wouln't have been so many variations in belief systems popping up. It's been a long process of understanding and we have come a long way and have a better idea of who we are than any ancient belief system could claim.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426867 is a reply to message #426862]

Sun, 25 April 2010 19:41

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

You use the plural... are you saying that a religion other than Christianity has had a positive benefit?

Certainly. There hve been plenty of belief systems that have revolved around the idea of peacefully coexisting with fellow human beings.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Quote:

For a time. But it all will be gone eventually, it isn't eternal.
Then what's left?

I don't know why you're asking me, frankly.

Heck, I'd accept an answer from anyone.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

You started off by saying that the heaven/hell concept was better because otherwise, if there's no afterlife, you can indulge your own selfish desires, do whatever you like because it won't matter once you're dead. Selfishness, lack of care for others, that must be the problem.
Well, a couple of quick questions later and it turns out that your number one reason for preferring the Christian concept is selfishness. You act the way you do in life because you think there's something in it for you later on. That was the point.

So when you obey the laws of your country, you do it because you're selfish?

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Pages and pages ago, I asked: what's the evidence supporting the biblical account reported in Genesis? I've asked this question again and again and again, and you still haven't supplied anything tangible. What little you did provide, not that any of it even answered the question, was very very easy to debunk.

Mmmkay. The Genesis accout deals with the origin of the universe, and so far, I'm the only one who provided a possible explanation of where it came from. Nothing from you yet, that I recall.
But clearly there are only three possible ways:
1) The universe is eternal.
2) The universe is not eternal - it created itself from nothing.
3) The universe is not eternal - it was created by something aterior, and superior, from itself.

Now let's hit it with logic.

1) Science has already declared the universe to not be eternal. "In science, as in the Bible, the World begins in an act of creation. That view hasn't always been held by science. Only as a result of the most recent discoveries can we say that with a fair degree of confidence that our universe has not existed forever; that it began abruptly, without any apparent cause, in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation." -Jastrow
2) This possibility is just absurd. "No material thing can create itself." -J.C. Monsma
3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?

1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

it's fine, you see, because anyone reading this thread can clearly see you're just lying to try to evade the question... you have a very clear demand for evidence (again), and you have a flat refusal on the grounds that I won't even look at it. I do say you're lying on this point rather than just stupid, because you don't seem to be that stupid.

This paragraph is just a bunch of hot air and you know it.
I've presented material and you have responded. Now give me a clear reason why I should show it to you AGAIN, since if you truly wanted to see it again, you would go look at it yourself. That isn't a refusal on my part rather than yours.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

I wish I understood why you're so extraordinarily evasive on this point.
It's a simple question. What was the purpose the author had of writing this book? You say it was obvious. So what was it?

I'm not being evasive. I'm trying to avoid being redundant.
But fine.
He wrote the article on Evidence of the Existence of God because he wants to convey evidence of the existence of God to those who want to know why he believes in a God.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

As for where it comes from, seems like we went over that in terms of morality. I answered where morals come from, you didn't...

Oh no. I DID answer that question, I told you where I believe morals come from, same as you.
I believe a higher power created us and those morals. You believe man and morals came from... somewhere.

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.

Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.

Now who's being evasive?

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

It is by belief that a huge majority of christians blame earthquakes on human actions and a fatal car accident on your god's wrath. It ain't a choice. It's very real and biblical.

How is it Biblical to believe that God is involved in current affairs?

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

This is what I was getting at. They are as christian as you are. As mentioned earlier, from what's quiet apparent, the western versions of your religion is modernized and phoney. It's quiet amazing that this coincides with the fact that the west has been leading human progress for thousands of years.

Why don't you describe what you mean by "modernized and phony" so I don't have to leave this unreplied-to from puzzlement.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

If life has been a whole lot different in the past, changing greatly (and you just admitted that) then why should religion be eternally unchanged to be valid?
Obviously, aspects of a belief system will have to change as man's way of life changes.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

It's the same deal with the concept of sacrifice. They used to sacrifice live humans at one point before moving on to valuable goods like food. Now it's down to "self-sacrifice" by giving up what are obviously natural human traits but mistaken for "lust." You get this all the time with sexuality...it's completely natural yet the religious see it as something to be treated with "caution" and control. That's "religious sacrifice thru the ages" for you in a nutshell.

Sexuality is natural. It exists to help man as a race live on. In that aspect, homosexuality isn't "natural".
And the idea of abstinence deals mostly with morals and civilization rather than relgion.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

You here is in a similar situation though it leans more toward the condensed concept of some form of self-sacrifice to get faith-based rewards in the afterlife. "Make your body a living sacrifice" said the new-age pastor of the nondenominational megachurch a couple months ago. Well, quiet risky (I bet you think the 9/11 hijackers didn't get their reward for all their hard work). While I do think the reward that you feel "will be worth it" is quiet illusionary and not worth gambling your life away for, I am not interested in intruding into that area as it does not affect me...only you.

In other words, you think it is nonsensical to believe in any sort of afterlife whatsoever, and that no action in this life should be spent to affect actions or events in a possible afterlife.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

You jumped from "basic human attribute" to "god maybe real" which is not quiet surprising from religious people (who jump at gaps). I have heard this argument from many folks that use it in debates like this and I myself used this argument here when I used to be christian. I rejected this argument eventually because it gets easily untenable when more facts are brought in to the mix.

My question stands though - we have a basic human attribute of trying to understand what superior force put us where we are, and man did NOT just imagine it, because it is impossible to create an idea without prior influences. If we didn't come up with it by reasoning, as athiests claim, or by evidence of one (again claimed by atheists), then I challenge you to tell me where this idea came from.

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

If any supernatural creatures did come down and gave humanity our moral compass, wouldn't the early religions be based around and worship these very same supernatural beings? Why then did pre-historic humans worship nature initally before moving on to spirits...

Man didn't initially worship nature, they did worship those "same supernatural beings".

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

Whatever way you look at it, its obvious humanity is like a person in a dark room trying to make sense of who and what they are. Most definitely not a person in a dark room with a flashlight (courtesy of gods) and knowing where exactly to go. If that had been the case, there wouln't have been so many variations in belief systems popping up. It's been a long process of understanding and we have come a long way and have a better idea of who we are than any ancient belief system could claim.

Um, if we were given a flashlight and told where to go, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to get there on our own without disagreements on the best way to get there... hence the variations.

Mr.Mom wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 14:30

I completely disagree. I believe it is a choice. Everybody has free will to choose whether they want to be heterosexual or homosexual. That is just my opinion.

Do you have any hard proof to support your statement? Other than opinions of other people. I mean hard proof.

I agree with you as well - it's a choice, not something you are born with.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #426879 is a reply to message #426867]

Mon, 26 April 2010 01:43

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

How is it Biblical to believe that God is involved in current affairs?

kidding me right?

Rulers are put in place by your god. A king's heart is like a river and your god turns it whatever way he wills it. He did afterall lead the murderous exodus gang cutting a wide swath of destruction and misery to ancient kingdoms. Plagues and all manner of natural catastrophes are direct actions of god. Let's not forget his ominopotence and omnipresence and how he always is watching every human on the planet 24/7 to get his notes down.

Frankly, I am shocked you asked this question. It's mind-boggling.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

Why don't you describe what you mean by "modernized and phony" so I don't have to leave this unreplied-to from puzzlement.

Your previous question above shows how much christianity in america has moderized itself. In fact, I can say it is so far off from what was practiced in the past that what you have now is a dead modernized casual revision. I still cannot get over the fact that you asked a question like you did above.

I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?

Atleast the good thing with this is a chances of a Pat Robertson coming up is very slim.

Eitherway, I am not that surprised really. We know exactly why earthquakes happen and why volcanos erupt (not Mother Earth's fury). So it makes sense for a religion like yours (with an actively interfering god) to automatically refine itself and keep up with the times.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

No, you are not just changing your belief system...you are also changing how it is applied over and over that what you find "acceptable" now is so different from what was "acceptable" then. The doctrine has been rewritten and modified over and over with huge parts of it simply rejected and ignored to suit modern lifestyles (and this means ignoring many of the inconvenient rules not to mention the religious trying to choose which passages in the bible are symbolic and literal to avoid run-in's with commonsense).

Need an example? I was beaten all the time with the biblical justification that a parent who doesn't beat his child doesn't love him. With America and it's general anti-spanking mentality, no wonder that verse got thrown into the memoryhole. You probably wouldn't have heard of it anyway.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

Sexuality is natural. It exists to help man as a race live on. In that aspect, homosexuality isn't "natural".
And the idea of abstinence deals mostly with morals and civilization rather than relgion.

Yeah, well sexuality is also highly pleasurable. That's natural too. It's no longer taboo to talk frankly about this stuff. So everyone has and should have the right to procreate as well as use their sexuality for recreational purposes in anyway possible.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

In other words, you think it is nonsensical to believe in any sort of afterlife whatsoever, and that no action in this life should be spent to affect actions or events in a possible afterlife.

No, it is nonsensical and downright absurd to live a life (by making "sacrifices here and there...narrow path, remember) when:

1) there is zero proof of your rewards let alone your god
2) your entire motivation to do so is based on a feeble faith-based belief system cooked up by a certain eastern-mediterranean sea people who's ancient ancestor is a mesopotamian man by the name of abraham.

yeah, I am not gonna knock myself out on that one.

We all know what faith is; desperate wish for *insert wish here* to be true. Now add in the other religions which billions of people live with confidently and you tell me which of these afterlife realities is real.

frankly, I can't imagine anyone wanting to "take action in this life" based on such flimsy wishes. It cannot even be considered a gamble...atleast you kinda had some idea of what you were gonna get when you gamble. This is worse than that.

But let me be clear and say I do not wish to intrude on the way you live your life...just saying why exactly I no longer live that way with the reasons above.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

My question stands though - we have a basic human attribute of trying to understand what superior force put us where we are,

We have always had a sense of curiosity as to the exact nature of our relationship to the cosmos. The idea of a "superior force" came later. Reverence toward nature seems to have preceeded everything else.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

Man didn't initially worship nature, they did worship those "same supernatural beings".

denial

you are saying humans got on the planet and went directly to worshipping the supernautral beings? That defies logic and also comes to denying history.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

and man did NOT just imagine it, because it is impossible to create an idea without prior influences.

Are you serious? Sometimes, I feel glad that a polytheistic religion such a hinduism is going strong today...just for existing as a living reminder as to past beliefs. The fact that animals get so much attention with a personal god for each is similar to the forces of nature given their own deity/spirit.

If you want to believe that a superhuman/supernatural race called the annunaki came to the earth from the planet nibiru and made humans here and hence the descriptions in the ancient sumerian beliefs...well go ahead.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

Um, if we were given a flashlight and told where to go, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be able to get there on our own without disagreements on the best way to get there... hence the variations.

I think you missed the point. If a certain being came down, made humans, and let em loose, there wouldn't be so many variations/disagreements in the first place. Wait...abraham's god did intentionally confuse them up at babel no?

And you have still to explain why your god choose to make the same humans with different racial flavors with various muscular structures, skeletal frame sizes, penis length/size variations, eye, hair, skin color variations and so on.

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

it's a choice, not something you are born with.

doesn't have any bearing on consenting adults doing what they please.

edit: added blue stuff.

edit2: added stuff below:

NukeIt15 wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 01:02

Well said tbh. I will also add that we humans have a tendency to demand immediate solutions. We generally lack the patience and preseverance to think things thru.

imo, this is one of the reasons religions are popular. It provides a stop-gap in our journey of discovery. And this fear and curiosity of the unknown has made people come up with so many different guesses (especially when it comes to the topic of death). It's no surprise that the majority of the world's population is religious and only a few out of that number are, say...scientists (humans who are pushing the boundaries of discovery wihout any pre-made sentiments)...and that I believe takes intellectual strength; no wonder such people are few in number and despised by the masses.

Yet another reason is the most primordial of emotions; fear. This seems to have done more to propagate religion than any other human emotion. Fear after the 9/11 attacks caused church attendance to increase. Fear of war and the fear of the multiple earthquakes earthquakes and volcanic activity has caused a huge majority of people in predominantly christian nations to believe that they are in the "end-times."

Intersting thing about this what is going on religion-wise in my country India. With a majority of hindus and a bullish minority of christians, my cousin informs me that all the christian evangelists over there (now these guys will make Pat Robertson look smart) are preaching fiercly about the end-times. He also informs me that the hindus are not in the slightest bit giving a shit about it! But then again the hindus have a much more superior and more enlightning belief system (though it has its problems).

[Updated on: Mon, 26 April 2010 21:39]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427038 is a reply to message #426879]

Tue, 27 April 2010 20:55

Altzan
Messages: 1586
Registered: September 2008
Location: Tennessee

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

Rulers are put in place by your god. A king's heart is like a river and your god turns it whatever way he wills it. He did afterall lead the murderous exodus gang cutting a wide swath of destruction and misery to ancient kingdoms. Plagues and all manner of natural catastrophes are direct actions of god. Let's not forget his ominopotence and omnipresence and how he always is watching every human on the planet 24/7 to get his notes down.

Yes, he did control many aspects of the events in the Old Testament. He isn't doing that now, though - not since Jesus' ascension. I don't see how the concept of "God isn't actively changing events today" is mindboggling.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?

Of course... as I stated above. I'm "mind-boggled" that people still believe this.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

I was beaten all the time with the biblical justification that a parent who doesn't beat his child doesn't love him. With America and it's general anti-spanking mentality, no wonder that verse got thrown into the memoryhole. You probably wouldn't have heard of it anyway.

I'm wondering where the heck someone derived that silly rule from.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

*shrug*

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

1) there is zero proof of your rewards let alone your god

There's definitely plenty of evidence, that is undeniable. As for proof, that's obvious. There'd be a lot more Christians in there were proof.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

2) your entire motivation to do so is based on a feeble faith-based belief system cooked up by a certain eastern-mediterranean sea people who's ancient ancestor is a mesopotamian man by the name of abraham.

And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

frankly, I can't imagine anyone wanting to "take action in this life" based on such flimsy wishes. It cannot even be considered a gamble...atleast you kinda had some idea of what you were gonna get when you gamble. This is worse than that.

I'm surprised that you don't know, or remember, any details on what we're "gonna get". It seems far-fetched, but certainly not flimsy.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

But let me be clear and say I do not wish to intrude on the way you live your life...just saying why exactly I no longer live that way with the reasons above.

I'm willing to respect that, but the rest of your post fatally contradicts this.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

you are saying humans got on the planet and went directly to worshipping the supernautral beings? That defies logic and also comes to denying history.

I believe in the biblical account... science's version of older events is no more reliable than any other historical idea, even the Bible's.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

and man did NOT just imagine it, because it is impossible to create an idea without prior influences.

Did you understand what I meant?
Or do you really think man is able to imagine an idea without any prior exposure to experience or sense? In other words, out of thin air, no prompt beforehand?

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

I think you missed the point. If a certain being came down, made humans, and let em loose, there wouldn't be so many variations/disagreements in the first place.

It's amazing what can happen in several millenia, eh?
Look how much the U.S.A.'s government, for example, has changed in only a few short centuries.

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

And you have still to explain why your god choose to make the same humans with different racial flavors with various muscular structures, skeletal frame sizes, penis length/size variations, eye, hair, skin color variations and so on.

Why is this an issue? Is it a problem that there are variations?
Should we all have the same faces and looks as well?

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

it's a choice, not something you are born with.

doesn't have any bearing on consenting adults doing what they please.

It does have bearing on the argument that homosexuality is genetic, though.

I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker. ~Voltaire

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427057 is a reply to message #426867]

Wed, 28 April 2010 03:57

Spoony
Messages: 3915
Registered: January 2006

Karma: 0

General (3 Stars)
Tactics & Strategies Moderator

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

You use the plural... are you saying that a religion other than Christianity has had a positive benefit?

Certainly. There hve been plenty of belief systems that have revolved around the idea of peacefully coexisting with fellow human beings.

well, there goes judaism, christianity and islam.

i'd be very surprised if any religious society wouldn't have been a lot better off if it had a secular democracy instead.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

So when you obey the laws of your country, you do it because you're selfish?

No, and that doesn't follow.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Mmmkay. The Genesis accout deals with the origin of the universe, and so far, I'm the only one who provided a possible explanation of where it came from.

No, you didn't. I asked you again and again and again: where is the evidence that proves that the account given in Genesis is correct? YOU-HAVE-NOT-GIVEN-ANY.

I'll ask the question again, the one I asked several pages ago. What is the evidence that proves the version of events described in Genesis is correct?

Quote:

3) This is the only choice left...
If there was a time where only NOTHING existed, there would be NOTHING still, because something cannot come out of nothing. Since something obviously does exist, it must have ALWAYS existed... so what is it?

This can only get you as far as deism. It's an absolutely enormous jump to get from that position to theism, i.e. that you know the details of what created the universe. Furthermore, it obviously raises the much bigger question of where the deity came from, and I've never heard a religious person give anything but the most feeble guesswork answer to that.

i also can't help but laugh at this

Quote:

1)Everything is categorized as matter or mind... nothing else...so:
2) Something is eternal, as mentioned
3) That something must be either mind or matter
4) It cannot be matter, for matter is not eternal.
5) That eternal something must be "mind". There has been an eternal mind.

matter can't be eternal, and therefore we must be dealing with an eternal mind... lol.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

I wish I understood why you're so extraordinarily evasive on this point.
It's a simple question. What was the purpose the author had of writing this book? You say it was obvious. So what was it?

...well done.

the problem is, the post right before that, you said "that's the problem, it can't be proven. if it could, everyone would be christians" (i guess you still haven't figured out that a lot of people have moral objections to your religion)

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

As for where it comes from, seems like we went over that in terms of morality. I answered where morals come from, you didn't...

Oh no. I DID answer that question, I told you where I believe morals come from, same as you.
I believe a higher power created us and those morals.

How did this higher power come about, and where did it get its morals?

Furthermore, if you're talking about the judeo-christian god and if you're assuming that the bible is an accurate depiction of this god's views, is it not rather unsettling that his morals are so bad?

Quote:

You believe man and morals came from... somewhere.

i said they develop over time.

the most primitive organism in the planet has a rough idea of how it should behave.

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Sat, 24 April 2010 05:43

Quote:

Spoony wrote on Thu, 22 April 2010 05:58

Quote:

I can see why he said it, and I can see why a religious person would jump on it.

Ok. But do you think he is right, or wrong? It's not an opinion he's stating, it's a true or false fact.

Is it? I wouldn't have phrased it that way.

Now who's being evasive?

I don't accept that this is a yes-no question.

Quote:

Starbuzzz wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 20:17

It is by belief that a huge majority of christians blame earthquakes on human actions and a fatal car accident on your god's wrath. It ain't a choice. It's very real and biblical.

How is it Biblical to believe that God is involved in current affairs?

I'm still waiting to hear your justification for your belief that he isn't.

Quote:

such as, for example, the idea that we should not force rape victims to marry their attackers.

where did we get the idea that we shouldn't do this anymore? it isn't repudiated in the bible. we decided it's not on.

Quote:

it's not mindboggling at all, i'd just like to know why you think it, when the majority of christians all over the world think the opposite.

Quote:

And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity.

no, it's not.

Unleash the Renerageâ„¢

Renedrama [ren-i-drah-muh]
- noun
1. the inevitable criticism one receives after doing something awful

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427060 is a reply to message #427057]

Wed, 28 April 2010 07:59

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Yes, he did control many aspects of the events in the Old Testament. He isn't doing that now, though - not since Jesus' ascension.

Hmmm...what about his angels then? Are they still around? It does seem he overworked his angels in the NewT. Everything from sending messages to helping peter(?) escape from prison and many instances more.

Or is this part of the tale rejected nowadays as well?

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

I don't see how the concept of "God isn't actively changing events today" is mindboggling.

Only strengthes my personal view that religions change over time.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

I was told god is watching your everymove and directly and indirectly interferes whenever possible. I guess you are going to challenge that too using the version you were taught with huh?

Of course... as I stated above. I'm "mind-boggled" that people still believe this.

What does your version of christianity say regarding where non-christians and casual christians will "go to" after death? What about satan?

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

There's definitely plenty of evidence, that is undeniable. As for proof, that's obvious. There'd be a lot more Christians in there were proof.

Trust me...I have looked at all this. They all amount to nothing but the same old clever but dishonest exploitation of gaps. If there was "undeniable evidence" and "obvious proof" I would have already beaten you to defending christianity in this thread (and in real life too).

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

And an athiest's belief is based on an idea that the universe appeared by the means of some unknown force that cannot possibly be directed by an intelligent entity.

1) it does not make any sense to use the word "belief" to anything atheist.
2) you ignored my original statement that goes to the root start of christianity.
3) you don't know what atheism really is.

Unlike people of "faiths," atheists don't come to their conclusions because they want to...it's because there's solid reasons to.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

I'm surprised that you don't know, or remember, any details on what we're "gonna get". It seems far-fetched, but certainly not flimsy.

What is far-fetched and not flimsy? Remember we are talking hell, heaven, eternal life and eternal torment, angels, weird angelic creatures like cerubims, bright light...all packed in a faith-based belief system that uses intellectual dishonesty, brainwashing of little children to gain future followers, and the extensive use of fear-based blackmail.

Seems pretty flimsy to me. I'll admit it's hard to forget this drivel.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Starbuzzz wrote on Mon, 26 April 2010 03:43

But let me be clear and say I do not wish to intrude on the way you live your life...just saying why exactly I no longer live that way with the reasons above.

I'm willing to respect that, but the rest of your post fatally contradicts this.

I said that in all seriousness. I am not here to "get you." I feel like I am talking to the christian starbuzz from three years ago and am genuinely liking this convo. But let me be clear; I am debating you only:

1) to gauge if the religion I abandoned has any "new juice" left (so far you have, unsurprisingly, provided the same old "fresh-off-the-indoctrination-assembly-line" arguments all thread that I myself used years ago; you did include a shocking bit of modified/modernized dogma of a non-interfering god!)

2) to not prove you wrong but to see if my own rational conclusions are tenable still. My atheist life is fast approaching the 1-year mark and so far no one (real life included) has presented anything to make me rethink my rationale.

I'll walk off once I realize my #1 and #2 points above. I did this same exercise in real life with real christians and they only ended up helping me realize #1 and #2 faster. Don't see my response as a nuisance...rather see it as to my exact reason to why I don't believe in what you do. That's why I ask only basic questions...the same questions I have already asked myself.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

I believe in the biblical account... science's version of older events is no more reliable than any other historical idea, even the Bible's.

law of belief, i.e, whatever you believe becomes the truth.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Or do you really think man is able to imagine an idea without any prior exposure to experience or sense? In other words, out of thin air, no prompt beforehand?

answer this honestly in your own words; what made humanity start wearing clothing?

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

It's amazing what can happen in several millenia, eh?

Yes, it's certainly amazing...entire religions can be wiped out and replaced by other religions which then go on to become the next dominant guesswork of how we got here. Amazing indeed. And we all know the continents cannot have drifted apart to where they are in "several millenia." They would have needed more than eight millenia.

Altzan wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 04:55

Why is this an issue? Is it a problem that there are variations?
Should we all have the same faces and looks as well?

You tell me why this is an issue. Why don't we all look the same?

The creationist account says that we are all descendants of Noah's sons after the flood killed off all other humans. So Noah's sons and their descendants expanded out over the earth and just after a "few millenia" they branched out into 5 or so main "unique" races with the strict and rigid aforementioned differences?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Catholic adoption agencies and homosexuality [message #427077 is a reply to message #427060]

Wed, 28 April 2010 12:07

Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008

Karma: 0

General (1 Star)

Spoony wrote on Wed, 28 April 2010 05:57

Quote:

Strange thing is I keep noticing this trend all the time with christians during debates against atheists. I am referring to christians going from being christian to suddenly talking like a deist. Then leaping forward to christianity to provide an explanation!

Altzan have gone from being a unconditional christian endorsing the cosmic dictatorship two pages ago to being a possible deist hinting an ambiguous "supernatural force" was at the very beginning.

Last time I (or we) saw a christian do this in a debate was Spoiled_Danderjap from the Jelly debate with fredcow.

He too brought up the same point and went from a christian to a deist and I called him out on it because it made no sense whatsoever. This is what he said:

Spoiled-Danjerjap from Jelly forums

If you honestly researched each religion you will find many similarities in their "stories". be it the Bible or any other religious documentation.

What is even more funnier is EVEN I said the same thing too when debating with cheesesoda 2 years ago when I was christian:

Starbuzz wrote on Fri, 06 June 2008 22:45

What is intresting here is that humans have always had some sort of deity(s); from the most ancient tribe we know of to the most ancient civilization.

And now Altzan says this:

Altzan wrote on Sun, 25 April 2010 21:41

we have a basic human attribute of trying to understand what superior force put us where we are, and man did NOT just imagine it, because it is impossible to create an idea without prior influences.

Sounds like 3 people who don't have all the facts straight and deny the history of the primitive foundations of human life.

Didn't I, Spoiled_Danderjap, and Altzan contend and believe that this "supernatural force" was the very judeo-christian god? The god of abraham? That is historically impossible.

If we three above had been truly honest with ourselves about a possible intelligent interference in our deep past, wouldn't it make pure sense for us to NOT embrace a religion that gained popularity only in the past 2000 years after a certain radical teacher was crucified? Before anyone cites some ancient prophecy fullfilment, it goes way before abraham's time too, no?

So we all would be better off if we studied the deep ancient religions, tried to gather more evidence and learn more about them, and then tried to work backward still to uncover whatever "force" was behind it all in the beginning. Right? That would be the sane thing to do. Why then does Altzan grab a recent religion and try to apply it to everything that came before it? I know; its the childhood religious indoctrination kicking in. I can vouch for this.

And we don't even have to do all the above pointless exercise considering we have a far better understanding of the primitive nature of early humanity and life in general.

Anyway, I wonder what those early humans will say or do if you go upto them and ask them where they got their ideas from. I would be more worried to go near them savages anyway! I wouldn't want to be dragged off to the top of a pyramid and have my heart cut out or just eaten. So much for "basic human attribute" and "superior force."

Very laughable, indeed.

Report message to a moderator

Pages (11): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 › »]

Previous Topic:	Blasphemy Day
Next Topic:	Renegade is thoroughly broken

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Mon Nov 25 11:21:16 MST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01557 seconds