Atheists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Do people actually believe that suddenly God (when there was nothing) just wammed together, and ~poof~ there was a perfect creator?

Same question, no?

As an agnostic, I'm fairly certain (but not 100%) that something amazing is going on. However I'm equally convinced that whatever it is could give a flying leap if we eat meat on Fridays or not.

Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place?

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there?

---

You say you are fairly certain that something amazing is going on, but you think that God just wamming into place isn't possible, but tell me, which is stranger, an all powerful being that has been since the beginning of time, (for only an all powerful being could be from the beginning of time), or a "god" that isn't in control? Let's define our terms for a second. Forget everything else that you have heard and believe about the "God of the Christians", or the "God of the Muslims", or whatever, and let's say that- as you believe that something amazing, not molecules wamming together, happened, there must be a being, or even just a divine force, that is controlling it. It would therefore make sense that this "being" would be there from the beginning of the world, the universe, the beginning of time! and there would be no beginning for it, as it created the beginning. That long of a time space is to incomprehensible for our brains to understand. But if it wasn't there from the beginning, then there must be something that was there, or else there wouldn't be a there. And since there must be something that was, then it would now be our being, divine force. That would be what most people term "God" in our culture.
In other words, could a "creator" poof together and be created? If it had, then it wouldn't be the "creator", the thing that created it would be. It shows that there had to be something, and that something had to have been there since forever. And you could spend your whole life trying to comprehend it, and never be able to, because it's beyond our comprehension.
I'm not saying that he cares if we don't eat meat on certain days of the year, by far. (the whole point of that was to show a sacrifice, as Jesus did for us, but now it has become a corrupted holiday in which people don't even think of the reason they celebrate it.)
As to your second point, Accepting the possibility that a universal creator exists is a far cry from accepting a human-constructed religion that would have it's omnicient God send down a 'son' in human form to get nailed to a cross knowing full well that it was going to do so when it first created the universe--why not just create the universe (and worlds) correctly in the first place? As a divine being, our now termed "God" has to have had some purpose to make the world and its inhabitants in the first place. He created the animals, and the plants, but most importantly man, and made man have some of the same attributes as Himself- especially, in this circumstance- a Choice. The choice to pick btw. right and wrong. But man chose wrong, and as God did not want his creation to be without hope, sent his Son, to give us a way out, but again, with a choice, not forced.

If the ultimate goal is to get everyone into heaven or hell, and it already knows what those two 'places' will look and be like--why not just start there? If that was the whole point in the first place, then he wouldn't have made us in the first place. If you were going to make something, but knew that it was going to be messed up, and throw away by someone, and there was no purpose in making it, then would you make it?? The point is, that wasn't the point in the first place. The point was, He made us for his own glory. But enough for now.

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand. :crash: :crash: :crash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

The point was, He made us for his own glory.

---

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift. If your presuposition is false, than the whole arguement is no longer a rock on which Atheists are supported, but is broken apart into little grains of sand. :crash: :crash: :crash:

---

Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.:)

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

[QUOTE=Dante Wodehouse;341717]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

That's like an Atheist saying, "God can't make a rock so big that it can't lift it, therefore it is not omnipotent."

"I believe that the fact that we have consciousness. . ."

Are you saying that animals are unconcious? I'll bet my golden retriever Savanna would disagree with you!
Animals have attempted no forms of self-expression or for that matter existence outside of instinct. I am not talking about sleep-smelling salt type unconsciousness, but more of Awakening. I have a golden retriever too, and he has never tried to express anything more than barking and threat of bodily function in undesirable place.

". . .and can philosophize. . ."

Have you discovered a way of reading the minds of animals? How do you know these things?
Has an animal ever questioned whether it has the right to harm others for it's own benefit? Also, survival of the fittest applies to animals, while it doesn't to humans. From how things seem, the ugliest and poorest tend to have more children than the beautiful and wealthy.

". . . and we cannot live in a socialistic society."

What the heck does this mean? Do I need to call my friends in Norway and tell them to get out now?
I made a mistake in my phrasing. I meant Communist society. Norway, while having some socialistic policies in economics, still has elections and mostly free markets.

---

Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

'That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.' I'm sure your granny was right too but we here are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and are looking at the wrong things. God can create just for its own glory because a spirit infinite, eternal, unchangeable does not behave according to the rules that we understand. Rejecting God's existence is a human prerogative. It doesn't matter to God. It does matter to us as the resulting gap has to be filled with something - consciously or unconsciously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Then I shall have no part of that God. If I ever find my God, the phrase 'his own glory' will not be present.

So it was just sitting in a vacuum for infinity (a really, really long time), then a mere 14 billion years ago decided, "Hey, I think I'll create a universe for my own glory! Then I'll have some lesser beings to worship me and my glory!"

No thanks, you can keep your God. My grandma told me we were created to keep God company--to provide fellowship to it. That makes more sense than creation just to glorify itsself.

Then again, being agnostic, I could be wrong (and you could be right).

---

Why did you join this site? Why do we make millions of types of special food? Why do authors create fictional places with characters? Why do little kids make objects out of Plato? Why do we make things in the first place? For our personal enjoyment! Do you think that if all the things we created had minds, they would be against worshiping us, their creator? One difference btw. things we make and us being made by God, is that we were made in His image, as I stated before. Notice the fact that we like when things worship us. We inherited it from Him. And in a way, your grandma was right. We do provide fellowship to Him. It's not like a "bow and worship the Almighty powerful Creator, or I will shoot lightning bolts at you." Providing fellowship to Him does worship Him.
But He can do what he wants. Who are we to question Him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermute

Indeed. I think you should read my post a little more carefully.:)

I was comparing this (il)logic to the logic presented by the person I was responding to. Their contention was essentially that: because the universe (appears to) exists, a creator must exist. Which, I don't think your logic teacher would agree with. I mean sheesh, didn't y'all see The Matrix?

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Imo.

---

No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one? :) And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me.

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Is being certain possible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

As to the "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?", our class talked about it in Logic class, and realized that the presuposition is false, assuming that making a rock heavier or bigger, is going to make it harder to lift.

---

What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

Book, thats because you dont understand the point...
but if you need more simplification,
can god do something that he cant undo?
omnipotence is impossible.
or can god kill himself?
if he cant he isnt all powerful and if he can he can die and isnt all powerful. you are looking at the literal thing instead of the point.

Wintermute said
Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

No, I haven't seen the Matrix, I'm not allowed, but I heard it was really weird, like people programming talents into people's heads, and doing stunts that are only possible with wires and special effects. Is that the one? :) And yeah, my logic teacher would agree with me.

My only argument is against absolute certainty. You could be right. But if you are 100% certain that you have found the correct path and the rest of us are wrong, then we have no further need of discussion, no?
I am absolutely sure. But even if I'm wrong, and your right, then there is no reason for me to worry. Christians seem to do good deeds, my life would have had some purpose, and I would die content. But if you're wrong, and I'm right, then I'm still safe. You, on the other hand, would be in danger of the fire of Hell, as would every other Atheist, Anagnostic-person, and anyone else who doesn't believe in the gospel. Which route seems safer to you? I'm arguing this because I care, not just to win the debate. Can't you all see the truth in this?

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Is being certain possible?

---

christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.

I believe the point of the crimes commited by the 'c'hristians is that we have a place to come to in the putting away of those crimes and still satisfy 'justice'. I personally have commited many 'crimes' that as forthcoming as I am in my blog I would be ashamed to admit even to this august group of looker oners. And I hasten to assure you any 'good' deeds of mine are not worth a penny to remember in the long run. Deeds are a byproduct of our faith not the primary cause.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

What? Not understanding this (nothing new really). Are you suggesting here that a bigger heavier rock is no harder to lift than a smaller rock. Next time you're out try picking up a pebble and then a small rock, try and work your way up to a boulder. If size and mass makes no difference to the difficulty you should be able to do it. If you can not the presupposition is in fact correct. The presupposition being "bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks"

---

No, the presuposition isn't that bigger heavier rocks are harder to lift than smaller, lighter rocks, it's that it is harder for God to lift a bigger rock than a smaller one. Size doesn't matter with Him. That was the point I was making. :D

Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"

Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:

1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"

I in no way was trying to say that it was works that got us in to Heaven, 'cause then no one could, so please don't take that wrongly. I was trying to say that, by non-Christians view, Christian do good things. Sorry for that confusion.
Also, you say that studies have shown "Christians" to commit more crimes than others, but it depends on who you are calling Christians. I know many who claim to be Christians, but in no way talk, or act like it in anyway. And though works aren't what make people Christians, they certainly show whether they truly mean it or not. If the Ben Fiesel killers claim to be Christians, would you believe it? Def. not!!!! Although there are many criminals who may become Christians, but they change their ways. If you took a survey of true Christians, I don't think they would be the majority of criminals. Visit our church sometime and judge for yourself.

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

---

did you in any way read my last post? At all? Ok, well maybe you should. That would clarify a few things. And as for the people who claim "god told me to do it" didn't you just say they were killers? I've no doubt they are liars too. Ever heard of a truthful murderer? Didn't think so. They're just looking for some sort of justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Ok, gonna have to disagree here. The presupposition of any problem is the most basic attainable part. That being "rocks that are bigger, heavier are harder to lift"

Once you change it to harder for God, you have already made a number of other assumptions on top of the root:

1) That there is a Supreme Being (he/she/it/they/whatever)
2) That we know what powers this being has, and are aware of levels of difficulty for tasks performed by "it"

---

We already discussed the Supreme Being part. It's on page 37 (I think) Go back and read that first. And I'm not assuming that we know the limits of God, I am in fact asserting the opposites. I am saying that men, with this presumption, assume that God follows the same limits as men. That is why the whole arguement is false, b/c people base the limits of God, by their own limits.

christians have been found in large numbers of studies to commit more crimes than atheists and agnostics, plus we have things like the crusades. so yeah, christians do lots of good deeds.-Said by Matrim Cuathon
Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.

On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

Of course Christians have commited more crimes that Atheists and Agnostics; there are more of them. The thing about most Christianity (there is always the occasional loony who says their Jesus and then is caught embezzling money) is that they accept that they are not perfect and want to repent in order to get to heaven. You can't count the crusades; that was a war that was essentially to unite Europe and protect the Byzantines that was given Paupal blessing to get more soldiers. It also happened almost a millenia ago, when there were no agnostics or atheists around, not publicly anyway.

---

Thank you! And also, just to address it a little more, most of people living during the Crusades called themselves Christians because they weren't Jews. Those were pretty much the only choices. It wasn't their spiritual beliefs, it was more of a...political party, like Republican and Democrat. The "Christians" in the Crusades weren't Christians fighting for the glory of God, they were simply men who wanted to fight, and also, as Dante Wodehouse said, trying to unite Europe. They aint "Christians"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

On the whole 'God making a rock issue', of course God can make a rock that he can't lift, but then he wouldn't be omnipotent anymore, so why would he?

---

Ok...this is just getting a little bothersome...let me explain it one more time.
In an arguement, or a debate, there are always things called "presupositions". For example, if you were arguing that your dog is the cutest in the world, then some of the presupositions are one, and the most obvious, that you have a dog, and then there are more, but they are usually already accepted as facts, for example, that something can be cute, that the world really does exsist, and others. If the presuposition is false, then the arguement is invalid. Got it? ok :thumbs_up let's move on
In the arguement "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" one of the persupositions is "A heavier rock is harder for God to lift than a lighter one. But that is false, as things aren't more difficult than others for God. Therefore, the arguement is invalid. ~IMPORTANT~ Remember that the presuposition is based on God's abilities, not man's.
Ok. I hope it is clearer now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

err, crusades? threatened torture of galileo? pogroms against jews becuase they supposedly drank christian childrens blood? youre right, you guys have no history of bad deeds. :) and what about those killers who say: "god told me to do it"?

---

I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

Wintermute said
Take a look here, PBS did a show on this subject that my change your mind.

As I went there and I would have had to buy the video to get the substance, could you say what the results of the research were? I really don't feel like coughing up the money.

---

Hehe, good exchuse for not spending more than a few seconds glancing at the site, lol. Yes, you can purchase the broadcast video if you want, but the site has a ton of material. If you really want to know the state of animal behavior science, I suggest you spend some time investigating. You can find all the information you could want without spending a dime--just a lil' time. I'm as agnostic as they come--uncertain of practically everything--but in this instance, in my opinion, you are very wrong. Anyway, I ain't gonna change your mind on this, and I know how I feel, so if it's ok with you, let's drop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.

---

thats wasnt the arguement though. he said: "christians seem to do good deeds." and i was pointing out that people do good deeds regardless of demographics. and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists.

as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

..all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world

---

"Good" and "lawyers" don't usually go in the same phrase.:lol: :lol:
Nothing good done by lawyers :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I am so tired of this particular tactic: do you notice that the storgest card often played against Christianity is from the 10-13th centuries? That there are Christians who have done stupid, hurtful things invalidates Christianity as a positive force in the world in the same way that a few bad cops, bad Catholic priests, bad teachers, bad doctors, bad lawyers, bad whatever invalidates all the good that police, priests, teachers, doctors, lawyers, etc have done in the world. That some loons claim "God told me to do it" doesn't mean that they actually heard from God (the odds are overwhelming that they didn't). All religions contain misguided people - all non-religious groups contain wackos. Quite judging all of Christianity by the "exceptions." Look around at some of the good things - humanitarian relief, social change (Christians instigated the abolitonist movement in the US in the 19th century). Come up with an original attack that doesn't simply prove that Christians are human too and prone to bad choices, character weaknesses and shortcomings just like everybody else.

---

As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULLY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)

Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manolia

As much as i don't like to defend Christianity, you have a point there. People usually tend to confuse the wrong and crimes done by people who usued (and use) the name of God to drive the ignorant masses and achieve their purposes with the true essence of Christianity which is it's theory of course. My opinion is that Christianity is a real noble and benevolent "idea" (quotation marks means that it is more than an idea) and people who REALLY AND TRULY AND FAITHFULLY exercise it are kind hearted and good. But of course i think most Christians are like every other person (potentially bad, meaning again that a lot of Christians like me are only Christians by name, know little about what their religion dictates simply because they don't care and have no faith. And saying a lot, i do not of course claim any particular statistic if there is any, but i am simply reffering to my circle of acquaintances which i consider a good sample.)

Then again all the bad things said here about Christianity are easilly applied to every religion, since every religion on earth has power on its subjects (that is the dangerous thing with religions in general) and if used by bad people (or simply people thirsty for power, money etc) the outcome can be really nusty (crussades). But if people are properly educated and have all the means needed to live happily (which unfortunatelly is not the case and never will be) there is no fear of that.

Cheers.

---

My main point in the first place was that people who really are true Christians, and act like it, not just claim it, seem to do good deeds, according to men's idea of good. Though everyone has faults, including Christians, TRUE Christians aren't going to go around becoming mass murderers and the world's most wanted. I said that by men's standards, if a Christian died (one who lived it, not just claimed it) then by men's standards, they lived a pretty good life.
That was for the arguement which choice is wiser If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him

That was for the arguement which choice is wiser If I died and was right, I'd go to heaven, but if I was wrong, then I would have lived a good life. If you die, and were right, then great for you, but if your wrong, you'd go to hell. That was the whole point. I was in no way trying to assert that those who claim to be Christians are perfect, and the rest of the world are mass murderers. Bye-bye!

---

Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

Anything is possible, nothing is certain. Naturally, I could be wrong :)

yeah, you nubs forgot that their are loads of religions and afterlife punishments for non-believers. your chance is barely better than mine.

Suppose you're wrong and someone else is right--I hate to tell you, but you could still end up in another's hell. I mean suppose the nuts that flew the planes into the world trade center are right? Well then, they're going to heaven with the virgins and all that, but I've got a feeling your 'TRUE Christians' ain't gonna make it to their paradise.

If that is your point of view, think about this. If a religion truely advocates suicide bombers etc. then it has done the world no good. I choose to believe that Islam is not a cruel religion and the suicide bombers are merely like the "Christians" who say God told them to kill, i.e. they are schizophrenics, just crazy, brainwashed, or looking for validity. Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself? Therefore, Islam is either incorrect or the suicide bombers won't be in any better place than myself.

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.

Christians, again, don't (or rather on principal shouldn't) consider themselves superior (except in odds on positive afterlives) to others in morals, but they have the hope of redemption and forgiveness for their sins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

and that chrisitians commit crimes as much as anyone else, and in fact, commit more large scale crimes than atheists.

---

That is simply speculation. There is no logical reason to assume that people who generally claim a belief in Christianty and its moral requirements would be more liable to commit crime than those who have no logical basis for moral behavior. An absurd conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

as for your complaint about those centuries, thats when christians were in power. they cant do that **** anymore because they are checked by others. they can no longer raise an army by promising freedom to criminals who fight in wars. and world leaders are no longer so totally guided by the church.

---

These statements are equally absurd because they imply that Christianity has not changed in any significant way in 600+ years since the Crusades and that it is a rampaging horde barely being held "in check" by whoever (did you specify who's doing the heroic job of holding us back?). And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think? Shall we call it "even" - or should we suffer some more so that people like you will quit trying to "roast" Christianity for such inappropriate behavior?

"And, in terms of the terrible Crusades, I think it's pretty safe to say that radical Islam has returned the favor - don't you think?"

Given that the Crusades were attempts to restore to Christendom lands that had been conquered by Muslims, I don't see how Muslims could claim any moral high ground in respect of them at all. Not that, as far as I have noticed, Moslems do make any such claim.

The particularly evil aspect of the Crusades was that Christian west took the opportunity to ravage the Christian east - so maybe the Greek Orthodox christians have a valid complaint still to make against the rest.

But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

But, as you, Red, pointed out or implied, it is ridiculous to use the behaviour of mediaeval armies as any kind of argument against current christianity.

---

All you said about the crusades is correct. The only point I was trying to make was the one you just acknowledged. Thanks :)

I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I really don't want to take part of the "Christianity ruined western civilization" thing again, so I'll bud out of this one.

---

There is no solid basis for such a supposition. That is simply a tactic to smear Christianity in a way that is so blatantly unfair and unprovable as to be absurd in its very conception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matrim Cuathon

yeah, because of course if we remove everyone who commits a crime from the ranks of true christians, then we will only have people who dont commit crimes.
genius.

---

When someone posts an opinion and you intend to comment on it please read it carefully and do not extract the meaning you like out of it.
The point i wanted to make was in the last few lines and it is to that effect:

If people on earth have education and do not live miserably as they do in certain parts of the earth, if countries stop invading other countries and stop meddling in their internal affairs, then religions won't be a weapon for leaders to use in order to achieve their goal. In fact i believe that there won't be any use of religions anymore. And even if there is (for many people have the need to believe in a benevolent force and can't simply cope with the idea that their pressence on earth is limited) we live in free countries so let them have it. I personally respect the choice of others to believe. And you know, it is nice since it seems that the act of believing gives strength to an individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse

Why would the creator of a world give people to ability to choose other religions, and then instruct the followers of his (I believe Muslims call Allah a man) religion to kill them. Why not personally kill infidels like myself?

---

Howdy :) , now you're seeing my point--why would the creator of a world [universe] not just do it right in the first place? Go straight to the end game?

It knows what the final outcome of the universe will be, no? Who will make it to the show, and who won't, correct? So why not just make it so? Why make it so convoluted--"worship me and my glory for 75 years or so, then, if you accept that I sent my son to get nailed to a cross you'll live for infinity in some nebulous...something...If you don't, well, I'm gonna fry you for infinity. Oh, and by the way, for those 75 years...make sure you give 10% of everything you own to the church so they can enhance my glory even more."

Seems just a little contrived and convenient to me. But as always, I could be wrong.