At 9/27/11 09:44 PM, Famas wrote: You know those people that love to focus on the Old Testament and cite that as proof that the religion is violent when arguing about Christianity? That's you right now talking about the Qur'an. Because like I said before: it's the same goddamn thing as the bible, just with more flaming sword swallowing and less wine.

I was waiting for someone to argue this. Here are the misconceptions about this violent OT:

1. The commands from God to go to war were defensive - in the interest of the Israelites' survival.
2. The commands from God were single-incident - meaning, specific to the circumstances and not instructional to future Christians/Jews.
3. The commands from God were of last resort - killing or going to war was never a primary motivation, nor was it a means to "convert" people.

Furthermore, Christians have never been instructed to go to war (Bible). Muslims are ALWAYS called to go to war. The Old Testament wars were not guidelines while islam CLEARLY promotes genocide.

Case in point, you're making the claim that Islam condones slavery, yet their are numerous passages from the Bible that instruct on how slaves should be used , treated and when/how they were punished.

Instructing a slave on behavior is different from condoning slavery; but, this is a separate issue. I take it you are still stuck on the Old Testament. In the time period, slavery in Israelite terms was NOTHING like the slavery of today. Slaves then were paid, had very good relations with their masters, and were not "bound" to work unless they were prisoners of war. From my understanding, slavery then could be compared to indentured servants.

When did I ever say you did justify them? I asked you to do so in light of you attempting to exonerate the Bible from all criticism and condemnation in regards to violence and travesty while simultaneously judging another extremely similar monotheistic religion as being violent and cruel. The irony of which, I pointed out, being that yes, by all means, the Muslims of the time period (you know, the ones being genocided by Templars) were considerably peaceful and stable.

Are you even "listening"? I have been saying this WHOLE THREAD that the Bible does NOT promote genocide or violence. While Christians may have committed violent acts, they did so out of carnal ambitions NOT on a single verse of Scripture. Islam DOES promote genocide and violence. Muslims are to kill those who renounce their faith or refuse to convert. Please stop the redundancies! I have answered this clearly!

Secondly, as I pointed out, this is like your fifth attempt to claim that "because X person interpreted the Bible differently than yourself and committed Y action, they are not actually Christian", which is illogical. If your standard for judging who is a 'true' Muslim/Jew/Christian is based off of whether or not they break principle codes that their religious affiliation teaches, then what you are in effect saying is "there is no such thing as a Muslim/Christian/Jew". The point of me calling you a chronic masturbator was to tell you that you're being a giant hypocrite; you most certainly do not adhere to every last word of scripture, that would be impossible. Your hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when you consider that you're juding people objectively based off a text that is open to subjective interpretation.

Oh absolutely I am a hypocrite! I make more mistakes than most people (haha). None of us are perfect followers of [input religion]. To say that we are able to follow every line of text is ludicrous.

What you fail to understand is the purpose of this argument. I am not justifying the people. The people are corrupt. The purpose of this argument (and thread, I thought) justify or ridicule the RELIGION. I am not judging people. I am calling their actions "non-Christian" - meaning, their actions are not in line with Biblical text, and therefore, cannot be used as an example against Christianity.

if we are arguing on the basis of people and not the texts, I am in the wrong place and I apologize.

This is a question dodge. You did not answer my question. What specific tenets of Islam are using as a basis for your claim that it is a religion of violent nature? Adding insults to question dodges doesn't make it so people don't notice you failed to answer them.

No, sir, it was an exasperation. As I said, you can research the truth about Islam yourself. If you would like me to do some research for you, believe me, I would be happy to! I'm sure I have some files somewhere on my computer from one of my classes. Please send me a message to my inbox if you would like some insight, and I will reply with some articles and/or direct text supporting my statements. There are simply too many sources that reject your baseless claims that I pulled the "lazy card". Researching/Locating would have taken a long time, and I assumed you would just dismiss my findings (as proven by your response below).

Except this is worse because instead of citing examples and linking to a neutral information source for support you directed me towards a website that has an outright admitted biased narrative. Do you want me to pick from the site you provided at random and debate their merits on my own? Because if that's how it works then I just won.

I want you to do research and educate yourself. If all you are interested in is winning an "argument", by all means, I forfeit this online forum debate, hahaha. And after this you want me to take extra time to research FOR you? No thanks.

"[G]uns don't kill people, people do!" Well that's true and all, but I have my suspicions that telling a mugger that isn't going to stop you from getting shot in the dome piece.

This made me laugh :). But it was irrelevant.

Let's get something straight here: you started the tangent by making repeated claims which, you then defended, stating that Islam is distinct from Christianity because its core tenets are violence. As such, the onus is on you to cite what tenets and passages it is you speak of in order to support your claim. When somebody asks you what you are using for a basis in your reasoning, saying "look it up yourself" equates to "I don't have any".

That goes double for you since you boasted that you're self reportedly well versed in 'many religions and cultures, including some taboo (what the shit is that even supposed to mean', which suggests that you're trying to exude some authority on the subject while I on the other hand am not. I've simply asked you to source your arguments so the discussion can move on to elaborating on said material. You're talking about subjective material here, so it's important to support your interpretation of subjective texts with logic and reasoning, otherwise you're not sharing anything worthwhile because nobody else can follow or consider your points.

It's not about winning. It's about getting something constructive out of a conversation.

At 9/27/11 08:09 PM, Hybridization wrote: This is simply not true. Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace suggests ignorance of its teachings. Christianity and Judaism do not share the "kill all non-believers" doctrine.

What. You're joking right? To begin with if you read like any of the Old Testament you know that argument goes straight in the bin since God tells the Hebrews to wipe out any trace of a pagan religion they find when they go into Canaan, to go on that totally explains not only Protestant persecution but more importantly Jewish persecution, who were put in Ghetto's by the Catholic church. Think Protestants were any better? Nope.

"Wrongdoers such as Hitler." - meaning, non-exclusive of Hitler.

I never said that.

This wasn't the basis for your targeting statement. I previously addressed this issue, but you must have skimmed over it.

I'm getting confused here.

You're funny. Look up Martin Luther unless you're TRYING to make evident your ignorance.

Martin Luther wasn't a separatist, he wanted to just purify the Catholic church of bad practices. Of course when they went into the ignorant Satan association accusations then it went into bad things but overall all he just wanted to get rid of corrupt practices. Calvin on the other hand was more influential creating Presbyterianism. But again those sects were even more oppressive and intolerant then that of the Catholic church so I don't see your point.

Otherwise many of the Protestants moved to America and they were even more oppressive and intolerable assholes then the Catholics/Anglicans who had persecuted them out of Europe before them. So I don't see your point.

How many times do I have to say this: Examine the TEACHINGS not the FOLLOWERS. THAT is my point! If you cannot understand this simple instruction, then I no longer wish to have an intelligent "debate".

.......That was teachings. They believed those in the Catholic church were in league with Satan and thus when the English Catholic Haven of Maryland became Protestant dominated discrimination began again, nowhere in the colonies were Jews allowed to hold public office or practice their religion in public aside from Rhode Island which started the whole separation of Church and State.

Is that so? Here's plenty of modern examples.

*sigh*. Again all I see is places where Christians don't even make up 1% of the population getting persecuted, nowhere do I see that this practice is so widespread that Christanity deserves the #1 spot for most persecuted. How about Bosnia where Christians attempted to force the Muslims to either convert to Christianity or get killed? How about Circuasia where the Christian Russians forced the Circuasians off their land and expunged them from the land? How about the Holocaust where Christians VOLUNTEERED IN GOOD NUMBERS to round up and kill the Jews? So many more examples of genocides and persecution exist that were perpetrated by the Christians than those perpetrated against them.

There are countless examples of Christian persecution throughout history as well. if you're truly interested in expanding your knowledge of alternative perspectives and not just your own, do some research. Google is quite amazing, friend. :)

Yes, best ones being the Armenian-Greek-Assyrian genocide during WWI in the Ottoman Empire, but again others like Buddhists,Muslims and Jews remain FAR more persecuted than Christanity.

Exactly, so, how can you say "[insert religion] is [insert assumption], because [insert follower] did [insert action]." You said yourself most people don't read the texts. So, stop calling Christianity and Judaism (even Islam without background research) a hostile/violent/bad religion when the only thing you base your perception on is the followers.

No. If they were to actually read the book and take it literally they'd be alot more violent and intolerable, if anything the modern interpretation is much more peaceful than what the texts suggest.

Alright I'm through with this nonsense. I hope we all took something away from this (but probably not). Pleasure mates. Famas if you are actually interested, my inbox is free. But, I don't need a lecture on "forum etiquette". And Warforger, i strongly recommend a high-school world history course in the near future. Many of your statements were downright incorrect - not an interpretation.

Feel free to reply to this post, but I won't be checking it.

Stay Gold,
+H+

I never lectured anybody on etiquette, I was pointing out one of many flaws in your incredibly lackluster method of debate. Which is to say, you're not willing to elaborate positions in the least and seem intent on making baseless claims and demanding that others agree with them for no reason.

Couldn't Hybridization just say "screw you guys, I'm going home"? I mean, less characters, and basically that's what his message really boils down to in the end. :)

I think he's keen on wanting the last word so that he can feel that the reason people are criticizing him is because their simply to ignorant to understand, and less because he argues like a dunce.

Holy baby christ, my spelling.

At 9/28/11 12:35 AM, Hybridization wrote: And Warforger, i strongly recommend a high-school world history course in the near future. Many of your statements were downright incorrect - not an interpretation.

*facepalm*. That's exactly what you need since you don't seem to understand history at all if you say "Christians are the most persecuted religion in the history of the world"

Anyway you could've just said "Ok ok you're right I admit I was wrong".

At 9/28/11 07:21 AM, Famas wrote: Holy baby christ, my spelling.

Don't worry, I hear he's very forgiving.

Also, I figured out Hybrid's game the minute he tried it. He's no different then others that have been in this thread spouting the same self important nonsense. Christians are so wronged...nevermind the fact that 90% of the last 2,000 years flies in the face of that assertion. Once you start pointing it out and argue with even a little competence they tuck tail and run, but act like it's because they're just so right and smart, and it's everybody else that can't see the truth.

I knew the direction the argument was headed the instant it began, but you know, give people the benefit of the doubt blah blah blah. The deal was sealed when asking for something as simple as a quote or a page to reference was met by being called lazy.

Hell, I'd have even taken a vague passage with the context completely butchered out as at least a starting point to work with or something. He passed up a freebie.

At 9/26/11 08:15 AM, Famas wrote:

Then how do you explain those that, if only internally, are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with their scientific dedication? People like Kenneth Miller? I ask this because while I myself am an atheist, and I take strong opposition to a lot of the claims about science that people of faith make, I still respect that there are a lot of people I would consider pioneers in the fields that I am passionate about that are reasonable in explaining the reasons they have religious beliefs.

In this day and age, the belief system is like a venn diagram. Take science and religion as two elements. Combined, you form a neutral ground between the search for truth through science and through religion. There's always the matter of "both are true/both are false" because of the factor "uncertainty between the two."

At 9/27/11 02:41 PM, Hybridization wrote: Islam is a hostile RELIGION. Judaism and Christianity are peaceful religions with followers who make dumb decisions not based on their teachings. (Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean they represent Christianity).

Islam isn't a hostile religion. The people who make use of religion/cult with means that are bad are the hostile ones. Like for example: Witch-hunt. Human sacrifices. The use of religion for The banishment of King Henry IV by the Pope of the vatican because of the conquest and the denial of giving land to the pope. King Henry IV died praying in fear of the word of the pope during the age of conquest (spain and portugal history). The use of religion in pacifying (the sword and the cross. Be converted by the cross or die by the sword.) to occupy a nation (Philippine History).

Not all historical texts, scriptures and symbols give the absolute truth of what happened especially if the evidences aren't sufficient to back it up. To get to the point, all religion have roots. There's only one origin that is foretold by one man who started it all generations and generations back. Who might it be? I don't know. I never met him or even heard of him.

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: Christians please read:

well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: Christians please read:

Your post even managed to scare away paragraphs and proper punctuation.

At 10/5/11 08:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

For the trollols?

At 10/5/11 06:46 PM, Addict wrote: i'm not even an athiest

So you believe in a god? Do you think thos paragraph applies differently to different religions?

At 10/6/11 12:46 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 10/5/11 08:03 PM, SolInvictus wrote: well that was delightfully inflammatory. may i ask why this was aimed at Christians only?

For the trollols?

is it possible that there is a heaven and hell and that trolls are proof that the internet is the living embodiment of the latter?

At 10/6/11 12:18 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

is it possible that there is a heaven and hell and that trolls are proof that the internet is the living embodiment of the latter?

I think it serves more as proof that some people have a few extra chromosomes.

In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

If I told someone that I believed in Poseidon and he created the Earth by using the waves to shape it, everyone would look at me like I'm nuts. What makes your God special and what makes me crazy for saying,"I believe in the god of the sea! He is in books, he must be real!"

Furthermore, why would you praise a God who says:
Rape is okay: Exodus 22:16, Deuteronomy 22:27-29
Kill homosexuals and lesbians: Leviticus 20:13
Kill your neighbor if he works on Sunday: 31:13-15
It is like saying to respect an elder who smacks you with a stick and teaches you to be hateful of women, gays and other races. I think it has become this way because everyone is taught the new testament and rarely speaks of the old testament unless it is about Jonah, Noah, or Adam and Eve.

Why would anyone worship the Judeo-Christian God is baffling.

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

It's because of the power of brain-washing. And repetitive lectures like we were schooled to believe in such.

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

As an Atheist myself, without arguing semantics of specific definitions I believed this to be bullshit.

At 10/9/11 05:12 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

As an Atheist myself, without arguing semantics of specific definitions I believed this to be bullshit.

It's not bullshit because everybody does not believe in every god, goddess or deity ever created by men. Christians believe in Jesus Christ and the Old Testament God. Poseidon? He's make believe they say.

Again, everyone is an atheist, some of us just go one god further.

At 10/9/11 11:58 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Again, everyone is an atheist, some of us just go one god further.

No, that's really more a clever play on the idea. An atheist is very clearly someone who is without theism. If you have a theistic belief, ANY theistic belief, congratulations, you're not an atheist. The clever idea that Penn Jillette and other atheists in entertainment point out is a decent point for why religious folks should perhaps check the glass content of their houses before chucking that rock...but that does not really make it factually correct to say "everyone is an atheist"

At 10/9/11 11:58 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Again, everyone is an atheist, some of us just go one god further.

To disbelieve wouldn't you have to first know about the existence of gods?

At 10/10/11 04:36 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 10/9/11 11:58 PM, PepperJoe wrote: Again, everyone is an atheist, some of us just go one god further.

To disbelieve wouldn't you have to first know about the existence of gods?

You mean does somebody to be exposed to the idea of a deity and then proclaim that they do not believe in it in order to be an atheist? No, if you've never once thought about deities or angels or the supernatural, you're an atheist. It's simply a qualifier that means "has no religious affiliations".

So regardless of whether or not you've ever heard of Thor, if you don't believe in him, you don't believe in him. Pretty cut and dry.

At 10/10/11 06:16 AM, Famas wrote: It's simply a qualifier that means "has no religious affiliations".

Like I said, arguing semantics over definition. I could just as easily say "a rejection of a claim that a god exists", which would be the same thing, but require awareness of deities. Or i could argue that your definition doesn't account for the religions that do not have gods whereas that is what atheism is a belief of.

Ah, the joys of realising something is more nebulous than previously thought.

At 10/10/11 06:41 AM, The-universe wrote:

At 10/10/11 06:16 AM, Famas wrote: It's simply a qualifier that means "has no religious affiliations".

Like I said, arguing semantics over definition. I could just as easily say "a rejection of a claim that a god exists", which would be the same thing, but require awareness of deities. Or i could argue that your definition doesn't account for the religions that do not have gods whereas that is what atheism is a belief of.

Ah, the joys of realising something is more nebulous than previously thought.

It doesn't matter either way. If you were to talk about Taoism or Buddhism you would say something like 'secular' instead of atheist. Or 'non-superstitious'. Regardless, somebody doesn't have to know about something in order to not believe in it.

Atheism (and this isn't arguing semantics) means lacking belief. Whether you lack the belief out of ignorance or willful rejection doesn't make any difference. An atheist is an atheist. What you're saying is that in order for you to not believe that a six trunked flying elephant exists, I'd have to describe one to you and tell you it's totally real.

No, that's dumb, you didn't believe it existed before you even heard of it.

What is dumb is the "everyone is an atheist" idea. I get the sentiment: it's meant to show theists that atheism isn't dumb or weird because they themselves actively reject a thousand and one other religions and adhere to a single one instead. But not everyone IS an atheist, and I really hope I don't need to explain that much further than pointing out that religions exist.

At 10/10/11 07:33 AM, Famas wrote: No, that's dumb, you didn't believe it existed before you even heard of it.

Again, this IS semantics and all I'd have to do is rephrase the description of the label, then argue that disbelief and not knowing of existence are not synonymous, and then argue the definition of the terms lack belief, disbelief etc.

Secondly, you've just nullified your own previous description of "has no religious affiliations" by using different labels to accommodate religions that have no god and replaced the atheist definition with "lacking belief."

And you don't agree the terms are nebulous when you've altered the description of a label in two different posts? Look in dictionaries, there's a verity.

Using your logic, the third law of thermodynamics doesn't exist because I cannot for the life of me remember anything about it. Just because you don't know about something it doesn't mean you have a position on it.

At 10/9/11 02:43 PM, Lugen wrote:

At 10/8/11 10:44 PM, PepperJoe wrote: In the words of Penn Jillete, "Everyone is an atheist."

It's because of the power of brain-washing. And repetitive lectures like we were schooled to believe in such.

;;;
But we all have heard other fairy tales, & I sure don't believe those to be real.
Yet the religions of the world carry on with their particular fairy tale beliefs, & they have convinced themselves, & the people who follow them, even without an iota of proof its real.

Now you'll have to excuse me, Snow White just called , we're going out for a bite to eat & a drink.

Okay, I'm copying this from a thread I made earlier since this one already exists:

I've heard that theists are called irrational for believing in something without evidence. No more throwing words around! It's time we prove it. First, define "rational."

Rational (adj.)
- Based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Okay.
So, to claim the theistic position is not rational, we must prove that it is not based on or in accordance with logic. Let's define "logic."

Logic (n.)
- Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
- A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference.

In other words, something is logical when all statements made to reach a conclusion are valid.
From this we can conclude that something is not logical when any statement made is invalid/baseless.
Now that we understand what these words mean, let's see how theism holds up!

Would you agree that the following are the only possible explanations for the existence of the universe (universe meaning "all things")? If not, what is missing?

1. The universe is an illusion.
2. The universe created itself.
3. The universe is eternal.
4. The universe was created by something eternal.

Now how do each hold up to the logic test?

1. The universe is an illusion.

It's pretty silly that I even have to mention this.. but an illusion by its very nature requires something experiencing said illusion. So, something must exist somewhere for an illusion to occur. At some point, you will have to conclude that this statement is illogical even if you believe in illusions within illusions.. [Inception quote here].

2. The universe created itself.

This one is also silly because it is an analytically false statement. For the universe to have created itself, it would have to have existed prior to creating itself. Nothing cannot cause something and initially be absolutely nothing. Something caused something, and you are returned to square one! Thus, something must have existed eternally (no beginning). This leaves the remaining two options:

3. The universe is eternal.

For the universe to be eternal, it could not have a beginning. Aside from the fact that scientists have proven the universe had a beginning (Big Bang), you would still have to argue the second law of thermodynamics and the universe expansion. Entropy proves the universe moves away from order and towards chaos (decay). Something eternal cannot begin to decay unless caused by something else (so.. it was never eternal to begin with and you have to start over on this list with the something which "caused").

So, through logical steps, we have reached the only valid conclusion:

4. The universe was created by something eternal.

Now that we have deduced that the universe must have been created by an eternal outside force, let's examine the characteristics of this force:

A. It must be unbound by the universe and the laws within. (see 4.)
B. It must be omnipotent and omnipresent. (see A)
C. It must be the same eternally. (see A)
D. It must be non-physical. (see C)
E. It must be personal. (personality cannot create itself)
F. It must be singular. (multiple infinities is a paradox)
G. It must be diverse. (see E)
H. It must be supremely intelligent. (see E and B)

I can only think of one concept that fits this description: a Deity. So, there is a clear and logical foundation for theism. Atheism is then irrational. The conclusions made for it must be based on 1, 2, or 3... all of which I have shown to be illogical.

But I can take it further...

- The being must have morals. (law needs a writer)
- The being must have love/care. (without which, laws are not written)

How many faiths meet the requirements I have presented to you? I will leave you to answer that :)