Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/20/07 11:18 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

*click*

Click...click...damn switch must be broken

Dre:

Call it "honoring" them, call it "idolizing" them, it's all the same.

All right. If "honoring" Saints is the same as "Idolizing" them, then explain this:

Commandment #1:
you shall have no other gods before me.

Commandment #4:
Honor your parents

Why do the two contradict each other?

At 2/21/07 12:18 AM, Imperator wrote: Dre:

Call it "honoring" them, call it "idolizing" them, it's all the same.

All right. If "honoring" Saints is the same as "Idolizing" them, then explain this:

No no no no no, you mistook me. I was simply refuting your claim that praying to the Saints is the same as 'honoring' them. Because those are two entirely different terms, my friend.

Commandment #1:
you shall have no other gods before me.

(Thou shalt) have no other gods before me, by the way, Mr. Extensive Catholic education, refers to the fact that you are not to pray or to idolize any other being or deity but God the father and the holy trinity. Praying to the Saints is in direct contradiction to this commandment.

Commandment #4:
Honor your parents

To "honor" your parents is to obey them and to respect them so long as their commands to not contradict the law of the Bible. Do you actually think that I was stating that to honor and to pray to meant the same thing? Quite the contrary, dear Imperator.

Why do the two contradict each other?

They don't, at all.

No no no no no, you mistook me. I was simply refuting your claim that praying to the Saints is the same as 'honoring' them. Because those are two entirely different terms, my friend.

You misspoke then. You said (and I quoted directly) that "honoring" was the same as "idolizing". Instead of saying "I'm wrong", you're trying to twist it around to make it seem like I somehow misinterpreted you. Assclown!
-------
Everyone else, keep out of this one, I wanna see how far Dre can take this:
----------------

Explain the Holy Trinity, and why we are allowed to pray to the God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Are they three gods? One god? If they're one god, then why are there three distinctions, shouldn't God be able to do it all in a single "form"?

Everyone stay out of this one as well, you'll see why later.

Dre:

Also answer:

Why is the Bible the end all authority on Christianity? The Bible (King James, or any other modern version) is simply a SET of books SELECTED by certain people throughout history (mainly by the clergymen you hate so much).

What makes you so sure that they weren't selected for political reason? Are those specific books ordained by God? How do you know? What about the other possibly HUNDREDS of texts that WEREN'T selected? Many also claim to be ordained by God, just like the books in your version, so why aren't they in it?

At 2/21/07 12:31 AM, Imperator wrote: Assclown!

XD, I just can't, just can't....

At 2/21/07 12:23 AM, Dre-Man wrote:

Commandment #1:
you shall have no other gods before me.

(Thou shalt) have no other gods before me, by the way, Mr. Extensive Catholic education, refers to the fact that you are not to pray or to idolize any other being or deity but God the father and the holy trinity. Praying to the Saints is in direct contradiction to this commandment.

oh noes! he used a word that means the same bloody thing.
whats interesting about that commandment is that nowhere does it state not to pray to anything other than God, rather do not place them before God. as well as the fact that praying to something does not make it a god. so no, it isn't in direct contradiction; the saints are not gods and they are most certainly not being placed as higher than The Lord.
now if it were "thou shalt not worship false idols" you can try and make your anti-saint argument, but then again there is the problem that the saints are not being "worshipped" and worshipping a false idol would imply worshipping a statue as a deity. (as well as the fact that these idols may not be "false" idols)

At 2/21/07 12:31 AM, Imperator wrote: You misspoke then. You said (and I quoted directly) that "honoring" was the same as "idolizing". Instead of saying "I'm wrong", you're trying to twist it around to make it seem like I somehow misinterpreted you. Assclown!

Quoting myself: "Call it honoring them, call it idolizing them, it's all the same." I was just referring to the fact that when I said that you were contradicting the Bible, you frequently covered up the word prayer with honor, reverence, or idolize. I was just trying to get across the FACT that Catholics pray to the Saints.

Everyone else, keep out of this one, I wanna see how far Dre can take this.

As far as you're willing to go despite being repeatedly proven wrong.

Explain the Holy Trinity, and why we are allowed to pray to the God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Are they three gods? One god? If they're one god, then why are there three distinctions, shouldn't God be able to do it all in a single "form"?

As I said, one and three, three and one. They are three, but they are also one. If we pray to one we are praying to them all, but the Saints do not in any way qualify as a part of this Trinity. So what you are trying to get across by asking me about the trinity for the ooooh... 3rd time I have no idea. Because I've already answered you.

At 2/21/07 12:42 AM, Imperator wrote: Why is the Bible the end all authority on Christianity?

Is there some other holy book that I've looked over? Or are you simply referring to the many lost scriptures? Yes, the Bible is the guideline and rulebook for the Christian religion, and don't try to bring your own holy book down simply because you can't find a quote in the whole damn book to support the common Roman Catholic tradition of prayer to the Saints.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

Doesn't mean that you can just pray to any other God, or being, as long as you don't put them before God. No siree, what that means, is that you are not allowed to pray to ANYONE or ANYTHING except for God and the divine Trinity. Even if the Bible does not specifically condemn Saint worship, which it does, it is not a justifiable practice. If you can pray to the Saints without backing from the Bible and call it holy I can pray to the angels and say the same exact damn thing.

I was just referring to the fact that when I said that you were contradicting the Bible, you frequently covered up the word prayer with honor, reverence, or idolize. I was just trying to get across the FACT that Catholics pray to the Saints.

And this proves your point how? What does prayer entail? Are there different types of prayer? Is it an act of idolizing, or an act of respect, reverence, and honor? You fail to realize your own error, STILL. Idolizing and Honor are distinct terms, I've proven that. "Prayer" is equally as loaded a term. Define what you mean by prayer and then show me how that contradict the Bible, but don't say it like you know what the word entails.....

Because I've already answered you.

No you haven't.

why we are allowed to pray to the God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit?

If they're one god, then why are there three distinctions, shouldn't God be able to do it all in a single "form"?

Or are you simply referring to the many lost scriptures?

More so on the lost and OMITTED scriptures, but this appeals to both Jewish texts and Islamic texts as well. Also indirectly correlates to other religions outside the 3 major ones, and their own holy texts.

For someone who was recently complaining about people not answering questions, you sure were "choosy" in what questions of mine you decided to answer.

More revealing are the ones you've thus far ignored.

At 2/20/07 11:09 PM, Imperator wrote: Argument 1:
Religion is the only correct stance because science fails to adequately prove human existance from a biological standpoint. Evolution and the Big Bang are intangible theories that do not properly explain how life on this planet evolved into the forms we now know as human beings, complete with culture, entertainment, emotions, and intellect.

Let me get this out of the way: I'm not an anthropologist. I'm not a biologist. I'm not a physicist. I have no formal training in any scientific field whatsoever. I do, however, study certain aspects of the "How does evolution explain this?" question in my spare time. Science can't explain everything. There are certain areas where science can't fully explain things. Faith is one of those areas. That's not to say that science is completely invalid. What I mean is this: If you believe Jesus died and came back to life and you believe that only through faith, I can't touch your argument. If you bring up things like the Shroud of Tourin as evidence of his existence, I can. The shroud isn't the same age as a shroud that would have covered Jesus. Science can't reach into areas of faith like that. It's not meant to do such things. Science does provide a lot of evidence for the cases against such things as creation and a worldwide flood. True, evolution and the "Big Bang" are just theories, but that word is misused. The word "theory" is now synonymous with "pulled out of his ass". A theory is an educated guess based on evidence that already exists. Darwin wasn't sitting around the Galapagos writing weird, random thoughts down. He observed things. He studied things. After all of this analyzation, he came up with his theories. We have plenty of fossils that show the slow progression of evolution. Physicists have come up with many theories that support the "Big Bang".

Human beings came from a common ancestor we share with modern-day primates. Anyone that has seen animals knows that they can display emotions like we can. They can't express their thoughts with words, but they can still show us if they are happy, sad, or angry. Emotions are chemical reactions in the brain. That warm-n-fuzzy feeling you get when you're next to the person you love? That's a chemical reaction. You also wanted to know why we need entertainment.Sit around for an hour and doing nothing else. We become bored easily. We have complex minds. We crave stimuli. We need something to occupy our minds. When you find something to be entertaining, what do you more than likely do? You tell a friend. You show them what you do for fun. They, in turn, tell more friends and it becomes part of the culture of a certain group. Intellect comes from our need for stimulation. Look at chimps for instance. They are very curious about things, and so are we. Here's another example. Let's say a friend shows you a card trick. As soon as he shows you the trick, you would normally ask "how did you do that?" Because we are curious, we search for answers. When we get answers, we attain knowledge. The more knowledge we amass, the smarter we become.

At 2/21/07 10:55 AM, Dre-Man wrote: Doesn't mean that you can just pray to any other God, or being, as long as you don't put them before God. No siree, what that means, is that you are not allowed to pray to ANYONE or ANYTHING except for God and the divine Trinity.

you basically repeated what you said earlier, getting you nowhere. repetition does not make truth.

Imperator, you "ommitted" a lot of the 'scriptures' of my previous post to make it seem like it was going your way, so I'm just going to conclude this little debate with a few sentences.

1.) Catholics pray to the Saints. Regardless of the purpose you knowingly and willingly pray to the Saints, asking them to pray for you to God.

2.) Dictionary definition of prayer:

An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving

Yes, you 'commune' with Mary, and many other Saints through prayer. What do I mean by prayer? Bowing your head and speaking to them through thought. That's my definition. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Condemnation of prayer to the Saints, right in front of your face. I know you can read, but somehow it's just not getting across to you.

3.) Are you actually trying to claim that the only reason the Bible does not have a scripture to permit prayer to the Saints is because it was ommitted?! HA!

4.) If you can't find me a verse in the King James Bible that YOU as well as I use as your religious guideline then shut the fricking hell up. If you can pray to the Saints without consent from the Bible I can pray to the Angels without consent from the Bible. Same boat.

God doesn't exist. End of Story.

At 2/21/07 01:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Imperator, you "ommitted" a lot of the 'scriptures' of my previous post to make it seem like it was going your way, so I'm just going to conclude this little debate with a few sentences.

You're still ignoring or not understanding the issue at hand.

1.) Catholics pray to the Saints. Regardless of the purpose you knowingly and willingly pray to the Saints, asking them to pray for you to God.

I have never denied this.

2.) Dictionary definition of prayer:

Question: Is Pluto a planet?

Yes, you 'commune' with Mary, and many other Saints through prayer. What do I mean by prayer? Bowing your head and speaking to them through thought. That's my definition. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

In that case, we're in the right. We do not hold Saints before God.

Condemnation of prayer to the Saints, right in front of your face. I know you can read, but somehow it's just not getting across to you.

Condemnation of putting faith in the Saints before God, right in front of your face. I know you can read, but somehow it's just not getting across to you.

3.) Are you actually trying to claim that the only reason the Bible does not have a scripture to permit prayer to the Saints is because it was ommitted?! HA!

If I pull up the book of Judas, Martyrdom texts, or Gnostic gospels to prove the point would you believe me?

4.) If you can't find me a verse in the King James Bible that YOU as well as I use as your religious guideline then shut the fricking hell up.

I don't limit my study of Christianity to a single source. My concience as a historian permits me from looking at things so one-sided.

If you can pray to the Saints without consent from the Bible I can pray to the Angels without consent from the Bible. Same boat.

You still haven't shown where I'm being dissenting.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_th e_Saints.asp

There you go.

" "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4). "

I like this one better:

Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15).

Emphasis on Fundamentalists.

""the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). "

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21)"

Now answer my questions.

At 2/21/07 01:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote: 2.) Dictionary definition of prayer:

An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving

or

to offer devout petition, praise, thanks, etc.

to bring, put, etc., by praying: to pray a soul into heaven.

to make earnest petition to (a person).

to make petition or entreaty for; crave: She prayed his forgiveness.

to make entreaty or supplication, as to a person or for a thing.

At 2/21/07 01:18 PM, Imperator wrote:

At 2/21/07 01:04 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Imperator, you "ommitted" a lot of the 'scriptures' of my previous post to make it seem like it was going your way, so I'm just going to conclude this little debate with a few sentences.

You're still ignoring or not understanding the issue at hand.

Quite the opposite. The only thing required for you to do is find me a Biblical quote that specifically permits prayer to the Saints and deems the practice Holy. Which you can't, because such a quote in the Bible does not exist. Thus I will come to the conclusion that prayer to the Saints is not Biblical or holy for that matter and is not to be done, until you can find me something Biblical to prove otherwise.

And I will not argue on this matter anymore, until you find me a Biblical quote to prove otherwise, because if you have no backing for your arguments you are automatically to be considered wrong.

End of story.

1.) Catholics pray to the Saints. Regardless of the purpose you knowingly and willingly pray to the Saints, asking them to pray for you to God.

I have never denied this.

No, but you did cover it up with the terms 'idolize' and 'honor' which are entirely different terms alltogether, as you said yourself.

2.) Dictionary definition of prayer:

Question: Is Pluto a planet?

Yes, you 'commune' with Mary, and many other Saints through prayer. What do I mean by prayer? Bowing your head and speaking to them through thought. That's my definition. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

In that case, we're in the right. We do not hold Saints before God.

Ah, once again, you clear out a sentence that would have been an answer to that response purposely, to attempt to look smart.

I just so happened to say, that "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." doesn't mean that you can just pray to whoever the hell you feel like as long as you don't hold them before God. If what you say is truly your backing I could respond by saying "Well does that mean that I can pray to Zeus and Ra as long as I don't hold them before God?"

Condemnation of prayer to the Saints, right in front of your face. I know you can read, but somehow it's just not getting across to you.

Condemnation of putting faith in the Saints before God, right in front of your face. I know you can read, but somehow it's just not getting across to you.

So, according to you, I can pray to the Angels, Zeus, Ra, and any other God I please as long as I don't put them before the main deity? HA!

3.) Are you actually trying to claim that the only reason the Bible does not have a scripture to permit prayer to the Saints is because it was ommitted?! HA!

If I pull up the book of Judas, Martyrdom texts, or Gnostic gospels to prove the point would you believe me?

Perhaps...

4.) If you can't find me a verse in the King James Bible that YOU as well as I use as your religious guideline then shut the fricking hell up.

I don't limit my study of Christianity to a single source. My concience as a historian permits me from looking at things so one-sided.

So the Bible isn't your holy book? You derive your religious opinions from the historical texts of man, and not those of God? Some Christian...

" "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4). "

Hmmm, I can't seem to find the sentence that says "Christians are to pray to the Saints, and the Saints will pray to God in order to forgive those Christians still on earth who have sinned." No consent for Saint prayer, sorry.

I like this one better:

Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15).

Consent for Saint prayer where?

Emphasis on Fundamentalists.

""the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). "

Prayers of the Saints... not to the Saints.

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21)"

Still nothing.

Now answer my questions.

Why? Why the hell should I find it neccessary to answer everything you throw at me when all you ever give me is unsourced and non-biblically backed arguments that never amount to anything? WHY?!

At 2/21/07 01:14 PM, Blue-Buddha wrote: God doesn't exist. End of Story.

A very simplistic view on the universe you have there. It's a pity I agree with you on some level but you can't just deny the possibility.

Some of those Jehova's wittnesses have a good point. How did everything end up the way it did? How did we develop thumbs and limbs etc. I know, I know it's evolution but how does science explain anything? Scientists don;t even know exactly what electricity is, sure they know how to trick it into doing usefull things but we're just as far as finding an answer to that as we are to finding the answer to god.

Crap Snerd!

I'm gonna have to think about your post for a while before I can offer a rebuttal, cause I agree with every damn thing you said!!

Dre:

I just so happened to say, that "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." doesn't mean that you can just pray to whoever the hell you feel like as long as you don't hold them before God.

Why not? That's what the text says, clear as crystal. Where's your bible quote for proving otherwise?

So, according to you, I can pray to the Angels, Zeus, Ra, and any other God I please as long as I don't put them before the main deity? HA!

Show me a bible quote to prove otherwise.

So the Bible isn't your holy book? You derive your religious opinions from the historical texts of man, and not those of God? Some Christian...

Where did I say that? I said the STUDY of theology is not limited to the Bible. We're discussing theology, in case you haven't paid attention. Some "experienced" being you are......

3rd grade reading level.....

Hmmm, I can't seem to find the sentence that says "Christians are to pray to the Saints, and the Saints will pray to God in order to forgive those Christians still on earth who have sinned." No consent for Saint prayer, sorry.

Hmmm. I can't seem to find the sentence that says "Christians cannot just pray to whoever the hell you feel like as long as you don't hold them before God."

No rule against Saint prayer, sorry.

Consent for Saint prayer where?

Consent for taking a shit where? Consent for viewing art where? Consent for school where?
Consent for eating where?

Still nothing.

Hosts and Ministers. That'd be SAINTS dude.......

Why? Why the hell should I find it neccessary to answer everything you throw at me when all you ever give me is unsourced and non-biblically backed arguments that never amount to anything? WHY?!

That's right, I "totally pwned you" which is why you're not answering. You don't answer because you know you can't.

Payback's a bitch, and I can play that game too. Answer the questions.

A very simplistic view on the universe you have there. It's a pity I agree with you on some level but you can't just deny the possibility.

Jarv2ie:
Take a look at Snerd's post a little further up the page. I think you'll find it to your liking....

At 2/20/07 10:52 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Oh, so you didn't claim that I do nothing but repeat the same thing over and over again until my opponent simply gives up? Short term memory, I guess.

Yeah, short term memory...funny. No, because you implied that what I was saying was that you had won the argument, but that since you are repetitive, your opponent gave up. Hence:

"You completley pwned him in every way imaginable, but you're just repetetive, and that's why he gave up."

Your words, not mine.

But yes, I did claim that you do nothing but repeat yourself over and over again until your opponent gives up. There's no "pwning" involved, however.

Incorrect. My arguments generally orbit around "oh, well they're just theories" and "oh, well you worship the saints so you're not a Christian." but I tend to introduce new discussions in every post. Simply because I do not change my opinions does not mean that I do not refresh my arguments.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Like I say, being wrong 2% of the time is better than being wrong 98% of the time, eh Dre?

You don't debate, you just like to throw in an occasional "Dre-Man's an idiot and a fag." while other people debate.

What? I do debate. I haven't contributed that much to this particular discussion or even to this particular thread, but you and I have debated before. Most of it took place in other threads, which of course have now been deleted.

I don't see a quote. Just your miserably failed attempts to jab me for supposedly repeating arguments.

Dude...taking an actual quote would involve me quoting entire posts from this argument several times, which would have taken too much space in my post. Would it really have been worth it?

Like I said, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because I don't have the time to prove or disprove the allegation that you've introduced new topics into the argument.

I've seen more than you ever will in a lifetime, meaning the majority of Europe. And in 3 months, I'm moving BACK to Europe, to see even more than I already have. I am more cultured and experienced than you could ever even dream of being. You may have been through High School, you may have been through college, but you will not have seen or done as much as I have done at the age of nearly 15, when you are on your death bed in your 70's or 80's.

lol, what is this shit? I'm talking about EDUCATION and KNOWLEDGE, not how much you've freaking travelled...why did you even write this? Did you run out of vaguely circumstancial ad hominem attacks and so attempted to formulate your argument around how much you've seen versus how much I've seen?

So, remind me why you supposedly having travelled more than me somehow puts you at a higher position to talk about the philosophy behind Roman Catholicism than Imperator again?

My assumption of Imperator's years of Catholic education is that he learned jack shit, because he clearly knows nothing about the Bible, probably hasn't read half of it, but likes to call my interpretations bullshit and fundamentalist, when he hasn't even read the book enough to have his own interpretations.

A fairly amibiguous hypothesis, I have to hand it to you...

Ah but of course I'm forgetting that you've travelled Europe, and therefore you know more about Imperator's Catholic education than he does.

As for MY knowledge of Catholicism, it comes from my family. Both sides of my family were born and bred Roman Catholic, and were intelligent enough to actually read the Bible, and see for themselves that they were being misled by their own church. New Orleans, the epicenter of Catholicism, is where half of my bloodline originates. Much of my family retains its early Catholic beliefs, but many of us have seen the truth.

Well obviously if the majority of your family converted away from Roman Catholicism then you aren't going to get an unbiased view of it from them. Sure, since "much" of your family remain Catholic, you'll hear about it in a more positive view. But how is you hearing / discussing (I assume) Catholicism with your family making you more qualified to talk about Catholicism than Imperator? I still fail to see your logic here.

Once again, I have seen, done, and know more than you could ever hope to.

From which unholy region of your ass are you pulling this supposition out of? Dude, you don't know anything about me. You don't know what I've seen, what I know, what I've done and how cultured I am. I honestly don't know why you're assuming this. All you seem to have is "I've travelled Europe". And why should that be relevant to the debate in the first place? If you had a PhD in Catholic theology, then I might see where you're coming from....

And, as rare as it is to note my location on the internet, I live in Europe, so I somehow doubt you've seen more of it than I have,

You may be slightly more educated in certain areas, but clearly not to the extent of being able to call me uneducated or unexperienced.

Of course not - I never called you uneducated or unexperienced. I just said that, at the age of 14, it is highly improbable that you know more about Catholicism than Imperator, who has been educated about it for several years.

At 2/21/07 01:34 PM, Jarv2ie wrote: Scientists don;t even know exactly what electricity is, sure they know how to trick it into doing usefull things but we're just as far as finding an answer to that as we are to finding the answer to god.

Sorry, couldn't leave this one alone....

We do know precisely what electricity is. Electricity is the flow of electric charge, which is the interaction of protons and electrons in an electromagnetic field.

At 2/21/07 04:19 PM, Peter-II wrote: But yes, I did claim that you do nothing but repeat yourself over and over again until your opponent gives up. There's no "pwning" involved, however.

and i've seen plenty of evidence of this.

At 2/21/07 01:44 PM, Imperator wrote: Crap Snerd!

I'm gonna have to think about your post for a while before I can offer a rebuttal, cause I agree with every damn thing you said!!

I have that effect on people. I'm kidding, of course. I used to be a Christian. I became an atheist because I took a look at things like those mentioned in my "argument", some of the stories of the Old Testament, and some other things. I was agnostic for a while until I reached the conclusion that, for me, there is no possibility of a god. Again, if you believe something based on faith, I can't really mess with that. I can ask why you believe that, but if you honestly and truly mean what you say, I can't say anything that could convince you otherwise. I wouldn't want to do anything like that, either. Debating ideas is fine, but forcing them on another is wrong. My religious standing isn't the issue, though. Sorry for going off on a tangent. Anyway, if you want to learn more about the evolution of man, get some books by Richard Dawkins. He does a wonderful job of explaining things. You don't have to agree with what he says, but you can at least see what the evolutionists have to say about things.

Well, I have now had the considerable misfortune of reading (at times I must admit to resorting to skim-reading) this topic extensively and have come to the conclusion that it has strayed from the original intentions somewhat, now resembling more of a shrine to what Dre-Man's religion (read: parents) have told him to hate. The understandable friction caused by this has created perhaps the longest arguement that has failed to progress anywhere I have ever seen. We can but hope that he will at some point realise that Imperator (who from what I understand is something of a catholic who studies catholic theology) might perhaps know more about his beliefs and the beliefs of his church than Dre-Man. Were it a discussion on fundamentalist protestantism I would give that honor to Dre, but as he sees fit to scorn someone for beliefs which they know far more about... Well let us just say there is little I could currently give to Dre-Man.

That aside I wish to put things back on track as it were. Now I am personally atheist, let that be known on the offing to avoid possible misinterpretation. That established I have this to say: science is not directly adversed to religion. It certainly needn't be. For you see that if one takes a leaf out of the book of 7 year olds and keep asking 'why' in most areas of science eventually they will run out of answers. This is because I feel that all "why's" stem from the one big 'WHY?' of the universe. Why are we here? Why does the word work like it does? Why is their religion? Science is exceedingly proficient at answering the 'how' of things and then backing this up with physical evidence. "Why's" belong to the realms of philosophy and belief. Personally I believe that eventually, given time and resources, science can find the answer to many of these (combined with a mixture of existential nihilism covering the rest). So for the moment, no matter how paradoxical it might seem, the secular must mix with the theistic for the majority of the world so that the moral attrition that might occur in an inherently meaningless universe might be delayed till humanity is better equipped to deal with this. Just my thoughts upon the matter.

I would pose a question to the religious minded of this thread: what is it about your current faith that makes you believe it? (A small hint however, if your response is 'Because it is correct' without explaining/expanding on this chances are I am going to disregard it)

At 2/21/07 07:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: ...

despite your good intentions, you have no idea what you have just gotten yourself into.

At 2/21/07 07:32 PM, Pontificate wrote:

Great god, a vaguely intelligent person! We need more of those on here.

At 2/21/07 07:55 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/21/07 07:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: ...

despite your good intentions, you have no idea what you have just gotten yourself into.

Well my intentions are not all pure, while I do relish the simple thrill of debate I also seek to demonstrate an alternate version of the less aged to Dre-Man before he sours you all to the idea of a young debater. We're not all terribly self-righteous you know.

As for Peter II Comments why thank you, I think.

Oh and upon review I see the post is riddled with grammatical errors and I cannot seem to find an 'edit' tool. Therefore two major corrections:

'Why does the WORLD work like it does?'

'I FEEL this is because all "why's" stem from the one big 'WHY?' of the universe.'

At 2/21/07 07:32 PM, Pontificate wrote: Now I am personally atheist, let that be known on the offing to avoid possible misinterpretation.

Thy name doth amuse me with its eye-runny.

Doesn’t anyone else find it funny how almost all the scientific discoveries that question Religion were religious themselves. LOLOLOL

BTW
Dre-man, just stop. Every time you post you get cornered by everyone else. Now this happening from one maybe two people means nothing but when people's fist start clenching in anger when they see you’re online will raise some eyebrows.

At 2/22/07 06:51 PM, How-about-no wrote: Doesn’t anyone else find it funny how almost all the scientific discoveries that question Religion were religious themselves. LOLOLOL

you mean scientists?