Prove there's a god.

“Spelin 'n' tpyin...”

Since: Feb 08

...are my strong suits!

#774686 Aug 28, 2014
Frikkin...!!!

Hukt just figured out why he was having problems posting... now there are no reply links upon which to clicky-click!

Grrrrrrrrrrrr...!!!

Guess IT IS TIME to update some software on ol' teesixone.

Thanks, Topix dudes...

Ya bunch a up-ta-date pains in da arse!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774687 Aug 28, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
It can be a predictor, as well as many other things can, like say being an atheist. See, that is just as much BS as your statement.
My statement wasn't bs, which you would have known if you had taken 5 seconds to google it instead of jumping in feet first and making it clear that you are willfully ignorant.

Poverty is indeed an excellent predictor for crime, and there is a reason for that. Poverty begets crime - it's not as if all poor people who turn to crime are simply bad people.

Btw, being an atheist is associated with *not* being a criminal, whereas high levels of religiosity are often found in prisoners.

Maybe it has something to do with that whole idea that one can be totally evil on earth and get a "get out of hell free card" by saying a quick prayer.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774688 Aug 28, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
Joyful8118 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my point. The unbelievers carry on about how they know absolutely that there is no God. However, that is just their belief. I do have sufficient proof for myself, but that is not sufficient for you all. And the unbelievers cannot make up that they know there is no God. I have proof for myself that there is a God and you all are sure you have proof there isn't. Now, we have it cleared up and I have made my point.
You have seen and responded to this, so yes, you have seen clearly what my point was and is. Stop playing ignorant games.
What I'm getting at is that your "point" is completely nonsensical. Saying "x is true because I know it's true, and I know it's true because it's true" isn't a point, it's an advertisement of your profoundly underdeveloped capacity for reasoned thought and logic.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#774689 Aug 28, 2014
Hukt on Fonix wrote:
Frikkin...!!!
Hukt just figured out why he was having problems posting... now there are no reply links upon which to clicky-click!
Grrrrrrrrrrrr...!!!
Guess IT IS TIME to update some software on ol' teesixone.
Thanks, Topix dudes...
Ya bunch a up-ta-date pains in da arse!
I hope it didn't have nothing to do with long waits, at the argument clinic...hahahah

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774690 Aug 28, 2014
Joyful8118 wrote:
timn,
I don't know and haven't studied all of the "Gods" out there. I don't know which ones are false, maybe I can discern that some are false, but not all. I do know/believe :) that there is one Creator/God that created us all. You have a belief, as do I. I respect your belief.
I have a *lack of belief.* There is a significant difference between believing there are no gods (or believing that there cannot be any gods) and simply not believing in one. If our society weren't so religious, there wouldn't even need to be a word for my stance on the issue (atheism).

Anyways, I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want, so long as they keep it to themselves. Once they start trying to do things like convert children, who are incapable of making such a decision, or trying to influence public policy based on said beliefs, I stop respecting their beliefs as well as them as a person. No one has the right to do things such as make life harder for women who want an abortion or deny basic rights to homosexuals based on an unsubstantiated belief based on ancient books full of outdated ideas/morals.

Finally, you don't know that there is a creator that created us all. You *believe* there is one, and that's fine, but you are claiming to know something which cannot be known. I don't claim to know there *isn't* a god, because I can't back it up.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774691 Aug 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
I'm not asking you to jump through hoops, I'm asking you to support your (so far bare) assertion that "Christians would turn America into a brutal, authoritarian Christian theocracy in a heartbeat if give the chance".
There are a multitude of indications that that is the case.

First, when in history has there been a government controlled by the church that wasn't authoritarian? What distinguishes the political structures of Middle Ages from modernity is the advent of secular government (church-state separation), an Enlightenment value. Let's keep religion out of government.

Second, look at the philosophy and psychology of Christian doctrine. It supports kings. It is about submission, judgment, and punishment. And its god doesn't take surveys or count hands. It issues commandments.

Are you going to argue that not all Christians would be happy losing democracy and their personal political freedoms? If so, no doubt. But I say that they won't the kinds of Christians that call the shots. The ones that achieve and hold power are consistently authoritarian, judgmental finger waggers.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774692 Aug 28, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Those "authorities" aren't referring to our government.

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”- Romans 13:1-2

Here's what the bible says about democracy: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1 I think that's a pretty clear statement of Christian principles. In a secular democracy, the sole source of governmental authority is "We the People," not gods or kings
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Those are just some loudmouth radicals, they are nothing to fear and they are of no consequence.
You know why? They claim: "women who have abortions should be publicly executed"
Disagree. Furthermore, I would be unwilling to take the chance that such people are of no consequence.

I distrust Christianity, you don't. I think that its tendencies are authoritarian and antithetical to democratic principles, you seem to think otherwise. I feel the way I do because every power relationship in Christianity is authoriarian: god over man, king over subject, man over wife, and master over slave. Every one of these is somebody ruling somebody else.

In the end, it doesn't matter what we think a Christian theocracy in America would look like, so, in my opinion, it's not worth discussing further. Can we agree to disagree and leave it at that? Recall that my point was principally to contradict your claim that the American government was founded on Christian principles. I'm still waiting for you to tell me which ones. Was it sin theology? Hell theology?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#774693 Aug 28, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at long last we can begin.
It took so long to get an answer from you that you forgot an important part of the question that needs to be resolved before we can proceed to discussing your post. Here it is as originally asked:
"Would you like to take a few moments to discuss what open-mindedness and closed-mindedness mean to you? What defines them and how do you identify them? Why did you imply that my rejection of your claim was closed-minded? Too often on these threads, those words are used to refer to somebody not accepting somebody else's claim, or not being convinced by their argument."
I'll have to answer the first part of the question for you. Please feel free to modify my answer if it is not yours, and in the future, please try to answer the questions asked yourself the first time.
I am concluding from your post, and especially the comment, "Your mind is absolutely resistant to new arguments or new ideas that invalidate your preconceptions," that you define closed-mindedness as the refusal to accept your argument, and that you identify me as closed minded because I won't accept conclusions of yours such as that Christianity does not teach homophobia or that Christianity is a force of good in the world. Is that correct?
It also seems like you are defining closed-mindedness as not acknowledging your arguments: "I say that you're close-minded to Christianity because you refuse to acknowledge any new testimonies or evidence that are produced." This would be a different claim, and I would respond to this one differently than the one above. I'm not sure what claims you think I have not even acknowledged as opposed to rejected. If this is accurate, would you please give me examples of a claim or evidence you resented that I ignored rather than disagreed with?
These appear to be the two definitions of closed-mindedness that you would like to accuse me of. is that accurate?
And if so, do you see the difference between them? I would agree with you in the first case that, yes, I do reject your conclusions, but that that is not closed-mindedness. I would agree with you in the second case that not even acknowledging your argument would be closed-minededness, but that I don't do that.
Once we get this much settled, I can address your specific charges. But before I do, I need a clear picture of what the word means when you use it, and as you can see, it already appears to mean two different things. Please make a clear, declarative statement of what it is you are accusing me of when you call me closed-minded.
Turn it off, turn it OFF!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774694 Aug 29, 2014
scaritual wrote:
I think it needs to be highlighted that the problem is just as bad in the Protestant faiths, and as a whole, mirrors the numbers found in the Catholic faith.
Perhaps, but I would be surprised if that's true for two reasons:

Imposing celibacy on a group of men and then limiting their means of venting their lusts has got to lead to a lot of situational pedophilia with altar boys.

I doubt that Protestant pastors get the same help that priests get, help that keeps them in business such as an apparent code of silence among priests, and an organized system of intimidation, relocation and hush money payoffs all done independently of law enforcement.

My greatest objection is not to the predation itself, which probably cannot be reduced to zero even by letting priests marry, but by the systematic coverup. Those crimes, which may outnumber the rapes themselves 10:1, should be prosecuted as equivalent to the rapes, maybe as worse.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774695 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
If I spent the past few years and 57,000+ posts debating and arguing the existence of Bigfoot, someone might call that obsession.
Maybe...
But I'd never do that. I might have a post here or there about it, a passing fancy you'd say. But never would I debate something I believe doesn't exist as fervently as atheists do about God. It's not just on this thread, either. Some atheists seem to have dedicated their life to the pursuit of God and they try to get everyone else to believe their belief, that "There's probably no god"
...
I wonder how you'd feel about bigfoot if a large segment of the population worshiped him and a good segment of this believer population were always trying to influence public policy based on their interpretation of bigfoot's wishes for humanity. Aside from these bigfoot followers using the previously mentioned tactics to mold the world to bigfoot's wishes, imagine if they had (owing to thousands of years of cultural influence) inundated society with various "harmless" and not so harmless facets of their belief. For example, imagine if bigfoot's birthday celebration had morphed into a mass orgy of consumerism, completely dominating the winter season; imagine if the revelry completely transformed society for its duration, complete with believers demanding that all others show respect to their ludicrous traditions - taking great offense should people decide to, for instance, say "happy birthday to all mythical creatures" as opposed to "happy birthday bigfoot." Imagine if believers decided that a war was being waged against their religion because their ability to impose every element of it on others had been slightly curtailed in recent years.

Imagine if our money said "In Bigfoot we Trust," and if when we sneezed, "Bigfoot Bless You" was a typical response. Imagine if your wife couldn't get an abortion to save her life because bigfooters had decided that their savior bigfoot values the sanctity of a zygote. Imagine if wars had been waged by bigfooters against abominable snowman believers; if the discrimination of gays, minorities, and many others had been justified by "bigfoot's book" many times throughout history and even in the modern world; imagine if you were expected to believe in bigfoot or face being ostracized at best or outright hated at worst; imagine if belief in bigfoot was used to shield child molesters; and imagine if bigfoot belief had directly contributed to a general attitude of anti-intellectualism and anti-science.

I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.

The point you seem to miss is that no one would care if believers simply worshiped bigfoot (erm, I mean god) in private. It's the fact that believers seek to impose their morality, ideas, and way of life on everyone else that makes people a tad bit upset.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774696 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh. Horrifying.
* bows head *
Indeed. Disgusting, barbaric stuff.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774697 Aug 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
But even if it did, is that OK? Would you put your children into an airplane that had a 2% chance of crashing?
How about every Sunday?
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
With that attitude, no one should even let their kids go to school....
Disagree.

Are you suggesting that schools are as dangerous for schoolchildren as Catholic churches are for altar boys? There is a raft of differences between them to suggest otherwise. Teachers are free to seek sexual release. Teachers have less access to privacy with children. And teachers are not protected by the same culture of facilitation, are typically vigorously investigated with the school's cooperation when accused. If they're guilty and a case can be made, they will cease being teachers and will go to prison. Good luck prosecuting a priest with his diocese stonewalling the investigation and giving false assurances that the priest is innocent.

And do you know what? Even if schools are just a bad as churches, that's still a big F for the Christianity. People want to bring group prayer led by state employees back to public schools for by claiming that prayer makes people better or leads to some kind of benefit coming from above. Obviously not.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774698 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, let's.
You don't view Christianity as what it is, you view it as how some preachers decide to preach it and how some adherents choose to follow it. You don't view it for what it really is. My question to you was about Christianity, not how it is perceived by some Christians (or some atheists).
Just as you did in your first paragraph on this post, saying that somebody is teaching these (who?) Christians to resist abortion, gay marriage, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research etc. Is any of that the view of Christianity or is that the view that some Christians have decided to perceive it and therefore teach it? The latter is correct.
There are many Christians that resist abortion, that much is true. But be fair about it, there's also many atheists that resist it. Are you going to say that's due to their Christian upbringing? If so, you will make me lol. The same goes for gay marriage. I gave you six links directing you to Christian groups and Christian pastors that preach the true message of Christianity - love. There is no biblical doctrine that says we should hate gays or we should fight gay marriage, none whatsoever. THAT is Christianity.
I think the source is misinformed people, bigoted people, racist people and ignorant people that never lead - only follow. The source is most definitely not Christianity
When a particular religion consistently leads to the founding of sects based on or that include a message of hate, you've gotta start wondering whether the religion itself might share some of the blame. I agree that there are many assholes in the world and that some people will find a reason to discriminate regardless of what "ism" they follow, but you can't deny that christianity often leads to discrimination and hate by writing such people off as "fake christians." That is the "one true scotsman fallacy," as I'm sure you are aware.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774699 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Well first you have to verify your claim of the Catholic Church actually promotes pedophilia. Good luck!
<quoted text>
Uh-huh...
promote
verb
further the progress of
support or actively encourage
give publicity to so as to increase sales
advance or raise to a higher position or rank
transfer to a higher division
Your claim remains null and challenged. The Catholic Church does not promote pedophelia.
As I asked elsewhere, would you be more comfortable with the word "facilitates"?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774700 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
Catcher1 wrote:
Stuff
<quoted text>
I got a ham n cheese sammich that says Catch will ignore your typos....
Is it true that this is RR?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774701 Aug 29, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
What about his poor family who know people the world over are looking at their son/brother/nephew being executed for show.
Also horrible, of course. I couldn't bring myself to watch the actual execution, just the little speech leading up to it. I didn't want to watch it in the first place but my (possibly insane, jk, jk) girlfriend insisted. Kinda like a bad car crash, I guess. Humans... lol.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#774702 Aug 29, 2014
sweets2360 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lots of rich people are criminals of the worst kind. But they have the money to cover up their indiscretions.
Agreed.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#774703 Aug 29, 2014
Stilgar Fifrawi wrote:
I don't think God causes the confusion of man any more than God created high cholesterol due to a shitty diet. It's our fault, not His.
What does this god actually do besides hurl tsunamis and floods?

I believe that you are unwilling to call anything your god's fault, which makes your defense of its about as compelling as a mother who refuses to find fault in her son and blames everything that happens on other people.

Secular ethics (rational ethics) is radically different from Christian ethics. We would hold anybody with the power to prevent avoidable suffering who chose to do nothing morally culpable if not also criminally culpable. Christians blame mankind and a devil that they believe this same god created exactly as he wanted them with full foreknowledge of what motivates them and what they will do.
Liam

Saint Paul, MN

#774704 Aug 29, 2014
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps, but I would be surprised if that's true for two reasons:
Imposing celibacy on a group of men and then limiting their means of venting their lusts has got to lead to a lot of situational pedophilia with altar boys.
I doubt that Protestant pastors get the same help that priests get, help that keeps them in business such as an apparent code of silence among priests, and an organized system of intimidation, relocation and hush money payoffs all done independently of law enforcement.
My greatest objection is not to the predation itself, which probably cannot be reduced to zero even by letting priests marry, but by the systematic coverup. Those crimes, which may outnumber the rapes themselves 10:1, should be prosecuted as equivalent to the rapes, maybe as worse.
1. Celibacy is a discipline for Catholic Priests of the Latin rite. Or "Roman Catholic" as the English speaking world labels it. Every Priest is aware of this sacrifice prior to their ordination. For the 22 Catholic rites of the east, there is not a celibacy rule. Of the 500 million Orthodox Church, celibacy is also not a rule.
2. True there has been a 'cover up' I guess. But you have to understand that most of these cases were from a time period where pedophilia wasn't understood. Every organization - secular included- didn't think of child sexual attraction as crime but a condition that's treatable. Now for some reason, only the Catholic Church gets blasted for not punishing the guilty when the US government, the school system, military, athletic organizations did the same damn thing.
3. Today the Catholic Church has a zero tolerance policy. Not that its fully perfect ... but at least its better than yesterday. Hopefully other organizations will follow.

“The Bible is no science book”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#774705 Aug 29, 2014
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, MAAAN!
Classic!
"Inspector Clay's murdered, and someone is responsible!"
*helpless laughter*
I've not seen that in ages.
Damn you, now I have to go look for it.
And be sure to rewatch "Invasion of the Killer Tomatoes" another cult classic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 1 min truth 628
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 6 min Aura Mytha 88,384
"I LOVE YOU Eva' 6 min Doctor REALITY 3
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 24 min AussieBobby 284,624
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 39 min X Pendable 184,770
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 40 min truth 665,473
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr truth 45,848
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 3 hr Lonestar 255
More from around the web