I disagree! and i say to you... Prove that Christ is not real.
I disagree! and i say to you... Prove that Christ is not real.
Nobody's saying that he wasn't real. We're just saying that the virgin Mary actually did get blasted with a human's semen that she had sex with and Jesus was born. Jesus was as real as you or me or my dog Floyd who is asleep on the couch. The difference is that he was batshit crazy and told a bunch of gullible people that did not have any technologies or intarnets and believe whatever the hell anybody told them that he was the son of god.Originally Posted by JDMEK18
After awhile passed, a crazy bastard named Constantine was tripping balls on some killer acid and thought he saw a cross in the sky and forces everyone to be Christian, just like your parents forced you and everyone else to be.
People are sheep. They NEED to be able to hold onto something. They need to feel like the are part of something, and they cannot bear to think that their life is meaningless and that after they die, they lose consciousness and they won't know anything afterwards just as they didn't know anything before they were born. It's too bad people can't think for themselves and use their brain instead of having this "faith" and blindly follow something their entire life that probably (isn't) is not real. The truth of the matter is, you can be just as good, and do just as good things and not believe that stuff. You just have to have a strong mind and will to see through all the BS that's been fed to you your whole life.
New car:
95 S14 with RB25DET (stock boost)
Old car:
Turbo S2000 400hp/285tq on 9:1 comp & 11psi
This post if FULL OF WIN!!!!
interesting and entertaining perspective. I wonder where you draw the basis of your conclusions. Did you actually study this or is it from your history classes? Either way you too are subject to what someone wants you to think based on their perspective just like what you are saying about the Christians. You too only believe what you believe because someone else helped you get there, the only difference is who ever helped you, made you think that you got their independently. You didn't, how do I know, because your opinions are no different than the people who have been outwardly rejecting the idea of an eternal god for centuries. So where is YOUR originality?
that said, Why do you even come to the religion forum if you think it doesn't matter? If all that happens is you die and nothing else, and you believe that people can just be good, why do you care if some of those "good people" choose to define goodness different than you. based on what you just wrote, it doesn't matter to you, but that can't be true if you have such an aggressive view toward those who do live by a faith.
This debate is not about who can come up with the most ORIGINAL theory. It is about incorporating some common sense into your ass. There is undoubtedly a higher power, whether it is a god, gods, or whether it's what we refer to as nature.
And when we die, nothing happens. Just like as we were before we were born. Nothing. We live to die, that's it.
We live to die, that's it.
how do you know?
interesting way to test the "no life after death" theory. and its been repeated several times by other scientists with similar results.
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html
I know of situations of people who have died and there were things that happened, that they did, that would suggest they were not just going through a blackout.
If you "died" and came back to life, then you did not die. So therefore everything in that is invalid.
When one dies, you DO NOT COME BACK TO LIFE.
Ad hominem
False analogy.
Ad hominem.
Originality has nothing to do with whether or not a concept is logically sound. Period. You should reread that, just to make sure you understand that concept before this discussion continues any further.
And for those of you who dare utter something as absurd as "prove Jesus isn't the son of god" please understand that the burden of proof rests of those making extraordinary claims. Claiming that a man was born of a virgin, was simultaneously a man and god, performed miracles, rose from the dead ect ect. Are all extraordinary claims which require extraordinary evidence to back them up.
Your beliefs matter to the people who do not share them, because they are the systematic teaching, and commercialized embodiment of credulity. History has shown us time and time again that whenever people abandon their ability to think critically about their beliefs, no matter how culturally and socilly acceptable they are, they may become subject to all sorts of absurdities done in the name of faith.
Read the Qur'an, or look at the way fundamentalists interpret the Bible. These are pieces of literature written at the infancy of our species, before we had any working understanding of how the world works, that to this very day serve as the justification for the very worst and most cruel behavior human beings are capable of.
The notion that other people shouldn't care about your beliefs is only applicable, when your beliefs are kept private and do not effect the lives of others. I live in a state where beer is not sold on Sundays because some influential group of Christians thinks that the entity that created the universe probably has a vested interest in what day of the week human beings consume alcohol.
You may believe in whatever you want, but when I see the lawmakers who govern me too, making decisions (war on drugs anyone?) based on some misguided irrelevant moral fanaticism, to appeal to their "religious base", I have a problem with your religion, because the nonsense you believe is effecting my life. For that matter when I see a group of people motivated by that very same monotheistic credulity, flying airplanes into buildings, to reach a paradise that there is no evidence for I start to develop a larger annoyance with people believing shit that there is simply no proof for. When the president of my country comes out and declares that Islam is a "religion of peace" to appease the outraged morons who think their subjective belief system is under attack, I get even more annoyed.
Last edited by DrivenMind; 05-27-2009 at 01:41 PM.
You quote me in mockery and leave out the context of which my statements were written. I bow my hat to your "mastered skills of debating"by echoing the same arguments of a certain Christopher Hitchens. And the funny thing is you almost qoute him verbatim... Do you actually research the arguments he makes...(he doesn't make very many)...or do you just listen to his mocking and foolish banter (makes up 95% of his debates) and soak it up because you like his accent? Just curious. And originality matters a ton because without it religions become redundant and mindless, and positions like yours become the thing that fills the void that will be there if faith subsides. and if you are only saying what they say then how are you "free" as hitchens and dawkins would suggest. & you then are no different than me. We just believe in different things.
And these men are now making their theories off of observations without testable hypothesis. Hitchens and Dawkins have been doing this for years and it is considered bad science(for those of you who know anything about science other than the BS you slept through in high school). Its a smoke screen. To say that they have no evidence of God when they have done no work to make reasonable observations. When on the other hand the social and applied sciences provide observations which can lead to legitimate statements pointing to something transcendent. i.e. the moral compass, the infinite existence of knowledge, and a universal understanding of love. These things have no beginning of which we can place. I do not believe they start with christianity or any specific religion, bc I don't believe they start anywhere. I believe them to be universal/eternal.
Also, it is those same men who claim to ignore the existence of an eternal, with the belief that this universe is the product of a big bang, of which before there was supposed to be nothing. Again, BAD SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES. BTW. Neither Dawkins, Hitchens, hawkins, or any other atheist or scientist have been able to figure that out, they often dodge this question, I'd love to hear your POV.
Lastly, if you believe there is no God and that men are free to do as they please without justice then your complaints fall on deaf ears. You say it effects you but that is the world you ask for. In a world with laws and morals only based off of mans hedonistic desires, you have no justice or rights. Mainly because the morals of men change often. The rules would flip flop like a presidential candidate. the people who make bad laws based on their interpretation of science (subjective) which you hate are justified 'in your world view' to do so because there is no ground for your individual consideration. They don't have to make you happy because they only are committed to themselves. No transcendent morals or ethics means there are no transcendent rights. So you don't matter just as they don't matter.
The countless times that people have done bad things regardless of their faith or not don't matter. The good that people have done regardless of their faith or not doesn't matter. History doesn't matter. The only logic that matters is yours. the only rules that matter are yours. Community is no longer existent because people do not understand nor care about serving one another. The reason you can be offended or bothered is because you expect something else, you expect better...why and how can you?
Lets see...you would say what Hitchens says...sooo...men would do the right thing because they know that doing the right thing for some is necessary to preserve themselves. The world does not change under the atheists flag because the problem is not the institutions its the individuals. Because right now, some terrorists think they are doing the right thing by targeting you and under the atheists flag it would just be someone else eradicating group x to preserve group a. But under your world view, nobody has the right to call them wrong. Because there is no universal moral code because the moral code is only what men of the time/location make it.
My point....you act like dropping religious faith from the face of the earth would make it better. You make a false attribution to act as if religions have been the cause of so much strife on this planet and you remove the obvious responsibility that goes to men for the choices they make.
You make a ridiculous generalization in stating that these books of faith were written in the "infancy of our civilization". As if our civilizations maturity is dependent upon scientific development and even the adjective you use"infancy" is subjective. As if you as an individual are less mature than another individual because he knows more about science than you or he has better technology (a newer cell phone)Which is absurd and makes me think you have never read about the ancient technology of the Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans or Chinese.
And you should really go learn something about how the Bible came to be before you assume it is one book written by a few people. There is MUCH MUCH more to it that is historically (secular history) documented.
and about me...
I believe that there has to be a balance. I believe that God gave us science, reason, the books that make up the Bible, and the ability to gather in communities to discuss and have accountability on what is to be understood and taken from each. I believe that when you find someone who has disregarded any of these things you find trouble.
And I say Prove that he is...
Agnosticism, say maybe to god lol...
people do not take time to prove the non-existence, only to prove existence.
"oh hey prove he isn't real"
"ok sure, i have no proof that he IS real, therefore, he is not."
it just doesn't work that way
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
