Romy

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way. No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact. That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are. I'm going to call BS on your fact, and the reason does matter. Happiness is subjective; it's not something you can simply measure and call a fact. I was also saying the joys of the book are simply placed on top of the real story, which is depressing and immoral, making it easier to find joy on the top part. No, it doesn't matter, because I wasn't referring to it. I didn't mean it doesn't matter in general, only that it doesn't within our discussion. You can call my fact BS all you want, but research has been made, and happiness was "measured" by the person itself. For instance, if you asked me if in general I'm a happy person, I'd say yes. It doesn't matter if my happiness doesn't compare to another's. Religous people are happier. But, again, that isn't necessarily a good thing, just beacuse a drunk man could be happier than a sober one.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time. I've been on the Christian side, and it does feel happy to be ignorant there. Then I realized that I'm tired of living a lie, and instead I prefer the real world. All those things I believed happened because of God are things that I was going to accomplish anyways. That and praying to God for help on an issue is ineffective compared to actually getting it done myself. The only reason people find joy in that book is because they ignore a majority of it, which would be considered depressing and immoral to people (including the people who believe in it, who don't realize it's there). The idea that religious people are happier with proof backing it is just insane. You even offered a decent example of how the happiness thing could be taken in the wrong way. No it isn't. Religous people are happier than those who aren't. That's a fact. The reason doesn't matter, I was simply stating a fact. That's not saying that a theist can't be depressed and such, or that one who isn't can't be happy, or happier than those who are.

Going to try it this way, might be easier 1) I'm just saying that in the long term it doesn't matter. Why are beliefs you see as "wrong" such a problem? 2) Ideally, you mean. It depends on the person. 3) Creationism isn't the base, the actual belief set is. The creation stories in the religions really just say "This is what happened in the past, now here's the part you're all reading it for". Then you get to the important part, the moral guidelines. 1) Because I see them as wrong for a reason. Not because I decided it's just wrong. Also, as I've already mentioned, in here I'm not discussing belief in general, only that bit. 2) No. Take religion as a compay. It's main goal against science is not to be proven wrong and will do anything to accomplish that, including to dismiss FACTS. 3) Perhaps not *the* base, but definitely *a* base. If God didn't create me, there's not much reason for me to follow him.

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced. "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks). I don't see it as relevant. He said gays don't conern him, so he's not going to care much or ever do anything about it. Thus "If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced." 1) And I'm saying we can't by and be apathetic, otherwise we would never accomplish anything. Even when we make war and suppress people we find new technology to help us do so, as opposed to when we don't make definitive choices we waste time. Everything concerns us. If you believe gays should be married you should help fight for their right. If you believe gays shouldn't be married, you should fight to preserve your definition of marriage. Sitting on the fence is cowardly. 2) As for you saying Christians find gays sinners? The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church both believe and teach being gay is not a sin (loved by God equally) but partaking in gay activity is a sin, and they are the largest and second largest bodies of Christian Communions, so there goes your theory with thinking gays are automatically sinners. May I ask, do you speak from learning from a Protestant sect, or did you go to a parochial school, or another source or did you read some book? 3) And God doesn't send the Israelites to kill people, that is how they interpreted their relationship between themselves and God. Quite frankly I find some of the Israelite writings a bit pompous. 1) That's exactly what I said :S... 2) I don't think the difference is big enough to matter. So it's okay to be gay so long as I don't fulfill my desires? That's just plain dumb. 3) Umm, what about sending them to wars all over to "win" Israel? What about setting rules to wars (such as- before going to war, first ask your enemy if they'd want to surrender, if they wouldn't go for it!)? God repetitively sent his chosen ones to war. Period. EDIT: By the way, it wasn't Israelis I was talking about, it was Hebrews.

Has it ever occured to you that you're not willing to learn? I've been one side, I've been religous and I've seen what it's like to feel a deity is there. I've also been (and still belong to) another side. I definitely say that I've learned. As for the joy of that book. Yes, it's been proven times and times again- Religous people are happier. That's not necessarily good though, it's just like a drunk man could be happier than a sober one. I don't know about you, but I prefer being sober most of the time.

1) In here I did not comment on religion in General, only to a specific problem I see. Taking something that isn't directly or logicaly related, and treat it as proof, is wrong. Some people take our existence as a *proof*, as in, we exist and thus can conclude that there is a God. They take it as a proof, and that's wrong. 2) No, religion is more fanatic about it. When someone's wrong, and is proven to be wrong, eventually he will admit it, he has no other choice. Religion on the other hand isn't like that, even if it's proven wrong, people will dismiss it. 3) True, they scientist would probably do everything he possibly could to prove the other one wrong, but he can't just say "no you're wrong" (like religion does), he'd work hard, and if he's really wrong, will never be able to prove otherwise. Also " Honestly, the only ones that care deeply about what religions say about the origin of humans are atheists who are using that to disprove the concept." I don't see it as wrong. That's the base of the 3 main religions, and many others aswell. If the base is wrong, the rest surely is aswell.

If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced. "in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Kind of relevant. The point is a definitive stance, even if it would be perceived as negative is more productive and producing then an apathetic stance (i.e. Switzerland just lazying around and making clocks). I don't see it as relevant. He said gays don't conern him, so he's not going to care much or ever do anything about it. Thus "If we all took that approach I doubt the world would ever have advanced."

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. What would you call the Crusades then? An act of greed for territory and wealth justified by the excuse of religion. Romy, you're ignorant and you think you know religious law. And to that I say hahaha! First of all it does not in the Bible to say to the Christians to kill people who will not convert, I don't know where you got that. Secondly, the founder of the Maronite Catholics [the rite I belong to] was canonized a saint because one thing he did was go around [5th century] in Syria and help people out, spiritually and medically, be they Christian or pagan. You speak out of your [wagon]. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) I purposely marked this to grasp your attention to where it is located. Please you ignorant fool, go look up what Christian law says in regards to the Old Testament and the new law brought by Jesus. Do not call ignorance in which you act ignorant for you fail to realize the difference between Torah and the actual current Christian law. Now may I quote, directly? "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς," If you are unable to understand Greek, that is the "love thine enemy" verse, Matthew 5:44. For those of you who might be confused to love an enemy? In Greek it more specifically apagaos (unconditional love to anyone) which is not the same love as philia (brotherly love) or eros (the desire to be with a partner). Therefore, gays would not be killed even if disliked because you cannot kill someone who you are suppose to love. In fact you shouldn't even hate them. And did you not hear me recall that AIDS part from the footnote in my Bible? Or are you too busy skimming so that you can just say that Christians want to kill gays? I probably should have clarified myself better, my bad. You shouldn't have added all the dazzle around it though. What I mean by "it" is the followers. As in, the rules of religion A are not to kill, yet the followers of religion A felt okay with killing those who wouldn't convert. I'm well aware that neither the New nor the Old Testament command you to kill those who wouldn't convert to your religion. As for your comment about the New Testament not taking the rules of the Old one... Well, whether it's true or not doesn't matter, as today the Christian world is against gays, thinks gay-acts are a sin, wouldn't marry gays, etc. So without the diplomatic crap, Christianity is anti-gay. For your first part about the rules said not to kill but the Crusades occurred, yes that was against dogma and it was horrible. It was apologized for numerous times though, the most recent apology by the late Pope John Paul II. My rite was affected by these per se Christian-justified imperial wars because Lebanon and Syria are in the middle of crossroads. And second point, yes Christianity does not support the gay lifestyle, and you may term that anti-gay. However, by no means are we anti-gay people, as all people are equal and made in the same image. Although by no means is it "diplomatic crap" because it is legitimate doctrine that everyone is equal. I don't know about the New Testament, but in the Old one, God sends his people to countless wars, wars in which men would definitely be killed on both sides, despite him saying that no man should be killed for men are created in the image of God. Call it whatever you want, make an execuse because it's war we're talking about, either way, God sends his people to knowiingly kill. As for my second point. You're a minority in the Christian world, most others find gays as sinners, and even if they'd still call them equal, I doubt anyone would marry them to the one they love. The reasoning behind it doesn't matter.

210 then.

In the ideal Christian world, it wouldn't be a problem because all the homosexuals would be killed. About the mother part, I dislike that. Unless the father was someone who only had sex so the woman could have a child, then he should still be the father. The "extra-mother" should just be the stepmother. That's quite an ignorant comment and I hope you burn your tongue so badly you can never say something so stupid and horrible. Homosexuals are as equal persons to heterosexual persons. Neither is "worth" more. They are both given God's grace to an equal extent. They are both humans. In an ideal Christian world, there would still be gays. Scriptural supported by how God loves everyone and the commandment thou shalt not kill is part of the ten commandments (found in exodus and deuteronomy) and Jesus says this applies to everyone by extension since everyone is your neighbor. I forget what book of this catholic youth bible I had to use for scripture studies honors last year, they have sidestories of contemporary time that parallel the stories in the scripture. In one of them, it's about AIDS and its implied the guy is gay and he is diagnosed from AIDS and he's ashamed to tell his Church but when they find out they're supportive and tell him they'll be there for him til the end. THAT is the ideal Christian deed. What would you call the Crusades then? An act of greed for territory and wealth justified by the excuse of religion. Romy, you're ignorant and you think you know religious law. And to that I say hahaha! First of all it does not in the Bible to say to the Christians to kill people who will not convert, I don't know where you got that. Secondly, the founder of the Maronite Catholics [the rite I belong to] was canonized a saint because one thing he did was go around [5th century] in Syria and help people out, spiritually and medically, be they Christian or pagan. You speak out of your [wagon]. "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) I purposely marked this to grasp your attention to where it is located. Please you ignorant fool, go look up what Christian law says in regards to the Old Testament and the new law brought by Jesus. Do not call ignorance in which you act ignorant for you fail to realize the difference between Torah and the actual current Christian law. Now may I quote, directly? "ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς καὶ προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων ὑμᾶς καὶ διωκόντων ὑμᾶς," If you are unable to understand Greek, that is the "love thine enemy" verse, Matthew 5:44. For those of you who might be confused to love an enemy? In Greek it more specifically apagaos (unconditional love to anyone) which is not the same love as philia (brotherly love) or eros (the desire to be with a partner). Therefore, gays would not be killed even if disliked because you cannot kill someone who you are suppose to love. In fact you shouldn't even hate them. And did you not hear me recall that AIDS part from the footnote in my Bible? Or are you too busy skimming so that you can just say that Christians want to kill gays? I probably should have clarified myself better, my bad. You shouldn't have added all the dazzle around it though. What I mean by "it" is the followers. As in, the rules of religion A are not to kill, yet the followers of religion A felt okay with killing those who wouldn't convert. I'm well aware that neither the New nor the Old Testament command you to kill those who wouldn't convert to your religion. As for your comment about the New Testament not taking the rules of the Old one... Well, whether it's true or not doesn't matter, as today the Christian world is against gays, thinks gay-acts are a sin, wouldn't marry gays, etc. So without the diplomatic crap, Christianity is anti-gay.

I'm better than you because censor doesn't affect me :D!

290, we're on a roll!

It's not about the countries... Someone here mentioned the perfect Christian world or something like that, and was replied to with "The perfect Christian world would kill gays" (not the original response, I'm on a hurry), and is why we started talking about it.

TheRomyMaster

I'm better than you because my signature reveals information about me!

310!

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational. Walka's example of God being a life catalyst but not an everyday life controller is Deism, as opposed to theism. The differences between both are apparent when you read old studies about human nature. Before, when God was thought to control everything (Revelation dominates reason), human behaviour was described as "should we be doing this". With the rise of deism, human behaviour was just described (Reason over revelation). Of course they can work together: in both examples your get the same results. It's just a different kind on thinking. Regardless of that, can you see atheists and a theist agree about the existence of God? If they ever do, then one of them had converted to the other side. By working together, I meant their definitions, when brought up, collide.

Actualy, a parody on horror movies sure is a movie, but it isn't a horror movie. Just like Pastafarianism is an ideology just like any other religion is an ideology, but it isn't a religion. According to Wikipedia,- "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist." I perfectly fit both to the narrow and the "broadly defined" definitions. Even if you do define Pastafarianism as a religion, I can still be defined as an atheist and as a Pastafarianist at the same time, because, as I had already mentioned twice throughout our discussion, I don't believe in any divine entity.

330...

330, we're getting closer!

350, woot!

That's not true at all. I used to be Jewish, and felt myself very close to God, and not once have I wanted everyone to believe the same as me. I'm 100% certain there are other religous people out there who don't think the rest of the world should think the same as them. Also, don't compare theology to Humanism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism and others of this kind. The difference here, is that none of them relies on the unproven existence of any creature / human / animal / entity / whatever.

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational. The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true. It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement. Care to prove that?

Do I smell irony? Well I want to believe the christian bible is about pokemon who play cards with digimon and never to anything bad. What I want it to be about is not the same as the original intent. Hell I can use a CD as a coaster, but does that mean thats the whole reason we have CD's. At heart its still a data storage medium. What ever you want to call it FSM is an alternative look at a deity based religion. By saying your a Pastafarian and you belong to it a religion and then saying your an atheist is the same as me claiming to be a Christian and an atheist, but its ok because I believe the bible has nothing to do with God and is a recipe book for mac + cheese. If you can't see how thats a massive paradox then damn your more crazy then me. Lol? What's your problem? Pastafarianism is not a real religion, it's a PARODY of religion. Anyone who "follows" FSM is either an atheist, agnostic, undecided, or dumb (you have to be really dumb to belong to Pastafarianism and believe FSM is real, etc). I believe I've explained myself far enough, it's just that you'd rather ignore that. I did say I'm an atheist, I did say I don't believe in any divine entity, I did say I call myself a Pastafarianist to balance my environment, I did say I see it as a counterpoint to any God, and I did say I also take it as a joke. As for your comparison to Christianity.... Lol? Pastafarianism is not a real religion, and it shouldn't be taken that way. That's exactly why I said you can take it any way you want. I take it exactly as I say I take it. If it's the original intent you're talking about- Henderson (the creator of FSM) used it as an example for why not any form of religous creation should be taught as true in public schools, because there's as much proof a God created the universe as there is FSM did. That's the original intent- How is that religous in any way? FSM is not an alternative look at a deity based religion. It's taken by most as a joke, and as an answer to the existence of any God. If a theist would say, for instance, that the world is too complicated to occur on itself, an atheist could say his specific God is as legitimate as FSM, because there's as much proof it exists as there is of his God. Others take it as a form of mockery, but that's where it ends. PASTAFARIANISM IS NOT A REAL RELIGION, AND NOT A REPLACEMENT TO ONE. 2 last things: 1. Are you trying to make me think I'm not an atheist or something? If I don't believe in any God, I'm automaticly an atheist. That's about it. 2. I'm thinking you just can't admit you were wrong. You started with one comment for which you thought I'd have no answer (for some reason...), and when I gave you a logical answer you flipped and decided to fight for it no matter what.