Rebdragon

'Cmon dude, that's pathetic. At least say why you believe what you believe. Honestly, have you even convinced yourself yet?

Geez you're fast o_O.

So what are your arguments and points against incest? I'm not talking about genetic disorder problems, I'm referring to the idea of simply "liking" a relative. What is your reason for finding this immoral/wrong? And don't say it's against nature; you already screwed yourself over for that point.

Stop the way overexaggerated attacks and get back on topic. Just because he doesn't know them by heart (while still knowing like half of them by heart and knowing the general idea of the others...) doesn't mean you should spend a page attacking him for adding valuable input. And for the record, knowing the Ten Commandments by heart is nowhere NEAR as valuable to this debate as knowing the difference between "gender" and "species" is to an evolution debate. That's just a stupid exageration to support a meaningless attack.

How about (don't know the exact wording) 'thou shalt not take the lords name in vain' or 'thou shalt not worship any other god but me' Now as for the latter of the two, the majority of the worlds population ignore it. Feel free to correct my wording of these commandments. Bolded part explains my already stated agreement :-$ . And I think Locke just repeated my overall view, just put it into a nice, concise, easy to read post :P . Hey :evil: , you just repeated exactly what I was saying.

Alexander's ftw :o .

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think. No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get. Sure, it's probably the closest thing, but the minority of the worlds population live thier lives by those 10 commandments. It's the best we have, but it's hardly universal. I'm not saying that everyone around the world follows the Ten Commandments, but that they follow basic moral rules, some of which are similiar or even nearly identical to the Ten Commandments. They may not follow some of the God related stuff, but the whole "love thy neighbor" and "thou shalt not kill" stuff is generally agreed upon throughout the world.

I've read a lot of stuff on a certain constant energy flow throughout the universes built of not only the basic energy one thinks of, but thoughts, feelings, and even souls as being energy in the flow. That's what has built up to my hypothesis of God being the energy, matter, and "soul", if you will, of the universe(s). I believe someone else on this forum came to a similiar conclusion, I can't remember who though :-k . Don't knock monotheism until you try it. Trust me, I went through a rebellious atheist phase (I'm surrounded by way too much Christianity), and once I started rebuilding my own opinion I came back to a monotheistic belief. Not the Christian belief in God mind you, but a monotheistic belief nontheless. Can anyone (besides Celt) support or provide evidence against the hypothesis of teenagers resorting to atheism as purely rebellion? I'd like to hear some other insight on it. I'm not talking about Christian viewpoints. God, if It exists, does not disprove science- that's just ludicrous. Same goes for thinking science actually can disprove God.

I always thought my name ment "strong". Apparently this says "protector of mankind". Meh, works for me. And what's with the ranks? My name is 17, but I don't know what the ranks mean... are they ranked by how commonly used they are?

The problem there is not everyone today believes in Christianity. Perhaps if there was some sort of spiritual revelation, there would be a off shoot bunch of skeptics years after the event as well. In other words, I think there could be no 'god given' absolutes unless god himself changes the very way we think. No, those are pretty much universal moral rules. The Ten Commandments would be one of those "documents" (or whatever, tablets) that contains the closest things to absolute morals that we can get.

I hate that "you're rich compared to the rest of the world, so you don't have a frikking right to be unhappy" mentality. A lot. Get over yourself and find another place to expand your deflated ego.

You don't know that. All you know is that it isn't provable. You have no idea if it's discoverable. So, if we discover an absolute truth (which I'm assuming we humans have on numerous occasions), do you think we'd know that it's an absolute truth, for sure? Or are you saying it's possible that we can never come across any of the absolute truths, if they exist? 'xactly my opinion.

Man, get off it. The Egyptians were building Pyramids 6,000 years ago. The Earth is NOT 6,000 years old. At all. No chance. Ever. No, just no. I believe I read somewhere yesterday that the Earth could be, at the very least, a few million years old. There is absolutely zero chance that it is 6,000 years old. It's just a fact and fundamentalists are only hurting themselves believing it. Fundamentalists are hurting themselves by being fundamentalists. If you're not open minded to the idea, then there's no convincing you. I believe something exists, because evidence I've come across seems to rule out the possibility that there isn't at least something out there. And for the record, God doesn't disprove science, and science doesn't disprove God. And is it just me, or is atheism often just some rebellious phase teenagers go through? I'm definitely not saying it always is, but I find a large number of teenagers who are atheists, and a lot less adults who are atheists. Meh, may just be personal experience- I havn't seen any statistics.

Fair enough, but accoring to the definition I decided to go by, my arguments are founded. :D :P Just for interests sake, what are those absolute truthful morals? Is there a list somewhere I can take a look at? Who would decide which morals are worthy of being on the list? Just a few discussion points. :-w That's the thing. No one can ever know the absolute morals and be 100% sure. We can guess and analyze what might and probably is an absolute moral, but we can never can be definitely sure. People throughout the ages have made lists of what morals are *probably* within the realm of Truth, but they havn't actually seen Truth and fully known that that moral is correct. Our view is subjective, erroneous, and always will be.

http://www.cygnus-books.co.uk/features/ ... -emoto.htm And Jesus was a real man... his bones wouldn't prove or disprove the existence of a God.

*Gnashing teeth* STOP FRIKKING BEING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!! IT'S NOT LITERAL!!!!!! Last I checked Christians take it as the word of God. Can you come up with an alternate creation story then? :wall: :wall: :wall: That is the creation story. That doesn't mean that all Christians think that it took God created the world in 168 hours; the creation story, if you really look at it scientifically, is just another way of saying how the Earth was created, a more poetic way. Whether it's the direct Word of God or not, I dunno. For the love of God everyone, stop thinking that Christians are all fundamentalists, or that to be a Christian you have to be a fundamentalist. It's kind of getting annoying. :wall:

You weigh 65 pounds. If that's not some annoying overexaggerated joke, you'd be what, 8? You're like immune to fast food at that age. And even if you were older, any level of activity during teen years would easily counteract McDonalds consumption, and with a high metabolism you'd have to eat McDonalds every meal to get anywhere close to "fat". Basically, unless you're an adult I don't see what the point of your post was :-s . EDIT: 'Kay, you're 11. The effect of eating McDonalds a few times a month on a person really don't mean much when it's an 11 year old who's consuming the food :-s :? . Meh, McDonalds is pretty bad for me, I might end up having to cut down majorly on how much I eat later on in my life :lol: . It just tastes so good, everything about it :anxious: . I literally order like 10 sausage patties when I order in the morning there, if I do that as an adult it'll probably kill me :lol: .

I see your point. :-k You do see what I'm getting at with my arguments through, right? Edit: Actually, I'm looking at a definition of objectivity right now which states "free from biased judgement." I could argue that the majority opinion is the least biased of the whole populations. :wink: I think. :? Nevertheless, it states objectivity can be likened to fairness, which I'm quite sure the majorities view is (as much as can possibly be). reference: The Thesaurus section, no. 3. This might be a bit late, but when I say "objective morality" I mean Truth, the actual Truth that we all strive to uncover. I'm not referring to some other English definition of the word :P .

*Gnashing teeth* STOP FRIKKING BEING FUNDAMENTALISTS!!!! IT'S NOT LITERAL!!!!!!

Fullmetal Alchemist.

I wonder if there's a gene for liking or disliking the smell of gasoline :-k .

Ok, so why haven't we taken all the moral guidelines out of the bible and compiled it into a small concise book without all that non-literal nonsense. Why do so many people persist with using copies of the bible when there is so much Christian literature out there that concisely discuss the morals from the bible, instead of having resort to telling stories with morals. Your view of Christianity is on the fringe as much as a literal view of the bible. Tell me, what kind of literal "stuff" would you take out? Jesus' stories? The pentatuch? Much of the history of the Hebrews? Would you cut out the stories that have hidden meanings behind them, and simply write down the hidden meanings you "think" are the ones they intended to tell us, also thinking that you'll get all of them? Wait, you want to turn the Bible into a little index card with a few morals written on it? Man, never knew you hated Christianity enough to try and tear the whole religion to pieces. Yes, and gnashing of teeth and some other stuff. But yes he did. :wink: Got a verse :-s ?

I'm sorry, I really don't know where to go from here. Honestly, it seems like we're not even fighting in the same arena. I'm arguing that the Bible's meanings (behind the parables and stories) are valid. You're arguing that the culture and beliefs of the time when it was written were wrong, most of which I agree about (especially the rules about the treatment of women, that's just crud...). It's like we're swinging at each other in different zip codes. Christians don't treat women like the bible tells them to, they understand that was just part of how the Hebrew culture worked. They understand that times have changed, and that that's not how to treat a person. Still, the Bible gives valuable insight on the treatment of our fellow man and how God, according to the Christians, should be regarded. A state of being away from God can easily be seen, or actually be, a real place. I'm not sure (really, not being sarcastic), did Jesus ever describe Hell as a fiery place deep in the earth? I can't remember >_<. Anyways, our human minds can't really fully understand it, so I can't give you the cookies and milk. No, this isn't an excuse because I already ate them. Seriously, it isn't.

-other stuff- Oh c'mon. You're making it sound like she doesn't even know what fun is. We're not saying that you should do whatever the hell you want. We're also not saying anyone should be purely serious. Everyone needs a proper balance of the two sides in their life.

Meh, I'm against most Christian beliefs. My biggest being not considering Jesus the "Son of God", at least in the sense most Christians do. I also don't believe in the Christian God. I'd rather not have an argument about that though, seeing as how I don't really agree with or care for most Christian beliefs :lol: . Exactly..? It's a literary technique :? . Yet agian, those are cultural opinions of the time :? . I've heard nearly all of those, they're not morals, they're basically laws for the people, in the same way the government laws are not morals. You've gota be frikking kidding me. You'd don't have to be an idiot fundamentalist to be a real Christian, genius. You asked for a current God, and I gave you one. I don't get what you're saying telling me to answer the question in terms that were excluded from the question you asked. The point is that religion isn't used to fill scientific holes in the way it used to. In fact, I'm not sure if Christianity tries to fill in any current scientific holes, just supernatural ones. So yes, it's different from historical religions. 'Kay, I still hold to my point that it's still possible that any religion could be the right one. If I didn't believe I was right, they wouldn't be beliefs, now would they? Don't take that as me not being open to other ideas and beliefs though. I'd also like to take this time to, again, state that I disagree with most Christian supernatural beliefs. Doesn't mean they are morals. And cultural/governmental laws are set for the good of society, not what it means to be good as an individual. No, religious leaders during the time, who needed followers to help them take over other cities, said that. Hell can be seen and interpreted in many ways. My personal belief, and I know many people here agree, is that Hell is basically "being without God." It's not some fiery place at the center of the earth, it's literally a choice to be without God. So, going against/not believing in God, as said, is "being without God", which sounds like hell to me. Pun intended. Pfft, cookie denied. Mebe... :anxious: .