This is to anyone. To any person who reads this please answer.

What is a Christian? What do you think they believe? Please give any other thoughts on Christianity that you might want to say.

I know everyone has got something to say so please don't hold back.

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
I Peter 3:15

What is a Christian?

A practicioner of delusion.


What do you think they believe?


Magic exists.


Please give any other thoughts on Christianity that you might want to say.


wait wait... its coming... aw crap... lost it.

It's no mystery what a Christian is.

So I'm reading this thread and I says to myself, I says "What's with this guy?" Then, he sits me down and tells me how it is, he says "I'm starting this thread, you know, it's about christians, so like what do you think?" So I, being the generous guy that I am, I set him strait, I tells him "What the fuck kind of question is that?" I says "When you're dealing with these types around here, you know the types I'm talking about...when you're with these types, you have to be more specific, they won't let you slide on that vague shit you know what I'm saying? Yeah, you know what I'm saying...but hey. Let me explain it deeper, because I get the feeling that you might just be that stupid. Now if you want these people to give you a serious answer, you'l have to be more specific...you see, these people...they're all about the specifics, if you throw in some vague shit, you're gonna get some vague shit back-" Then this guy, can you believe this shit...so he interupts me mid-sentence and shit and he has the balls to ask me what do I think about christians. So then I looks him dead in the eye and I tells him "You better listen good broad... if you ever interupt me again.. I PROMISE,"no that's not what I said to him, "I GUARANTEEs that I will smack the shit out you." In the midst of all this, he again asks me the same question. This time...I'm not going to lie to you guys, I was pretty mad by this point... so I takes him out back and I gives him two options, I tell him either he can shut the fuck up or he can have a taste of the Colt 45. Then... this shit's ridiculous... he asks me again...now I'm a nice guy, but by this time I'm really frustrated, so I put the gun up to his head and I tell him, I says "I'm not playing with you, you can leave now , or you can die right here." So he walks up into the front, and out into the road, and he gets hit by a deli truck.

Thank you,
His Son,
><>ONIWarrior17<><
I Peter 3:15

Christianity is a cancer and a delusion.

http://russellsteapot.com/images/rsgallery/original/001100000.jpg

So I'm reading this thread and I says to myself, I says "What's with this guy?" Then, he sits me down and tells me how it is, he says "I'm starting this thread, you know, it's about christians, so like what do you think?" So I, being the generous guy that I am, I set him strait, I tells him "What the fuck kind of question is that?" I says "When you're dealing with these types around here, you know the types I'm talking about...when you're with these types, you have to be more specific, they won't let you slide on that vague shit you know what I'm saying? Yeah, you know what I'm saying...but hey. Let me explain it deeper, because I get the feeling that you might just be that stupid. Now if you want these people to give you a serious answer, you'l have to be more specific...you see, these people...they're all about the specifics, if you throw in some vague shit, you're gonna get some vague shit back-" Then this guy, can you believe this shit...so he interupts me mid-sentence and shit and he has the balls to ask me what do I think about christians. So then I looks him dead in the eye and I tells him "You better listen good broad... if you ever interupt me again.. I PROMISE,"no that's not what I said to him, "I GUARANTEEs that I will smack the shit out you." In the midst of all this, he again asks me the same question. This time...I'm not going to lie to you guys, I was pretty mad by this point... so I takes him out back and I gives him two options, I tell him either he can shut the fuck up or he can have a taste of the Colt 45. Then... this shit's ridiculous... he asks me again...now I'm a nice guy, but by this time I'm really frustrated, so I put the gun up to his head and I tell him, I says "I'm not playing with you, you can leave now , or you can die right here." So he walks up into the front, and out into the road, and he gets hit by a deli truck.

Really funny story honestly I got your point. You have a great imaginition, but why a Colt 45.? Why not a sawn-off shotgun? I mean really that would be my choice. Or why not go Lucas on it and pull out a lightsaber or two. Our a shoe, in austin powers the hitman had a shoe. "I mean honestly who throws a shoe?" You call my stuff crap?! Your imagination doesnt leave the weapons of the mafia. If you are going to waste your time being sarcastic by writing a story dont end it where someone dies like that. I mean really at least sound brave and fire a couple of shots. In all the time you did that you could have just answered the question. so to put a spin on things (tap into your imagination again and use the voice of mike meyers in austin powers for this next statement. "Honestly who throws crap."
Is my question really vague though? DId you not understand the question? Do you have any thoughts on the matter besides stories? But really all sarcasm aside I really did like your story, it was good, still in my opion I would have pulled out a tommy gun or something and made the other guy have at least a spoon, because when you threaten an unarmed person it doesnt make you look tough it makes you look stupid. LOL to quote the oh so great Will Ferrel in austin powers "I'm not dead yet!"

My goal is not to tick you off but for you to answer the question. You don't have too really. Just don't say anything. If you want me to be more specific about something let me know I really dont mind. But really answer the question.

Thankyou,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><

The Nicene Creed encapsulates Christianity:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.

Haha Spidergoat, good one!

I know everyone has got something to say so please don't hold back.
Is that so?

Spider: Fucking excellent 'toon. It like sums up the entire idiocy of christianity in 3 small boxes. Wicked.

Interestingly an anagram of 'the christian' is 'he antichrist'....although I must stress this is a joke and I am tolerant of most (except in sci forums)....and I have no beef with Jesus or people like him if they existed. I think he was a right-on socialist hippie and circumstantial evidence suggests he took magic mushrooms...right-on dude...crrr-azy.
I don't mean this as any offence to anyone and it is only my own personal opinion.

Also, why is Jesus never depicted laughing?

Probably because you've seen all the depictions of Jesus that have ever existed. ;)

To Warrior61:

Christians are those who are united in God through Jesus.

No matter which Christian you meet and what they believe, you can be sure they'll fit into that definition.

Spider: Fucking excellent 'toon. It like sums up the entire idiocy of christianity in 3 small boxes. Wicked.Or maybe the christianity of complete idiots? :)

Christians are a group of people who found a source of happiness and joy in their life, real or not, and show it off often, wanting to share it. Angry, prideful pathetic people then attempt to ridicule them out of jealousy.

Actually I ridicule them because they are like kids going on about their invisible friend.

I know Christians can be good people, sincere and honest in their beliefs, some of them are my friends, but they have to expect some ridicule.

Like any other group, there is more variation of good and bad within the group than between other groups.
My only problem is the fact that they think everyone should believe the same as them (subconscious/sublimated insecurity about belief)...this is facism.

Actually I ridicule them because they are like kids going on about their invisible friend.

*************
M*W: Well, why not ridicule them? If you saw a kid on the street corner with a crack pipe, wouldn't you say something to him? I would. I think most christians want and expect ridicule, just like children starve for discipline. It shows somebody cares when others make fools of themselves.

As for ridiculing christians in general, no, I won't do that, especially if I were somewhere in their "territory" and not in my own, like a public place, for instance. I will respect their choice to believe what they want to believe, but when christians come to sciforums, that's a whole nother story. When they come here to a science-based forum proclaiming their invisible friend is real, they set themselves up for ridicule. I'm convinced that's why they come here -- to convert the atheists and to preach to us to confirm what they erroneously believe. Sciforums is open to the public, but when christians come here, they are begging for ridicule... and they usually get it!

I have to say, it seems the above account is correct. The most ridiculed people I have seen in physical real life are atheists.

Most people I have met believe in some form of conscious presence that directs the evolution of this place we live in.

In most settings I've been, the atheists, who usually turn out (for some strange reason) to be the most tactless, unprincipled, "strange" people around usually get ridiculed because of that. Somewhat like they lack "social awareness" or something... :confused:

I of course love everybody, and usually feel sorry for the poor sods because of the hell they get themselves into for living without some guiding principle above themselves.

Ineed, you should celebrate sciforums atheists, as indeed, the real world is religious territory. Apparently this little corner is one of the few places cowardly and insecure little atheists can come out of the closet.

At least the ones I've met in real life are sturdy enough in themselves to stand up for their belief (or lack thereof)... however you want to see it.

"Apparently this little corner is one of the few places cowardly and insecure little atheists can come out of the closet."

Well there was the Enlightenment and the establishment of secular democracy...

I have to say, it seems the above account is correct. The most ridiculed people I have seen in physical real life are atheists.

Most people I have met believe in some form of conscious presence that directs the evolution of this place we live in.

In most settings I've been, the atheists, who usually turn out (for some strange reason) to be the most tactless, unprincipled, "strange" people around usually get ridiculed because of that. Somewhat like they lack "social awareness" or something... :confused:

I of course love everybody, and usually feel sorry for the poor sods because of the hell they get themselves into for living without some guiding principle above themselves.

Ineed, you should celebrate sciforums atheists, as indeed, the real world is religious territory. Apparently this little corner is one of the few places cowardly and insecure little atheists can come out of the closet.

At least the ones I've met in real life are sturdy enough in themselves to stand up for their belief (or lack thereof)... however you want to see it.

If this is true it is not right. Everyone should have the right to their belief or disbelief. I see no reason why atheists should not have the same freedom that theists have.

We really should grow out of this tendency to discriminate against those who are different from us.

If this is true it is not right. Everyone should have the right to their belief or disbelief. I see no reason why atheists should not have the same freedom that theists have.

We really should grow out of this tendency to discriminate against those who are different from us.

Theistical assertions are bound to the theists identity quite tightly. Atheists falsification of those assertions are a direct threat to Theists identity (to the Theist, the Atheist is perceived as trying to kill them); hence, the response can be expectedly negative.

Theistical assertions are bound to the theists identity quite tightly. Atheists falsification of those assertions are a direct threat to Theists identity (to the Theist, the Atheist is perceived as trying to kill them); hence, the response can be expectedly negative.

Can't be that tightly bound if they are threatened by other people's beliefs or lack of them.

Can't be that tightly bound if they are threatened by other people's beliefs or lack of them.

It's quite the opposite. A theist/atheist telling (or proving) another theist he is objectively wrong is the equivelant of an intent of murder in the mind of the receiving theist.

It's quite the opposite. A theist/atheist telling (or proving) another theist he is objectively wrong is the equivelant of an intent of murder in the mind of the receiving theist.

No one can effectively prove another objectively wrong, only relatively so.

Until everyone accepts that everyone else has the right to his/her belief, people will defend their right to their own.

But Sam, Islam pledges to subdue the world, how does that fit into to your wonderful idealism?

No one can effectively prove another objectively wrong, only relatively so.

I am using the defining 'wrong' in this context as 'incorrect'. You can prove an assertion as being objectively incorrect.


Until everyone accepts that everyone else has the right to his/her belief, people will defend their right to their own.

I think its more important to understand that 'rights' don't objectively exist and then grant behavior that society values without contradiction.

I am using the defining 'wrong' in this context as 'incorrect'. You can prove an assertion as being objectively incorrect.

Depends on what you believe. And there is nothing for either to gain, much to lose.



I think its more important to understand that 'rights' don't objectively exist and then grant behavior that society values without contradiction.

Most people are willing to meet halfway, few are willing to give up their identities. Its up to the society to decide whether they want to fight it out or compromise. Both are possible.

Depends on what you believe. And there is nothing for either to gain, much to lose.

Well it doesn't depend what is believed. It only depends on what reality says is true. Every technical, medical, etc. advancement is based on objective reality; hence, there is alot to gain if truth, objective knowledge, quality of health, etc. are valued.



Most people are willing to meet halfway, few are willing to give up their identities. Its up to the society to decide whether they want to fight it out or compromise. Both are possible.

I suspect objective knowledge will get to a point where thiests will be in a bind. What happens when people discover how to reproduce consciousness? The concept of 'soul' becomes objectively disproven and linked religious assertions fall through the ground.

Compromise is a temporary application and I don't think it can sustain long term. It is my opinion that the best theistical minds and non-theistical minds could work to invent a new religion that provides for the psychological needs of people and can be reality compatible/adaptable... and of course market the hell out of it.

I see it as a philosophy based in a lack of personal moral responsibility - all wrong doings and indiscretions are handed over to a third party (Jesus) in order to be washed away as long as you believe that he was/is an agent of the divine.
Christianity is essentially a pact made with a mythical historical figure, you enter into that pact by obeying 'the rules' and living a virtuous life according to that individuals specific valuesystem.
By obeying those rules you earn yourself a get out of jail free card which garantees that any earthly sins you commit wont be held against you in the after life.
I wouldnt go as far as to say that christianity is the 'worst' religion out there, but id certainly say its the most personally irresponsible on an ethical level. Chrisitians are essentially children in that they cannot shoulder the responsiblity of their own misdeeds.

It gets even better. In Christianity you supposedly have free will; however, your actions are always binary. You are either doing 'Gods' will or 'Satans'. The contradiction is obvious because there is no option for doing your own will and it means you have no responsibility because its either 'Gods' will or 'Satans' will. But when you die you are held accountable (regardless of a lack of responsibility)... but as you said you could then use the Jesus card and wipe away the events resulting from Satans will.

Its a great message. All people have no responsibility and if you become a Chirstian then you also have no accountability!

Forgiven by faith, and faith is a gift from God, but it must be accepted.

Lather my purple apocalyptic eating pony with felt snausage puppies.

What's the difference between a preachy atheist and a preachy Christian?

an imaginary entity?

What's the difference between a preachy atheist and a preachy Christian?

A preachy athiest gives their views to others.

A preachy theist gives Gods views to others.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

31 flavors of bullshit?

This is to anyone. To any person who reads this please answer.

What is a Christian? What do you think they believe? Please give any other thoughts on Christianity that you might want to say.

I know everyone has got something to say so please don't hold back.

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
I Peter 3:15

A Christian believes Jesus.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

So anyway,

An engineer finds himself standing at the pearly gates. He asks St. Peter to open up and St. Peter says "No my poor fellow, you are in the wrong place" and snaps his fingers.

The engineer finds himself suddenly in hell. He looks around and is appalled at the conditions and decides to make some changes.

Some time later, god calls down to satan to see how things are going. Satan says "Oh just great! We have an engineer you know. We have central air now, and escalators, and..."

God says "What? That's clearly a mistake. Send him back up at once!"

Of course satan says "No way in hell!"

God retorts "Well then, be prepared for a nasty lawsuit."

Satan replies "Oh yeah? And just where are you going to find a laywer?"

:D

I've heard a few variants on that and they always make me laugh!

I've heard a few variants on that and they always make me laugh!
Yep. That one's out of a Readers Digest.

This is to anyone. To any person who reads this please answer.

What is a Christian? What do you think they believe? Please give any other thoughts on Christianity that you might want to say.

I know everyone has got something to say so please don't hold back.

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><
I Peter 3:15

There is nothing wrong with your question! I think it is rather a good one!
Anyone who is truly inquiring about truth will likely at least ask it at some point in their life.

The problem is with the answer!

You see, every Christian is different. Some believe that you are saved by God's choice and election without any freewill decision of your own. Some believe that you are saved on the basis of your freewill decision. Some believe that you are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Some believe that you are saved by faith through works. Some believe that you are saved by faith plus works. Some believe that you must be baptized to be saved. Some do not. The list goes on and on and on and on and on...

So one definition of a Christian might be that... "No two Christians are the same!"

There is a lot more to say and study, I have been trying to figure it out for 25 years, but this is where it all starts.

Regards

"So one definition of a Christian might be that... "No two Christians are the same!"
With respect, no two people are the same...variation could not be considered as a common denominator in defining a Christian.

A preachy athiest gives their views to others.

A preachy theist gives Gods views to others.

A point of correction:

A preachy atheist gives his views to others;
A preachy theist gives what he believes are a god's views to others.

A point of correction:

A preachy atheist gives his views to others;
A preachy theist gives what he believes are a god's views to others.

Another correction :)

A preachy atheist gives his views and reality's views to others;
A preachy theist gives his views and what he believes are a god's views to others.

A preachy atheist's views are contextualised by a rational secular ecology.

A preachy theist's views are always right...if one believes that to be true.

Atheists have their heads down the ol' ostrich hole.

"So one definition of a Christian might be that... "No two Christians are the same!"
With respect, no two people are the same...variation could not be considered as a common denominator in defining a Christian.

I agree that no two people are the same. I am just trying to say that this fact does not disappear in Christianity at all. Christianity is not a one gospel fits all religion. There are many different gospels or "ways to be saved" within it. The fact that these differences in belief exist, and originate from the same text, the Bible, is a common denominator or framework to me, at least. But I do understand where you are coming from.

Thanks

The thread’s title “Christians: Your thoughts” is an oxymoron.

There isn’t a single thought amongst their billions of mindless minds.

The accurate title should read: “Christians: Regurgitate the thoughts of another you have accepted as absolutely irrefutable, because of mental and psychological deficiencies, no matter how absurd and childish they sound”

Then why are Christians so successful, hmmmmm?

Then why are Christians so successful, hmmmmm?Because they are malleable.
The system can manipulate them easily. They lack the intelligence to know any better and are easily convinced about what suits them.

An ant is successful for the very same reasons.
The individual ant is so dumb and lacks any sense of identity that it becomes the perfect conforming creature. Its stupidity is useful to the whole.

But how quantity usurps quality is a natural phenomenon. It is what drives upward evolution.
A cell is easily assimilated into the unity of the body because it lacks a brain to make it independent and resistant.

One must also take into account population pressures.
The current popular religions all started during a period and in a place where population pressures and resource management made necessary the acceptance of a more dim-witted, submissive mind.


The larger the unity the more stupid its parts must become, so as to harmonize more easily with one another.

But what is “successful”?
Using what standard are Christian deemed successful by?
Dim-wit!

Atheists have their heads down the ol' ostrich hole.

Out of interest, and perhaps pertinent to your statement..

Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand, (or holes for that matter). You see, if you were more like an atheist you wouldn't have just assumed that they do contrary to evidence but would have followed the evidence to a truthful conclusion.

Oh and no, we don't just use 10% of our brains either.. Well, perhaps theists do.

"I agree that no two people are the same. I am just trying to say that this fact does not disappear in Christianity at all."

I take your point but I didn't want there to be a misunderstanding that variation is a trait peculiar to Christianity.

"I agree that no two people are the same. I am just trying to say that this fact does not disappear in Christianity at all."

I take your point but I didn't want there to be a misunderstanding that variation is a trait peculiar to Christianity.

You are correct, of course!

Thank You

Thank you too - you make some good points in your thread. I found that anthropology, particularly cross-cultural anthropology, offers fascinating insights into belief structures.
Another interesting angle is if one takes the perspective that the search for belief is a search for a ritual one can believe in. We all, whether scientist, atheist, or 'believer in faith' construct our world through ritual of some description.

Then why are Christians so successful, hmmmmm?

I believe Christianity is a successful social strategy. It is the end product of evolutionary change. This meme replicated, changed, forms were selected, and the successful forms prospered. It promotes fertility, community, and exploitation of resources, and includes it's own self-defense mechanisms. It's very much like a virus. I wouldn't consider it's success to be supportive of it's truth (after all, Islam is more successful).

Agreed Spidergoat...its all in the memes - I can imagine an ancient monkey sitting there looking at the beautiful sunset and thinking: "What the @*£k is this all about then?" Art and science and religion emerged as methodologies to attempt to find an explanation...

Agreed Spidergoat...its all in the memes - I can imagine an ancient monkey sitting there looking at the beautiful sunset and thinking: "What the @*£k is this all about then?" Art and science and religion emerged as methodologies to attempt to find an explanation...

And we are all still trying to find an explanation.

A rich lady dies and upon entering heaven she is given a bike from St. Peter.
She asks Peter "why do I have a bike?"
He laughs and says "this is your gift according to your works on earth."
Confused she then proceeds to ride her bike through heaven and sees her old maid pulling out of a giant mansion driving a Bentley. Confused she rides off to find Peter and asks him "How does my old maid have a mansion and a car when I have a bike?"
Peter responds "You should be happy your pastor is somewhere around here on rollerskates."

This joke is funny but really sad. To address the moral freedom of Christians I would have to say it is true. This joke addresses the ideas of Christianity. People think its a bunch of "rules" to follow to get to heaven. A system of rewards more or less. That is not what the Bible tells us. The reason a Christian strives to do "good" works is for the sole purpose of love. Before I continue I would really like to apologize for Christians who have gotten heated and angry at you during debates or any ridicule you have recieved from them. I am a Christian and I can see how you could have views on Christianity that it is crazy. I have read how Christians have acted to you and I appreciate you not hurting them physically(atleast I hope you havent) and I hope I dont aggrivate anyone. I see Christians respond to athiests and others saying "their just stupid" well I am always in judgement because the truth is they are not stupid. I learn so much from reading on SciForums. The truth is their words are out of ignorance. The Church (Christians) have failed in teaching. I hope I can shed some light on your understanding of Christians.

Firstly I want to address Salvation.
It is true I believe it is a gift from God. There is no work that I or anyone could do to obtain salvation, nothing. Well that hurts some "christians" because they want some sense of control. If you come across a Christian saying they actually did something tell them to no longer sing Amazing Grace. I believe the only way to Heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ who took my punishment. To be in the presence of the Father you have to be "righteous" which is right standing with God. Righteousness is only obtained through Faith not works. To become righteous you have to be without sin. The terms "washed" and "cleansed" are adequate. The earlier comic was pretty funny. I know that Jesus dying to satisfy Himself seems stupid. I believe in the Triunity, or trinity of God. My proof is because the Bible says so. I know you have heard that one before but I see the Bible as infallible so I believe it is true. I also believe in the Ressurection of Jesus. I see it necessary for salvation. I also believe in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth.
This is the necessary beliefs of a Christian. If they dont believ the above then they are not a Christian. Also the belief of Eternity and an life after death would also be neccessary.

Secondly I want to adress the ethics of a Christian.
Good means morally perfect. I believe good works are done soley for the purpose of pleasing Christ and actual desire too. The bad, or sin, would be disobedience to Christ. Good works are just consequences of Salvation. I also believe in the moral freedom of Christians, but I do no endorse sin or use it as an excuse but only as proof of the awesome love of my God.

Now to address some of the posts.
To SetiAlpha6:
Thankyou for your atittude towards me and others. To inform you though I can show you more than two Christians who believe the same thing. LOL yes they are different people but they have the same beliefs. You will find in about every religion you can find agreeing people; but concerning Christians if they believe the things I wrote about salvation then I wont question their salvation however there are plenty of Christians that I disagree with on things.

To Satyr:
I am sorry you do not think my title is appropriate. But thankyou for showing your intelligence by bieng more concerned with the title than the actual thread. Good goin! Oh and what is your idea of success?

To SnakeLord: Thankyou for teaching me something about ostriches. Seriously this is not sarcasm. I dont know what you think of "king of the hill" but there is a funny episode concerning Emoos (I am pretty sure thats not how you spell it)

To Crunchy Cat:
Is consciousness tangible? How can it be reproduced? I assume you are talking about cloning and if so please continue because I really would like to know more about it.
Thankyou,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><

Here is another joke.

This old man dies and finds himself in front of the Pearly Gates.
Peter tells him before he can enter he needs to spell a word. Peter tells him to spell "LOVE." The man does it and enters. Peter gets called to go talk to God so Peter tells the old man to take his spot for a while and if any one comes have them to spell a word before you let them in. Peter leaves and not five minutes later the mans wife appears. She explains that they were leaving his funeral and got in a car accident. He says "OH." After a few seconds she tells him to let her in. He says well you have to spell a word correctly first. She asks for the word and he replies "Czechoslovakia."

Exactly....although some methodologies are rational whilst others require irrationality.

But the bible is not infallible or even consistent.

Very consistent, written by many authors through millenia, a miracle in and of itself.

Which version?

*************
M*W: Well, why not ridicule them? If you saw a kid on the street corner with a crack pipe, wouldn't you say something to him? I would. I think most christians want and expect ridicule, just like children starve for discipline. It shows somebody cares when others make fools of themselves.

As for ridiculing christians in general, no, I won't do that, especially if I were somewhere in their "territory" and not in my own, like a public place, for instance. I will respect their choice to believe what they want to believe, but when christians come to sciforums, that's a whole nother story. When they come here to a science-based forum proclaiming their invisible friend is real, they set themselves up for ridicule. I'm convinced that's why they come here -- to convert the atheists and to preach to us to confirm what they erroneously believe. Sciforums is open to the public, but when christians come here, they are begging for ridicule... and they usually get it!


Hmm. Well God bless them for having the balls to preach what they believe in outside their "territory." You are a gutless wonder. You proclaim your beliefs left and right around those who agree, but when conflict arises (excluding the internet where anyone can say anything) you won't stand up and stick to your guns? I think we should just start calling you an atheistic zealout with that tenacious attitude.

A quality that many Christians are proud of is the willingness of people to be martyred for their belief in Jesus Christ. I doubt you can say the same concerning atheism


Lemme know when you are strong enough in your convictions to pipe up in the belly of the beast. Until then I have no desire to debate you or any cowardly atheist for that matter.

The Bible version.

But what is “successful”?
Using what standard are Christian deemed successful by?
Dim-wit!



Yeah Christians. We're not too successful. Not like we are the biggest world religion and have affected the course of human kind more than any other religion in the past 2000 years.


Please Satyr, just leave me and my band of Indigenous Christian witch doctors alone in our secluded sects.

If you want a powerful religion, I suggest contacting the confuciasts. There is a powerful religion, on the broadest of scales.

A quality that many Christians are proud of is the willingness of people to be martyred for their belief in Jesus Christ. I doubt you can say the same concerning atheism

This is exactly the reason I choose science as a methodology...

The Bible version.

Which bible?

Any of the standard translations.

So we have established that there is variation in translations; roughly how many different versions are there?

To SetiAlpha6:
Thankyou for your atittude towards me and others. To inform you though I can show you more than two Christians who believe the same thing. LOL yes they are different people but they have the same beliefs.

O.K. I was wrong. You can find three. I stand corrected. Thanks!


You will find in about every religion you can find agreeing people; but concerning Christians if they believe the things I wrote about salvation then I wont question their salvation however there are plenty of Christians that I disagree with on things.

Ahh... But they will question your salvation. In fact, you probably would have been killed by earlier Christians in the 16th century for teaching your version of salvation. Check out "Foxes Book of Martyrs" sometime.

Regards

So we have established that there is variation in translations; roughly how many different versions are there?

I think, that http://www.biblegateway.com/ has about 50 different online versions. There have to be more than this though, in reality.

So which one is the true one?

They contradict each other in translation variances between the different ones and each individual one also contradicts itself on many internal topics as well. Yet each one is supposed to be the "Word of God".

Maybe in 'godworld' this is rational?

The sins of the father (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph)

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

You can find a whole bunch more than three. The post I put on salvation is the heart of Christianity. It is what Jesus' message was. I know I would have probably been killed but I am telling you they had it wrong. What is your thoughts on Martyrs?
Thankyou,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

Not much room for civilized debate there then?

I think I'll stick to the SciForum for now...

Hmm. Well God bless them for having the balls to preach what they believe in outside their "territory." You are a gutless wonder. You proclaim your beliefs left and right around those who agree, but when conflict arises (excluding the internet where anyone can say anything) you won't stand up and stick to your guns? I think we should just start calling you an atheistic zealout with that tenacious attitude.

A quality that many Christians are proud of is the willingness of people to be martyred for their belief in Jesus Christ. I doubt you can say the same concerning atheism

Lemme know when you are strong enough in your convictions to pipe up in the belly of the beast. Until then I have no desire to debate you or any cowardly atheist for that matter.

*************
M*W: Then why are you here? You come to a scientific forum to preach your Jesus crap! You're the one who believes in an invisible friend. I believe in what can be proven by science. I believe in education and research including those things which I don't believe in. You are an intellectually dishonest theist. When there are umpteen zillion christian forums on the Internet, you come to an atheist forum. If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is. And since you don't want to debate or discuss anything with me or the other atheists here, why don't you go away and stick your head up your ass where it belongs?

I'll second that...

You can find a whole bunch more than three. The post I put on salvation is the heart of Christianity. It is what Jesus' message was. I know I would have probably been killed but I am telling you they had it wrong.


I agree that you can find many different large groups that have been programmed to believe in as many different Christian gospels, or ways of salvation. There are millions of Christians even today that would disagree with your version of salvation.

You say they are wrong, and they say you are wrong.

Some of these groups have become so arrogant in their own belief system, that they will not hesitate to damn to hell any "Christian" who disagrees with their own interpretations of the Bible. And historically there have even been instances of genocide with "Christian" killing "Christian" simply over doctrinal differences. Not a very good witness to the "world" is it? On this basis alone, why should anyone believe in your version or theirs?

This model for genocide is nestled within the golden pages of the Bible that every young child carries into Sunday school each and every week. If you make even the smallest attempt to find it written there, you will.


What is your thoughts on Martyrs?


If you mean, what do I think about "Fox’s Book of Martyrs", I would recommend reading it to anyone, no matter what your beliefs, in the same way that I would recommend learning about the Holocaust in Germany. So that history might not be repeated.

Thank You!

Asking a Christian for his thoughts is like asking a blind man for directions to the nearest sunglasses store.

And asking a atheist for his is like asking the close loser of a race whether he thinks he won or not. Regardless of the mounds of evidence to the contrary he still remains stubborn as ever.

LOL It's funny that Redefine91 has posted a rebuttal that fits the typical theist to a tee...

And asking a atheist for his is like asking the close loser of a race whether he thinks he won or not. Regardless of the mounds of evidence to the contrary he still remains stubborn as ever.

Sorry could you explain that metaphor please?

I don't understand what the race represents...

And asking a atheist for his is like asking the close loser of a race whether he thinks he won or not. Regardless of the mounds of evidence to the contrary he still remains stubborn as ever.Huh?

“Mounting evidence”?

Please provide such mythological mountains.

I can’t wait.

That was a metaphor?
Are you retarded….oh yes you are, I forgot.

I think there is a certain kind of Christianity in the US which is very close to fascism, the megachurch evangelical apocalyptic Left Behind crowd. They give ordinary Christians a bad name.

They are certainly a facist force in science education...remember Scopes.

The "Left Behind" crowd is about half the American Christians, the other half are mostly Catholics and other Dominion theologists.

Euro Christians, I guess, don't preach much about Revelation and endtimes prophecy, so I guess spidergoat thinks the Euro way is the way.

That's just the wedge, they aim to take over government entirely.

Are you retarded….oh yes you are, I forgot.


Satyr, why do you feel the need to break forum rules in this way?

I'm always concerned when one group is so insecure about the validity of their cosmology that they need others to form a consensus reality in order to sustain the fallacy...and this consensus is formed not through the natural logic of reason - but through brainwashing.

Yes, the Darwinists are a sight to behold.

What is your visual description of 'Darwinists'?

Visual description?

What do Darwinists look like?

Yes, the Darwinists are a sight to behold.

sight...vision...describe visual component of Darwinists, please.

Give me an example please.

"Yes, the Darwinists are a sight to behold." (Source see above)

The "Left Behind" crowd is about half the American Christians, the other half are mostly Catholics and other Dominion theologists.

Euro Christians, I guess, don't preach much about Revelation and endtimes prophecy, so I guess spidergoat thinks the Euro way is the way.

Note the almost militant nationalism and xenophobia, as well as denial of science.

Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.

Scopes trial?

What about it?

Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.

WE TRIED FOR 16 PAGES, YOU RESPONDED WITH "SMELL TEST", a personal expression of incredulity. Not a valid argument.

Billions of people agree with me.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm

Billions of people agree with me.

Prove this please.

Billions of people agree with me.

*************
M*W: Name one.

Billions of people agree with me.

Also not a valid argument.

My reading of the subtext of the 'Scopes' trial suggests: One can simultaneously have theist beliefs and observe Darwinian mechanisms as evident.

Note that the church once persecuted people who disagreed with the biblical notion the the Sun moved around the Earth....science and rationalism changed this and now most 'believers' agree this to be true.

So it is with Darwinism...

IAC.... you sure like a good debate and I enjoy our conversations...no personal offence is ever intended and I respect the fact that whilst I may disagree with someone's ideology I have to remember that it is personal to them and helps to form their self-image.

In the spirit of good science I would recommend that issues such as: evolutionary cosmology, exobiology, origin of life, panspermia, etc. are far better places to identify areas where phenomena could be easily misinterpreted as a 'divine creator'/god.

Teilhard de Chardin is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.-A rational mind accepts the idea that there are errors to its every reasoning and is willing to discuss them with minds that hold the same basic premise to be true about their own reasoning. Skepticism is the method the rational mind uses to remain as objective as possible, and to retain its intellectual integrity and seriousness.

-A rational mind is willing to debate a probability, based on the common assumption that sensual interpretations are the most reliable source of human experience (in fact it is human experience), but will not waste its time debating an imagined, hypothetical possibility based entirely on hearsay or a supposed supernatural dimension in which normal human experience, of what is probable and what is not, does not hold true and denying the basic first assumption that sensual information is the starting point to any rational debate.

-A rational mind maintains a consistency in its reasoning; applying the same stringent standards of discovering truth and fact and reality and not resorting to double or triple methods of measuring what is probable, as the circumstances suit its needs or preferences. To do otherwise is to invent different logical standards depending on emotional and psychological needs and constituting any debate a farce about whose imagination can invent the best plausibility in support of what it can provide no other empirical or rational argument for.

-A rational mind remains honest, both to others but, especially, to itself recognizing its own human frailties and so maintaining no perspective as being absolute or certain; judging the plausibility of any hypothesis on the grounds of its common adherence to common sense, logic and empirical, sensual standards.

-A rational mind will not lower itself to the level of its opposite by legitimizing it through serious consideration, unless the one confronting it is able to present a viable, plausible, provable, commonly perceptible and sensually accessible argument.
To do otherwise is to waste one’s time debating fools, schizophrenics, neurotics, retarded ignorant minds and idiots about hypothetical realities for which no rational plausibility can be provided other than the "What if".

------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------
The tool of the modern Christian apologist is the turning-of-the-tables strategy in which the Christian closed mind accuses the opposition of what it is most guilty of, thusly eliminating this from its weakness or taking it away as a argument from the opposing side.
Also labeling things in the Orwellian opposite is a well established method of mind control.

For instance in the U.S. the media – the quintessential systemic tool of information dissemination – is dubbed ‘liberal’ to mask its conservative and unchallenging, to the status quo, character. In this way it wears the garments of what is its opposite nature.

In this case the Christian retarded mind unable to provide a single rational argument and relying on hearsay, faith and magical dimensions and creatures and unable to define basic words, maintaining their ambiguous insinuations, resorts to turning the tables on the doubters.

Here we have some people presenting a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is judged on the merit of its arguments, reasoning and evidence.
Being unable to show any mature thinking they are forced to fall back on emotional displays of desire and moral righteousness and imagining possible entities to explain the unknown, taking a single reference point as infallible and omnipotent, and from this building an edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and intellectual lies using double-talk, faulty reasoning and disingenuous motivations.

In science a hypothesis is judged by no less stringent standards. The presenter of a possible explanation for a phenomenon is burdened with the need to provide evidence and rational arguments in support of it. It isn’t the denier or skeptic that must disprove the hypothesis but only provide rational skepticism and point out the holes in the evidence and reasoning provided, so as to maintain that the hypothesis remains a hypothetical and not a certainty.

Absolute entities demand absolute evidence.
If no such evidence can be provided then it ceases to be an absolute and it becomes a hypothetical. This hypothetical is then judged as more or less plausible based on the evidence and reasoning at hand.

To do otherwise would open up as possible the existence of anything and everything based on blind faith, on another's opinion, and on the, similarly hypothetical, magical or supernatural dimension.
Here a hypothetical is used in support of another hypothetical creating an absurdity.

Having said all that…
Who the fuck cares what these imbeciles believe in?
Forums like this become the most popular because here the more reasonable and intellectually gifted can feel superior to the imbeciles and morons that frequent such places.
It is like a waterhole in a dry savannah.
Carnivores frequent the watering holes because here herd animals pool and become easy prey.

The prey cannot help itself, the waterhole is too attractive.
Here it can follow through with propagating the infection that burdens it. The meme, like the gene, contains in its programming a method of procreation.
Here ‘Doing God’s work’ is how this infection spreads.
Also here the religious herd legitimizes itself by mingling with what it superior to it.
It becomes respectable just by being taken seriously.

They can now claim that Creationism is a viable scientific theory, even if it lacks the basic scientific methodology behind it.

They’re only relevance comes from the fact that they are more numerous than the rational minds.
Mediocrity always makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

Nothing can break through those thick skulls. A rational mind becomes frustrated in its futile attempt to break through using reason.
In one instance the religious herd displays reason and humility.
Then, in the next, it turn and becomes irrational and arrogant.

They have a double-standard towards everything they need to remain psychologically healthy.
They equate happiness with ‘truth’ or emotion with reason and assume that all hypothetical concerning ‘fact’ must offer something positive in return.
They attach evolution Theory using what reason they can muster, as is their right as science invites criticism and challenge, but then deny that the same reason applies to their belief in Creationism.

Because of all this I have concluded that it is the supreme waste of my time to engage with these minds in any serious discussion.
Let them declare victory and reason away their rational ineptness.

Might as well reason with a dog to not lick its balls and asshole, based on my human opinions on hygiene and civility.
Instead I mock, belittle, humor and am entertained with their intellectual thrashing about .
That these people will live and die in complete darkness, is of no concern to me – let them take vengeance by imagining a hell for me. What does concern me is the political power these imbeciles posses, due to cultural reasons and their sheer numbers.
A herd of stampeding buffalos is dangerous, no matter what caused them to stampede or what clever mind started it and is directing them.

-A rational mind accepts the idea that there are errors to its every reasoning and is willing to discuss them with minds that hold the same basic premise to be true about their own reasoning. Skepticism is the method the rational mind uses to remain as objective as possible, and to retain its intellectual integrity and seriousness.

-A rational mind is willing to debate a probability, based on the common assumption that sensual interpretations are the most reliable source of human experience (in fact it is human experience), but will not waste its time debating an imagined, hypothetical possibility based entirely on hearsay or a supposed supernatural dimension in which normal human experience, of what is probable and what is not, does not hold true and denying the basic first assumption that sensual information is the starting point to any rational debate.

-A rational mind maintains a consistency in its reasoning; applying the same stringent standards of discovering truth and fact and reality and not resorting to double or triple methods of measuring what is probable, as the circumstances suit its needs or preferences. To do otherwise is to invent different logical standards depending on emotional and psychological needs and constituting any debate a farce about whose imagination can invent the best plausibility in support of what it can provide no other empirical or rational argument for.

-A rational mind remains honest, both to others but, especially, to itself recognizing its own human frailties and so maintaining no perspective as being absolute or certain; judging the plausibility of any hypothesis on the grounds of its common adherence to common sense, logic and empirical, sensual standards.

-A rational mind will not lower itself to the level of its opposite by legitimizing it through serious consideration, unless the one confronting it is able to present a viable, plausible, provable, commonly perceptible and sensually accessible argument.
To do otherwise is to waste one’s time debating fools, schizophrenics, neurotics, retarded ignorant minds and idiots about hypothetical realities for which no rational plausibility can be provided other than the "What if".

------------------ ----------------------- -------------------------
The tool of the modern Christian apologist is the turning-of-the-tables strategy in which the Christian closed mind accuses the opposition of what it is most guilty of, thusly eliminating this from its weakness or taking it away as a argument from the opposing side.
Also labeling things in the Orwellian opposite is a well established method of mind control.

For instance in the U.S. the media – the quintessential systemic tool of information dissemination – is dubbed ‘liberal’ to mask its conservative and unchallenging, to the status quo, character. In this way it wears the garments of what is its opposite nature.

In this case the Christian retarded mind unable to provide a single rational argument and relying on hearsay, faith and magical dimensions and creatures and unable to define basic words, maintaining their ambiguous insinuations, resorts to turning the tables on the doubters.

Here we have some people presenting a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is judged on the merit of its arguments, reasoning and evidence.
Being unable to show any mature thinking they are forced to fall back on emotional displays of desire and moral righteousness and imagining possible entities to explain the unknown, taking a single reference point as infallible and omnipotent, and from this building an edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and intellectual lies using double-talk, faulty reasoning and disingenuous motivations.

In science a hypothesis is judged by no less stringent standards. The presenter of a possible explanation for a phenomenon is burdened with the need to provide evidence and rational arguments in support of it. It isn’t the denier or skeptic that must disprove the hypothesis but only provide rational skepticism and point out the holes in the evidence and reasoning provided, so as to maintain that the hypothesis remains a hypothetical and not a certainty.

Absolute entities demand absolute evidence.
If no such evidence can be provided then it ceases to be an absolute and it becomes a hypothetical. This hypothetical is then judged as more or less plausible based on the evidence and reasoning at hand.

To do otherwise would open up as possible the existence of anything and everything based on blind faith, on another's opinion, and on the, similarly hypothetical, magical or supernatural dimension.
Here a hypothetical is used in support of another hypothetical creating an absurdity.

Having said all that…
Who the fuck cares what these imbeciles believe in?
Forums like this become the most popular because here the more reasonable and intellectually gifted can feel superior to the imbeciles and morons that frequent such places.
It is like a waterhole in a dry savannah.
Carnivores frequent the watering holes because here herd animals pool and become easy prey.

The prey cannot help itself, the waterhole is too attractive.
Here it can follow through with propagating the infection that burdens it. The meme, like the gene, contains in its programming a method of procreation.
Here ‘Doing God’s work’ is how this infection spreads.
Also here the religious herd legitimizes itself by mingling with what it superior to it.
It becomes respectable just by being taken seriously.

They can now claim that Creationism is a viable scientific theory, even if it lacks the basic scientific methodology behind it.

They’re only relevance comes from the fact that they are more numerous than the rational minds.
Mediocrity always makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

Nothing can break through those thick skulls. A rational mind becomes frustrated in its futile attempt to break through using reason.
In one instance the religious herd displays reason and humility.
Then, in the next, it turn and becomes irrational and arrogant.

They have a double-standard towards everything they need to remain psychologically healthy.
They equate happiness with ‘truth’ or emotion with reason and assume that all hypothetical concerning ‘fact’ must offer something positive in return.
They attach evolution Theory using what reason they can muster, as is their right as science invites criticism and challenge, but then deny that the same reason applies to their belief in Creationism.

Because of all this I have concluded that it is the supreme waste of my time to engage with these minds in any serious discussion.
Let them declare victory and reason away their rational ineptness.

Might as well reason with a dog to not lick its balls and asshole, based on my human opinions on hygiene and civility.
Instead I mock, belittle, humor and am entertained with their intellectual thrashing about .
That these people will live and die in complete darkness, is of no concern to me – let them take vengeance by imagining a hell for me. What does concern me is the political power these imbeciles posses, due to cultural reasons and their sheer numbers.
A herd of stampeding buffalos is dangerous, no matter what caused them to stampede or what clever mind started it and is directing them.


As a rational mind then, surely you can see that you have a problem with anger! You can see that, can't you Satyr?

Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.

*************
I believe in what can be proven by science.I wonder how many "things proven by science" she had in active thought when she typed this...

I'm guessing nothing? Lack of belief? [hint hint]

Anyone up for a bet? :D

Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.
Usually one has to understand a theory before dismissing it.

I agree that you can find many different large groups that have been programmed to believe in as many different Christian gospels, or ways of salvation. There are millions of Christians even today that would disagree with your version of salvation.

You say they are wrong, and they say you are wrong.

Some of these groups have become so arrogant in their own belief system, that they will not hesitate to damn to hell any "Christian" who disagrees with their own interpretations of the Bible. And historically there have even been instances of genocide with "Christian" killing "Christian" simply over doctrinal differences. Not a very good witness to the "world" is it? On this basis alone, why should anyone believe in your version or theirs?

This model for genocide is nestled within the golden pages of the Bible that every young child carries into Sunday school each and every week. If you make even the smallest attempt to find it written there, you will.

You are exactly right in "Christians" killing Christians. I am simply telling what I claim to be truth. I really cant stop people from saying they are Christians when they are not. I gave a clear description of the neccesities and beliefs about being a Christian. You say I say they are wrong and you are correct in your statement. Truth can not afford me to say they are correct. Then you will ask the need to call them wrong? They are a huge detriment to my Savior's message. The difference you will find in "Christian" religions and the actual Sons and Daughters of Christ is their message. They preach works and we preach Grace. Though they may use the same words they have very different conotations. Mormans and Jehovah Witnesses claim they are Christians but they are not. Which brings us to another point: Translations.
There are alot of translations of the Bible that are crap. This is what happens. I am not going to say that the Bibles now are the exact 100% replica, that would be non sense. 2000 years ago there wasnt a printing press so there is room for scribal error yes especially concerning geneologies, however I would say that what we have now is 99.7% accurate. That percentage goes down with each translation(usually). The Bible I have here at my desk is NIV translation and it has taken out a couple of things, however the prophecies and reports that it contains I believe happened. I dont claim to have a revelation or special insight. I believe the reports.

Thankyou,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Darwinists are notoriously unwilling to debate, so they say that they're above it, and they rarely cite any of the many glaring weaknesses in their theory, so they're just basically rolling around controlling the media with their official dogma, a total lack of intellectual honesty. This is one of the reasons that it doesn't pass the smell test.

Satyr, good science does not line-up with the Darwinian/Lyellian scheme, and billions of people know it, so you better come up with some new material, that junk like "panspermia" and "punctuated equilibrium" are just lame rationalizations which also don't pass the smell test, billions of people agree, so you've got a tough sell, but keep pluggin' along if you like.

You're an idiot...that's worse that the AIDS conspiracy.

The bible appears to be undergoing an 'evolution' then...

...sections which are selected as being fit in a particular time and locale give the subtext its form.

*************
M*W: Then why are you here? You come to a scientific forum to preach your Jesus crap!

hmm. Are Atheists telepathic as well? You seem so certain I came here for religion, to preach the gospel to ignorant morons such as yourself. Eh, wrong. I came here to debate politics and world issues and didn't have religion in mind until I saw some of the utterly brilliant pieces of Trash posted here.

You're the one who believes in an invisible friend.

Calling the relationship between Jesus and Christians one involving and "invisible" friend is like saying evolution say's we are all feces throwing apes. Get educated before you curse something you have no knowledge about.




When there are umpteen zillion christian forums on the Internet, you come to an atheist forum.

I also signed up with no idea of this being an atheist forum. I believe its called a scienceforum. I was under the impression that scientists could be men and women of religion. thanks for clearing that up!


And since you don't want to debate or discuss anything with me or the other atheists here,

I should rephrase. I'd like to debate Atheist strong enough in their beliefs to proclaim it where they willingly know it won't be accepted. I know saying "Christianity! Yeah man" is probably going to get some negative feedback on this forum. Yet I still have no problem saying it here, and face to face with anyone who wants to disagree. Take some notes on that, you might learn something yet!


why don't you go away and stick your head up your ass where it belongs?

That's very eloquent of you! What finishing school did you say you went to again? I do hope we can continue these debates in the future. Your posts basically leak intelligence.

The bible appears to be undergoing an 'evolution' then...

It would appear so. What causes it? Man. They change it and the majority of the time purposely.

Rather than attacking Darwinism, which after all is the best evidence of a miraculous unfolding of the creation of lifeforms, you would do better to examine the origin of a creed that denies the existence of such.

hmm. Are Atheists telepathic as well? You seem so certain I came here for religion, to preach the gospel to ignorant morons such as yourself. Eh, wrong. I came here to debate politics and world issues and didn't have religion in mind until I saw some of the utterly brilliant pieces of Trash posted here.



Calling the relationship between Jesus and Christians one involving and "invisible" friend is like saying evolution say's we are all feces throwing apes. Get educated before you curse something you have no knowledge about.






I also signed up with no idea of this being an atheist forum. I believe its called a scienceforum. I was under the impression that scientists could be men and women of religion. thanks for clearing that up!




I should rephrase. I'd like to debate Atheist strong enough in their beliefs to proclaim it where they willingly know it won't be accepted. I know saying "Christianity! Yeah man" is probably going to get some negative feedback on this forum. Yet I still have no problem saying it here, and face to face with anyone who wants to disagree. Take some notes on that, you might learn something yet!




That's very eloquent of you! What finishing school did you say you went to again? I do hope we can continue these debates in the future. Your posts basically leak intelligence.


No Cruel intention is ment in this question nor sarcasm, but is Jesus your savior?

Rather than attacking Darwinism, which after all is the best evidence of a miraculous unfolding of the creation of lifeforms, you would do better to examine the origin of a creed that denies the existence of such.

What?

No Cruel intention is ment in this question nor sarcasm, but is Jesus your savior?

He is.

I'd like to debate Atheist strong enough in their beliefs to proclaim it where they willingly know it won't be accepted.
Uh...I'm just going to laugh that off. You do know however, that athiests are a small minority worldwide, and most of us are willing to do that.
I know saying "Christianity! Yeah man" is probably going to get some negative feedback on this forum. Yet I still have no problem saying it here, and face to face with anyone who wants to disagree.
What do you want? Some brownies?
Take some notes on that, you might learn something yet!
I thought Jesus teaches you to be humble? Maybe you could start following your own beliefs a little better.

1. Key word in that sentence was most. I appear to have knocked heads with someone outside of the most.

2. Sure. I am terrribly hungry. Regardless, I was stating the point that I am not afraid to proclaim faith in a dominantly atheist community.

3. Ahh yeah but he was perfect. C'mon I get to have a little fun. Plus I am loving my enemy by giving it advice so Itleast I got one down

The tool of the modern Christian apologist is the turning-of-the-tables strategy in which the Christian closed mind accuses the opposition of what it is most guilty of, thusly eliminating this from its weakness or taking it away as a argument from the opposing side.
Also labeling things in the Orwellian opposite is a well established method of mind control.

For instance in the U.S. the media – the quintessential systemic tool of information dissemination – is dubbed ‘liberal’ to mask its conservative and unchallenging, to the status quo, character. In this way it wears the garments of what is its opposite nature.

In this case the Christian retarded mind unable to provide a single rational argument and relying on hearsay, faith and magical dimensions and creatures and unable to define basic words, maintaining their ambiguous insinuations, resorts to turning the tables on the doubters.

Here we have some people presenting a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is judged on the merit of its arguments, reasoning and evidence.
Being unable to show any mature thinking they are forced to fall back on emotional displays of desire and moral righteousness and imagining possible entities to explain the unknown, taking a single reference point as infallible and omnipotent, and from this building an edifice of hypocrisy, cowardice, and intellectual lies using double-talk, faulty reasoning and disingenuous motivations.

In science a hypothesis is judged by no less stringent standards. The presenter of a possible explanation for a phenomenon is burdened with the need to provide evidence and rational arguments in support of it. It isn’t the denier or skeptic that must disprove the hypothesis but only provide rational skepticism and point out the holes in the evidence and reasoning provided, so as to maintain that the hypothesis remains a hypothetical and not a certainty.

Absolute entities demand absolute evidence.
If no such evidence can be provided then it ceases to be an absolute and it becomes a hypothetical. This hypothetical is then judged as more or less plausible based on the evidence and reasoning at hand.

To do otherwise would open up as possible the existence of anything and everything based on blind faith, on another's opinion, and on the, similarly hypothetical, magical or supernatural dimension.
Here a hypothetical is used in support of another hypothetical creating an absurdity.

Having said all that…
Who the fuck cares what these imbeciles believe in?
Forums like this become the most popular because here the more reasonable and intellectually gifted can feel superior to the imbeciles and morons that frequent such places.
It is like a waterhole in a dry savannah.
Carnivores frequent the watering holes because here herd animals pool and become easy prey.

The prey cannot help itself, the waterhole is too attractive.
Here it can follow through with propagating the infection that burdens it. The meme, like the gene, contains in its programming a method of procreation.
Here ‘Doing God’s work’ is how this infection spreads.
Also here the religious herd legitimizes itself by mingling with what it superior to it.
It becomes respectable just by being taken seriously.

They can now claim that Creationism is a viable scientific theory, even if it lacks the basic scientific methodology behind it.

They’re only relevance comes from the fact that they are more numerous than the rational minds.
Mediocrity always makes up in quantity what it lacks in quality.

Nothing can break through those thick skulls. A rational mind becomes frustrated in its futile attempt to break through using reason.
In one instance the religious herd displays reason and humility.
Then, in the next, it turn and becomes irrational and arrogant.

They have a double-standard towards everything they need to remain psychologically healthy.
They equate happiness with ‘truth’ or emotion with reason and assume that all hypothetical concerning ‘fact’ must offer something positive in return.
They attach evolution Theory using what reason they can muster, as is their right as science invites criticism and challenge, but then deny that the same reason applies to their belief in Creationism.

Because of all this I have concluded that it is the supreme waste of my time to engage with these minds in any serious discussion.
Let them declare victory and reason away their rational ineptness.

Might as well reason with a dog to not lick its balls and asshole, based on my human opinions on hygiene and civility.
Instead I mock, belittle, humor and am entertained with their intellectual thrashing about .
That these people will live and die in complete darkness, is of no concern to me – let them take vengeance by imagining a hell for me. What does concern me is the political power these imbeciles posses, due to cultural reasons and their sheer numbers.
A herd of stampeding buffalos is dangerous, no matter what caused them to stampede or what clever mind started it and is directing them.

What is your darkness and light. I assume you associate darkness with ignorance and light with intelligence. I wonder though, since you have no care if you inform someone of their innerrancy, what you would be if no one informed you. Your ideas are not new. You have had to learn it somewhere. Why not help. I mean really everyone should just stay in the dark. You say Christians do not define words well you have failed to define intelligence. I assume you believe intelligence is of great assistance to moral choices so wouldn't leaving you in the dark, if someone would have, be wrong. I mean we all know now that you are not in the dark but you are shinning with intelligence. I am sorry I just need to no what separates the idiots from the geniuses because I need to know where I stand. Of course your idea of intelligence is based in your mind. You say speaking to idiots is a waste of your time well at one point wouldnt you have been an idiot. I mean intelligence could in no way be based on the potential of one persons ability to learn. I mean you did grow in your understanding of this world, yourself, and other subjects so at one point you crossed the line. So you had to be an idiot once, because there is no way you could possibly have an intelligent discussion with a baby because that baby's intelligence is no where near yours. So I say to you that you crossed a line because someone decided to waste their time to talk to an unintelligent person. I do not expect a response from you because you probably do not think I am on the same level as you. Oh before I forget, your perspective on Christian apologists is screwed. That is a method to make people feel guilty, but not to make them vunerable. People experience guilt because of some authority that requires moral obligation whether it be yourself, another, science, or God. Guilt is just a step a person takes toward salvation, but you know all this. To show you where you are wrong though I have no intention of making someone feel guilty, however I do have an intention to lead them to a point that would cause guilt. My intention is just to shine a little light.
Thankyou,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Without darkness there can be no light...

I do hope you stay on Sciforums. Me and Iceagecivilzations could use some help here.

1. Key word in that sentence was most. I appear to have knocked heads with someone outside of the most.

2. Sure. I am terrribly hungry. Regardless, I was stating the point that I am not afraid to proclaim faith in a dominantly atheist community.

3. Ahh yeah but he was perfect. C'mon I get to have a little fun. Plus I am loving my enemy by giving it advice so Itleast I got one down

No offense but this is why they think we are idiots. Sarcasm is different from blatant rude comments. They are just mad because they really do not think you belong here, and that they cannot make you leave. They can afford to be rude however we cannot. There morality has no affect on their arguments ours does. So honestly just because you get heated when they say something rude do not get angry laugh. Sarcasm is just humor in this place. Do not cross the sarcasm line by being mean. I really do understand your frustration but refrain please. Out of sincere Love do not do it. Be sarcastic though. If you question your sarcasm to be actually the wrong thing to say then do not put it. By the way remember this: "Remember the words I spoke to you: No servant is greater than his master." Also please look up I Peter 3:15 and Colossians 4:2-6
Thank you,
His on,
><>Warrior61<><

The bible appears to be undergoing an 'evolution' then...

...sections which are selected as being fit in a particular time and locale give the subtext its form.

It would appear so. What causes it? Man. They change it and the majority of the time purposely.

No, not man - the biological, environmental and cultural variables in a given time and locale.

I do hope you stay on Sciforums. Me and Iceagecivilzations could use some help here.

Thats what we scientists are here for...we can help you...you're welcome.

Ahh I wouldn't go so far as to be blamed for Atheist thinking us stupid.


We have dear people like Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and the entire westboro baptist church to blame for that.

No, not man - the biological, environmental and cultural variables in a given time and locale.



Thats what we scientists are here for...we can help you...you're welcome.

Ahhh yeah...

that was meant for Warrior61.

But you can stay too! :D

We have dear people like Ted Haggard...to blame for that.

Wasn't he the guy that tried to misrepresent Darwinism?

Maybe.


I don't know too much of him. He just gets hippocrite of the year award for getting his mack on

Without darkness there can be no light...

Your proof for that is what? Without darkness thre can be no light. Darkness is the abscence of light. Light exists with or with out darkness. Light reveals darkness. Darkness cannot exist without light. Anyway your statement just aids my previous argument. So intelligence does not exist without ignorance?

Ahh I wouldn't go so far as to be blamed for Atheist thinking us stupid.


We have dear people like Ted Haggard, Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen and the entire westboro baptist church to blame for that.


While that is true how does making rude comments aid your argument? They just get more attention. We aid sometimes in hurting Christianity, for example, every sin we commit.

No - darkness reveals light...

While that is true how does making rude comments aid your argument? They just get more attention. We aid sometimes in hurting Christianity, for example, every sin we commit.

I could have just started ringing off four letter words left and right in response to him telling me to put my head up my ass.


I simply provided counterpoints with some sass. These atheists HATE being patronized. I'm sure that if he realized I was so young he'd freak out. the angrier they get the more confused and redundant their preachings. So I tried to back him into a hole. I really don't think I stepped out of line.

No - darkness reveals light...

You contrast brightness with darkness. Light provides brightness.

I could have just started ringing off four letter words left and right in response to him telling me to put my head up my ass.


I simply provided counterpoints with some sass. These atheists HATE being patronized. I'm sure that if he realized I was so young he'd freak out. the angrier they get the more confused and redundant their preachings. So I tried to back him into a hole. I really don't think I stepped out of line.

That is your call. If you feel that way then that is all you. By the way you are not the only young one. Really though you can learn a whole lot here. Not teaching you just making a statement.

Thank you,
His son,
><>Warrior61<><

Not the only but probably the youngest.

I have learned a lot here. I used to hate muslims in general with every fiber in my body. But there were two people here whos defence of Muslims I lapped up like water until I realized there is two sides to every arguement.

Relax. Allow yourself to believe. Conformity is sexy. Decision making can be so taxing. Why not let us express your feelings? Everything has been designed for your comfort and convenience. World events are so complicated, take it easy, you can have it all. Revel in useless information.

Polemics get no-one anywhere and certainly not fast....engage in the dialect, respect the antithesis for what is is...a mirror to our own fulfilment.

Whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you want to know about religion my friend start with a little Marx...

Sure.

Christianity was a cult chosen (from many) by Rome to spread around empire...it was spin...it appealed to middle-class housewives and the young idealist...
...ring any bells?

http://xs311.xs.to/xs311/07053/124.jpg (http://xs.to)

I'm sure that if he realized I was so young he'd freak out.
Being young is no reason to be disrespectful. I've been on a lot of forums in the past few years, and for some reason everytime I got into an argument with the neo-nazis, my age was somehow part of the argument. Be happy that sciforums isn't like that. Just how young are you by the way?

http://xs311.xs.to/xs311/07053/299.jpg (http://xs.to)

http://xs311.xs.to/xs311/07053/clp_raptured_th.jpg (http://xs.to)

Christianity was a cult chosen (from many) by Rome to spread around empire... it was spin... it appealed to middle-class housewives and the young idealist...
...ring any bells?

*************
M*W: What do you think about the theory that the NT may have been written by certain influential Roman citizens as a parody on Jesus?

That's the most bizarre idea you've had yet, I think you should write a book about it, I know there's a crowd out there who would love to read it!

That's the most bizarre idea you've had yet, I think you should write a book about it, I know there's a crowd out there who would love to read it!

*************
M*W: Unfortunately, it's not my own idea. Other scholars have already written about it:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005.

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report, Francesco Carotta, Aspekt, 2005.

Fascinating.

I assume you've read up on this then and that you are prepared to engage in a critique of the salient points?

No, there doesn't seem to be a tidal wave of interest by historians in the hypothesis that Jesus was Julius Caesar, are you saying Julius Caesar was actually the first Pope, or something?

First salient point: Christianity was a religion chosen (as an 'opium of empire') for its appeal to middle-class housewives and young idealists.
Discuss.

No, there doesn't seem to be a tidal wave of interest by historians in the hypothesis that Jesus was Julius Caesar, are you saying Julius Caesar was actually the first Pope, or something?

Interesting to note that Julius Caesar also held the title of "son of god".

What is unique about the same old predator/prey ideology? Nothing. Jesus Christ is the sacrifice and the prey so others can "feed" off his "virtue," his "life-giving" qualities of "divinity."

The only difference is it has window dressing. Similar to when you go to a grocery store and you see the meat saran-wrapped and packaged oh so nicely.

I'd rather take a vitamin (it actually gives me a high), recycle my own garbage, and be responsible for my own actions and I expect others to do the same.

tooda loo

Being young is no reason to be disrespectful. I've been on a lot of forums in the past few years, and for some reason everytime I got into an argument with the neo-nazis, my age was somehow part of the argument. Be happy that sciforums isn't like that. Just how young are you by the way?

I do not know about redefined but I am 17. So why didnt you respond to my post earlier?

*************
M*W: Unfortunately, it's not my own idea. Other scholars have already written about it:

Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy To Invent Jesus, by Joseph Atwill, Ulysses Press, 2005.

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report, Francesco Carotta, Aspekt, 2005.

What qualifies a person to become a scholar? Did you say earlier that you believe what can be proven by science?

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><

This link outlines Atwill's thesis:

http://www.videoshoutout.com/view_video.php?viewkey=cbba1eea208541a643e7

This link contains criticisms of Atwill:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2930305#post2930305

What qualifies a person to become a scholar? Did you say earlier that you believe what can be proven by science?

Thank you,
His Son,
><>Warrior61<><

*************
M*W: Reading, reading, reading! Following that, writing, writing, writing! Following that, discussing, discussing, discussing!

Although that will only help one to become an amateur scholar, it is important to research the works of the real scholars and archeologists. One only requires a desire to learn to be a scholar as far as I'm concerned. For example, I'm a medical professional, but I spend more time reading about religions than I do about my profession. I still keep up professionally by reading and attending conferences and sometimes speaking, but my passion is figuring out religion. As we say in the medical field, "see one, do one, teach one."

The bible appears to be undergoing an 'evolution' then...Naturally... don't humans evolve? Their perspectives evolve? Their interpretations?...

Well there's biological evolution and cultural evolution (including the evolution of techniques, rituals and technology).
My original point, that you quote, refers to the idea that it is environmental variables that decide the fitness of a particular version of the bible (or an other text or ideology)...not man.

Being young is no reason to be disrespectful. I've been on a lot of forums in the past few years, and for some reason everytime I got into an argument with the neo-nazis, my age was somehow part of the argument. Be happy that sciforums isn't like that. Just how young are you by the way?

As I said earlier, everytime I am at odds with an atheist, I realize the worst thing you can do to them is talk down.

" Ahh I hope God opens your eyes one day my lost wondering friend "

Patronizing them get's them riled up and they resort to more "fuck you, fuck jesus blah blah" and less actual debate. and once that happens it's no difficult task to determine the more intellectual one, itleast in terms of civilized conversation.

Yawn...sleepy.

Well there's biological evolution and cultural evolution (including the evolution of techniques, rituals and technology).
My original point, that you quote, refers to the idea that it is environmental variables that decide the fitness of a particular version of the bible (or an other text or ideology)...not man.Fully understood.

Both, imho.

Man shapes his environment and culture as much as they shape him - feedback system.

Man is part of the environment...not distinct from it.

Man is a nexus in a complex inter-relational field.

Well one can freely think of man as separate or integral - depends on how useful the thought. Not sure which is better here. Nevertheless, I agree. ;)

I disagree - the idea that a human is distinct from their environment is an illusion.

As I said earlier, everytime I am at odds with an atheist, I realize the worst thing you can do to them is talk down.

" Ahh I hope God opens your eyes one day my lost wondering friend "

Patronizing them get's them riled up and they resort to more "fuck you, fuck jesus blah blah" and less actual debate. and once that happens it's no difficult task to determine the more intellectual one, itleast in terms of civilized conversation.

So your plan is to piss them off and show that they are stupid by bickering. Your whole point is to show who is more intellectual? The stupid thing is that alot of peop