Discussion in 'Religion' started by (Q), Nov 18, 2013.
In reference to what?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Your last two posts. They are nonsensical.
Seems really clear to me.
I told Spidergoat that he knows ONLY what he knows.
Why dont you do this:
Pick a subject\topic and i will debate you in a respectful manner. That is unless your only goal is to insult me. And then we really have nothing to discuss.
This dude, calls himself Seattle, has just insulted me in the most crude fashion imaginable.
Seattle, i do not have all night to wait for you. We go on our wits. You insulted me, like a thief in the night.
All i am asking is to engage me. Pick the subject, start the thread and let us see where it goes. Is this so hard? 'cause, i'll tell you - you have insulted me in the highest order.
No problem, i see you have logged out.
Ask me for clarification, but do not insult me. Sorry bro, i have to draw the line somewhere.
Those are the actual words anyone would use when they don't see anything that supports a claim.
Having a lack of life to denote being dead is a fallacy and hatred? LOL. You've lost your mind, dude.
And yet, you keep trying and failing to address it.
Yes, those who fail to support their claims will call hatred and trolling. Hilarious.
Well, it makes the point that you know squat about atheism and bigotry when you toss out those terms incorrectly.
Would that word be, "Tiassa"?
Do you actually now believe I placed the definition in the dictionary?
Not according to a wide variety of gods who will see us burn in hell for an eternity. But, I guess that's probably something you would very much like to see, as well?
You can think of it any way you want, no one seems to care in the least, especially those who are the crux of hate speech from religions.
Feel free to point out any crackpottery, you have failed to point anything else other than your own emotional diatribe.
For the record, I am not saying that a person must be part of an organized religion to have their own personal belief in a god. Perhaps, that is what Tiassa is assuming.
But certainly, even if one has their own version of a god in which they believe, that is indeed having religion even though that god may not be the figure head of a particular preexisting organized religion. That said, it is unlikely, for example, that arauca completely conceived a god from his mind, one that no one else on the planet would also believe existed, but he most likely is using one or a combination of various organized religions gods as the basis for his own god. We can make that assumption based on the many things he has posted already about what he believes and their origins.
Speaking of insulting religion, I was watching videos on Anton Levay, the devil worshipper. When the guy admitted that there wasn't any supernatural devil, I have to admit that the guy went from being some dangerous evil occult person, to some idiot in a costume. Basically he was just saying the same thing that atheists have been saying. Except atheists don't put Vaseline on their heads.
Whatever the real reality of our existence is, I still value honor, integrity, trust, goodness, kindness, protecting the weak, alleviating suffering. I am happy to elevate goodness and wholesomeness to a high level of piety and sacredness. I count myself as one who is in the light. I want to see healing go out to the world. That's who I want to be.
And, atheists don't worship Satan or dress up in costumes or wear magic rings or most everything else Anton Levay has to say and believe.
Funny how your words rarely if ever match your behavior.
Doesn't it make more sense to worship the devil? After all, he seems more evil, he's the one you need to placate, God seems like a reasonable guy, you could work things out with him. And the Devil (praise be unto him), seems to be ruling now.
You cannot have a reasonable, intellectual discussion without well-differentiated terms. There is no overall organization to deism (other than the sort of commonalities which define any group), nor is the belief in god necessarily firm, as deists allow themselves the latitude to freely speculate in its possible nature. But if it makes you feel better to lump it all under the heading of religion, you are welcome to, but that will not offer any utility in discussions with those who do differentiate terms.
If you refuse to differentiate fruits, any disagreement you may have on the subject of apples is moot.
Nope, just your myopic worldview that makes you insist that anything "other" must be voodoo.
Define "intellectual discussion" and "reasonable".
Naturalism allows for a non-religious concept of god. The universe, considered a closed system, can only be effected by that which is either a part or product of the universe. Pandeism explicitly assumes a god that became the universe, without any further input other than naturalistic interactions of its constituent parts. So how do you consider that a religious belief when we have no evidence for any ultimate cause of the universe? Is the BBT possibly religious, simply because it also assumes something became our universe without evidence? Would you equally call agnostics religious, as many deists are agnostic.
You erroneously seem to think that the argument by design is the only deist argument for god. Notably, criticisms to the cosmological argument are rendered useless by Guth's ultimate free lunch (again, not religious).
Any dictionary will do for these simple words.
True, especially when terms are changed at the whim of those who don't wish to associate themselves with them, like religion, for example. The atrocities committed in the name of a god are well known to all especially considering how much information is available on the internet and how many people have access to it. We can see the results of that when believers wish to disassociate themselves from the very religions they belong that have such a sordid reputation. So, they start to say they don't have religion but they still believe in the same things as before.
And, one of those commonalities is religion.
But, when someone says they believe in a god, that sounds pretty firm, does it not? What does speculation of the nature of that god have to do with anything other than delusion?
Belief in gods always was under the heading of religion, by definition. The only folks who are differentiating terms are those who say they believe in gods but have no religion.
Pandeism is a combination of pantheism and deism, in which the universe was created by God, in which God takes all of his energy and resources and becomes the universe itself, no longer existing as God.
This idiot does all those things. And he put Vaseline on his head to keep it shiny. When I get a chance, I'll find the other satan worshipper with the (werewolf). This guy looks like a Cthulhu worshiper, and has only one ear. He claims that good and evil do not exist and that what Hitler did was ok (that's how the strong survive at the expense of the weak). Good old Antony Levay satanism (atheism).
Satanism = Atheism? :roflmao:
Check out the "werewolf" in the video.[video] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdfer_FQjLA[/video]
I was watching the movie, the Machine Gun Preacher.
Here is a guy whose religious faith led him to warzones in Angola/Sudan where he created a refuge for orphaned children. I tip my hat to this guy.
Separate names with a comma.