




Blogs > BackHo |
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
![]()
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On April 24 2009 15:52 BackHo wrote: I know one that isn't too bad: http://www.soulpurpose.co.nz/interact/ - however, I have already been permanently banned there. There has to be a good story behind this...my gut feeling is that you deserved it. | ||
![]()
Carnivorous Sheep
Baa?21242 Posts
On April 24 2009 15:56 JWD wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2009 15:52 BackHo wrote: I know one that isn't too bad: http://www.soulpurpose.co.nz/interact/ - however, I have already been permanently banned there. There has to be a good story behind this...my gut feeling is that you deserved it. Agreed. What, looking for more religion forums to troll or something? | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On April 24 2009 15:56 JWD wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2009 15:52 BackHo wrote: I know one that isn't too bad: http://www.soulpurpose.co.nz/interact/ - however, I have already been permanently banned there. There has to be a good story behind this...my gut feeling is that you deserved it. I laughed pretty hard when I read that part. | ||
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
Butigroove
Seychelles2061 Posts
Instead of "maybe I did something wrong" its "the moderators are retarded lol." | ||
AttackZerg
United States7454 Posts
People amaze me | ||
Plutonium
United States2217 Posts
| ||
cunninglinguists
United States925 Posts
| ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
brjdrb
United States577 Posts
| ||
Fr33t
United States1128 Posts
| ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 24 2009 16:43 Fr33t wrote: Debating religion on the internet....uhm.....yeahhhh.....why? Because people like to discuss things that don't exist on the internet, like girls. | ||
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
| ||
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
like TL ![]() | ||
Mah Buckit!
Finland474 Posts
That´s it, now move on in your life. | ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
| ||
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
ssj114
Afghanistan461 Posts
| ||
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
On April 24 2009 17:53 PH wrote: Coming from an agnostic, it seems to me that there are more outspoken and fiery atheists/agnostics here on TL than there are Christians of the same type. I can't stand a dumb person who takes any stance (be it religious/spiritual, atheist or agnostic). So essentially you are saying that you can't stand dumb people ![]() | ||
![]()
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 24 2009 16:06 BackHo wrote: However, the moderators seem to have taken a "for the sake of appeasing Christians who are easily offended" policy towards religious threads (as I think it was mostly complaints from Christians rather than non-Christians that these threads were in existance) so that is why I'm asking if anyone knows any good forums I might be able to shift posting my debates to. No, we're just sick and tired of the same debate being had and degenerative flamewars being had. Religion threads are invariable garbage hence we take out the trash. In future it would be wise not to make such assumptions about TL's moderation, especially if you don't want to come off as a pretentious douche. | ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
s.a.y
Croatia3840 Posts
on this site, you can post a comment, and get decent replies from the author of the site himself. on several posts, there are over 500 comments about the topic. | ||
QuanticHawk
United States32035 Posts
| ||
Sirakor
Great Britain455 Posts
| ||
Kennigit
![]()
Canada19447 Posts
| ||
daz
Canada643 Posts
| ||
selboN
United States2523 Posts
On April 24 2009 16:47 BackHo wrote: List your hobbies or interests Fr33t. I'm sure I could say the same thing about them: "Discussing [something you're interested in that I'm not] on the internet... Why? But to answer your question - because religious discussions interests me. Because you like to debate about something that is completely arbitrary, something that can never be proven definitively? Here is something for you to look into. Look into what the letters that are now the Bible were written in, language wise. Then follow the path of translations. It was translated to about 4 different languages before reaching English. Now, consider the margin of error translating between Spanish and English, two of the most related languages. Now think about translation from 4 languages which aren't as closely related. That being said, in the instance above I assumed pure motives of translation. Now consider that only the priests were literate in the early stages of the Bible's publication. By publication, I mean the means of distributing hand written copies of course. Though history it is a well known fact that these priests slanted what was told through the Bible to get what they wanted. For example, "God says you need to do ___." So, those are the people who translated our Bible, originally. Moving on to the Romans. The Romans picked the books of the Bible that they saw worthy to be in our traditional Bible. The Romans. Yes, the same powerful empire that decayed from the inside and is considered to be one of the most corrupt and powerful nations in history. As you may notice, we don't have the letters the Bible was composed of, except for the illegible "Dead Sea Scrolls". We don't know what happened to them, but it is left up for discussion. We do know that the Roman's possessed the letters of the Bible, so upon the burning of the Library of Alexandria we can assume that many were there. If not, they're long deteriorated(The Dead Sea Scrolls are an exception because they were preserved in a cave, not rendered vulnerable to the elements). Anyway, what all that boils down to is: We can't redo the translations, the margin of error is there, the corruption is there. Who is to say you are truly reading the word of God? Anyways, hope I sparked a bit of your interest. I'm Christian by the way. | ||
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
| ||
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
On April 24 2009 15:52 BackHo wrote: I'm looking for one that's not completely Christian (100% of Christian forums that ban, delete and moderate anti-Christian arguments) nor one that is completely dominated by anti-Christs posters where you're pretty much preaching to the converted (e.g. Richard Dawkins' forum). I know one that isn't too bad: http://www.soulpurpose.co.nz/interact/ - however, I have already been permanently banned there. So does anyone know any good ones where you can have good debates? rebelheart? | ||
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On April 25 2009 02:16 selboN wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2009 16:47 BackHo wrote: List your hobbies or interests Fr33t. I'm sure I could say the same thing about them: "Discussing [something you're interested in that I'm not] on the internet... Why? But to answer your question - because religious discussions interests me. Because you like to debate about something that is completely arbitrary, something that can never be proven definitively? Here is something for you to look into. Look into what the letters that are now the Bible were written in, language wise. Then follow the path of translations. It was translated to about 4 different languages before reaching English. Now, consider the margin of error translating between Spanish and English, two of the most related languages. Now think about translation from 4 languages which aren't as closely related. This is silly, of course each language was translated from the original Hebrew/Greek. Why would they translate from one language to another? That being said, in the instance above I assumed pure motives of translation. Now consider that only the priests were literate in the early stages of the Bible's publication. By publication, I mean the means of distributing hand written copies of course. Though history it is a well known fact that these priests slanted what was told through the Bible to get what they wanted. For example, "God says you need to do ___." So, those are the people who translated our Bible, originally. Source, please. Moving on to the Romans. The Romans picked the books of the Bible that they saw worthy to be in our traditional Bible. The Romans. Yes, the same powerful empire that decayed from the inside and is considered to be one of the most corrupt and powerful nations in history. You're making an assumption. For example, the four gospels were chosen over other accounts because they were written the closest (1st century AD) to the actual time of Christ. There are reasons for the inclusion of books. As you may notice, we don't have the letters the Bible was composed of, except for the illegible "Dead Sea Scrolls". We don't know what happened to them, but it is left up for discussion. We do know that the Roman's possessed the letters of the Bible, so upon the burning of the Library of Alexandria we can assume that many were there. If not, they're long deteriorated(The Dead Sea Scrolls are an exception because they were preserved in a cave, not rendered vulnerable to the elements). Anyway, what all that boils down to is: We can't redo the translations, the margin of error is there, the corruption is there. Who is to say you are truly reading the word of God? Again, state your source. Anyways, hope I sparked a bit of your interest. I'm Christian by the way. Religious debates aren't as beneficial over the internet because, as mentioned before, it just degenerate into flame wars, and the likelihood of you changing anyone's mind is next to zero. The only good I could see internet debates doing is giving (hopefully) accurate information to people reading the discussions and giving more insight into each side of the argument. | ||
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
I've actually found some of the religion threads here to be long-lasting, with some good points being raised (maybe 1 in 10 posts, but at least there's something worth reading). | ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
| ||
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
On April 25 2009 08:04 Cpt Obvious wrote: I like how the discussion about religion discussions is deteriorating into the same flame-fest as religion discussions, albeit ever-so-slowly. So if we start a discussion about whether or not the discussion about religion discussions is really deteriorating into a flame-fest we should start flaming each other at about page 6? | ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 24 2009 18:05 Bosu wrote: How can you not stand a person that takes a stance weather it be atheist or religious. If you think people are going to hell for not having faith in jesus you damn well ought to preach to as many people as you can to save their soul. If you think that religion is a crock of shit you probably should try and let people know that they should stop wasting their lives. It's a pretty big deal either way. I don't care if someone wants to have a discussion/debate about it, but BOTH SIDES have to keep a relatively open mind...and the big misconception that leads to outright falsity is that atheism and agnosticism require an "open mind" to ascribe to, as opposed to some form of spirituality or religion. This is a blatant lie. They can entail just as much stubbornness and ignorance as any religious group. I've had plenty of perfectly fine and interesting discussions on religion. But on internet forums, you tend to only get the terrible ones where one side feels like they MUST win and that the other person is obviously less of a person for believing what they do. This is the part that I don't understand. You can't have a decent and intelligible discussion when you're making personal attacks and taking things personally from the other party. That's only going to lead to friction and a complete breakdown of the discussion. On April 24 2009 18:13 IdrA wrote: no. having opinions is bad. you must live your life with the goal of never upsetting another person, ever. lol...coming from you, that has almost no impact. | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 25 2009 07:33 BottleAbuser wrote: slboN, it doesn't matter what errors could have been introduced into the Bible over its development. It is indeed the word of God, straight: He would not have allowed His word to be garbled. That is sarcasm, right? | ||
![]()
JWD
United States12607 Posts
![]() | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 25 2009 08:44 PH wrote: Show nested quote + On April 24 2009 18:05 Bosu wrote: How can you not stand a person that takes a stance weather it be atheist or religious. If you think people are going to hell for not having faith in jesus you damn well ought to preach to as many people as you can to save their soul. If you think that religion is a crock of shit you probably should try and let people know that they should stop wasting their lives. It's a pretty big deal either way. I don't care if someone wants to have a discussion/debate about it, but BOTH SIDES have to keep a relatively open mind...and the big misconception that leads to outright falsity is that atheism and agnosticism require an "open mind" to ascribe to, as opposed to some form of spirituality or religion. This is a blatant lie. They can entail just as much stubbornness and ignorance as any religious group. I've had plenty of perfectly fine and interesting discussions on religion. But on internet forums, you tend to only get the terrible ones where one side feels like they MUST win and that the other person is obviously less of a person for believing what they do. This is the part that I don't understand. You can't have a decent and intelligible discussion when you're making personal attacks and taking things personally from the other party. That's only going to lead to friction and a complete breakdown of the discussion. i dont think anyone thinks atheism requires open mindedness, actually its religion thats asking you to accept things. atheism/agnosticism requires only rationality, which does indeed make it objectively superior when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic. Show nested quote + On April 24 2009 18:13 IdrA wrote: no. having opinions is bad. you must live your life with the goal of never upsetting another person, ever. lol...coming from you, that has almost no impact. http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=sarcasm&search=search | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous | ||
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:15 travis wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:18 Lemonwalrus wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 10:15 travis wrote: On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. well not if the person believes they've actually been given specific evidence to support it which I don't see how that could happen for atheism | ||
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
| ||
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
| ||
Kurosaki
United States158 Posts
Read up on those who spent their life learning and discussing what exist and what doesn't through reasoning and sense perceptions. You'll find how complex people will go through to prove their point. If you want arguments from atheists, look up David Hume and John Locke. first post =D | ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
BottleAbuser
Korea (South)1888 Posts
Also, I like disagreeing, so I'll put out there that I think Hume is an idiot. See his "Naturalistic Fallacy" argument. Paraphrased: "Ethical terms are not based in the natural realm. Naturalists attempt to base ethical terms in the natural realm. Therefore, naturalists are wrong. Since the argument that ethical terms are based in the natural realm is false, ethical terms are not based in the natural realm." (Or to be clearer: "A is false. B if and only if A. Therefore, B is false. Therefore, A is false.") | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:33 Bosu wrote: Yes, even if that person has given "evidence" to support it it is just as presumptuous to think that their god and personal beliefs are true and atheism is wrong. maybe so. I guess it would depend on the evidence | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On April 25 2009 11:25 BackHo wrote: Thanks for your suggestions - another good atheist author I have found a lot of respect for is Lloyd Geering, he wrote a book called Christianity Without God - well worth reading if your local public library has a copy. Christianity without God? I think Thomas Jefferson beat him to the punch on that one. | ||
Cpt Obvious
Germany3073 Posts
On April 25 2009 10:19 travis wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 10:18 Lemonwalrus wrote: On April 25 2009 10:15 travis wrote: On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. well not if the person believes they've actually been given specific evidence to support it which I don't see how that could happen for atheism If half the world can be stupid, I sure as hell have a right to be as obnoxious about my beliefs as anyone else. It's not like me being reasonable would change anything about the 3 billion idiots actually believing in the fairy-tales. Besides, after everything I have learned in my physics studies, I'd say I've collected more evidence against the existence of a God than anyone can give me to prove the opposite. But like someone else already quoted, if you could reason with religious people, there'd be no religious people. So I'm just gonna be as retarded as them and say: I KNOW there is no God. But go ahead, drown your incompetence and fear in faith if that works for you. | ||
Mada_Jiang
Australia236 Posts
| ||
SaveYourSavior
United States1071 Posts
On April 25 2009 11:25 BackHo wrote: Kurosaki-kun! Welcome to TL : D Thanks for your suggestions - another good atheist author I have found a lot of respect for is Lloyd Geering, he wrote a book called Christianity Without God - well worth reading if your local public library has a copy. Unfortunately I'm a bit too old to go back to university and to be honest I've found most of the best arguments are ones I find on forums. Take for example the following, which if the person was not a student he would not be able to discuss in a lecture by putting his hand up in class due to time constraints: + Show Spoiler + I’ve been thinking about homosexuality, and have come to the conclusion that Christians in general have missed the boat. We should be the ones pushing for gay rights, not fighting against them. By demonizing homosexuality I think we’re missing a great opportunity to do a great good in our world, and instead are letting ourselves become tools for evil. I want to outline some of my thoughts on the matter. Biblical passages apparently condemning homosexuality In reality, it is hard to make a watertight biblical argument against homosexuality. To my knowledge, there are three main biblical passages that appear to be against homosexuality. The first is in old testament law (e.g. Leviticus 18:22), but is alongside a lot of other bizarre commandments, which no christian I know observes (e.g. don’t wear cloths with two fibres?), so there is no reason to see the law’s condemnation of homosexuality as anything more than an obscure old law. The next is the example Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19), cities that were destroyed by God for their unrighteousness. The question is, what were they doing that caused them to be considered unrighteousness? The bible gives us an example; angels visit the town, and the men of the town want to homosexually rape them. Some take this (as does christian tradition) to be an indication that homosexuality is wrong, but this misses the far more obvious sin; rape. Any town that’s default response to visitors is attempted rape is unrighteous, heterosexual or homosexual. So this account doesn’t provide evidence that homosexuality is wrong. Lastly, there are a few new testament passage that mention homosexuality amongst a list of other negative attributes. The most notable one is Romans 1, where Paul talks about people turning away from God, and engaging in homosexuality, among other things. This may appear as a scathing condemnation of homosexuality, but we should look closely at what Paul is actually saying. For a start, Romans is a horribly difficult book to understand, so we should be careful in coming to firm conclusions from a single passage. Among various interpretations, it is possible that Paul is quoting another passage, and doesn’t actually agree with what the passage is saying, which would explain why Paul suddenly flips the blame onto the readers in Romans 2: “Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment.”. Additionally, it is entirely feasible that Paul (or the passage Paul is quoting) is not commenting homosexuality per sei, but pagan cults that involves sexual rituals. The bigger picture So there is some apparent biblical condemnation of homosexuality. But it’s in isolated passages, which can be explained as culturally irrelevant today. What we should look to is the broader picture of the bible, and ignore the pieces that seem to be artifacts of the culture of biblical authors (e.g. slavery, a decidedly non-christian practice, is all but endorsed in Colossians 3). What is the broader picture, and what does it have to say about homosexuality? Jesus did not come to the ‘in’ crowd. He came to the outcasts of society. He helped the lepers, he associated with ’sinners’, with tax collectors, with prostitutes, with the common people, all the people who the religious leaders looked down upon. He came bringing reversal to exploitation, he hated the idea that religion was being used to make money of people, that people were being oppressed by the economic and religious systems, and he fought against it. It took a while, but eventually his disciples caught on to the idea that the kingdom of God was not just for Jews, it was for Gentiles too. It wasn’t just for free men, but for slaves, for women, for everyone. Before God, all men and women are equal. All men and women. The end of James 1, James makes it pretty clear that if we resort to following the old ways of respecting one group over another group, we are really going against the message of Jesus. I put it to you that Homosexuals are the outcasts of modern society. Admittedly their lot in society has been getting better, but unfortunately this has been because of efforts outside of the church, and in fact their lot has been impeded by the church. It should be the other way round - the church should be advocating for homosexual rights. An appeal for Christians to accept, and advocate for homosexuals It’s hard to be different. Our society is heavily heterosexual, to be homosexual is a deviation from the norm. Someone who comes to terms with being a homosexual can go through a very difficult journey. They have to come to terms with being different from what seems like everyone else, they have to deal with an inner conflict as they try and work out who they are, and what they believe is right and wrong, they have to come to put up with all the derogatory comments towards homosexuals, the reactions of others when they come out, which can range from surprise to moral condemnation to disgust. Some people can be accepting, but others are not - and the most screwed up thing is that Christians are often the most unaccepting people. Christians condemnation of homosexuality is an evil, as it goes against what Jesus taught, and also, it causes much pain. Consider the familiar example of someone growing up inside Christianity, but coming to the realisation that they have homosexual feelings. There is an inevitable dilemma; either reject the church dogma that homosexuality is wrong, or reject a part of themselves. Both of these choices can be incredibly painful, one often leading to a disconnection from church, family, sometimes all they know, the other often leading to a rejection of self, a horrible, horrible fate. I have seen people destroyed by this dilemma. People shouldn’t have to make this choice. In the past I believed homosexuality was a sin. Naively I contributed to the christian culture that preached that homosexuality was wrong, that people who ‘had it’ could repent and change. I now recognize that I contributed to oppression; I contributed to the culture that causes a lot of pain for many people, a lot of which I probably wasn’t aware of it. No more. It's never too late to go back to a university I've seen 40 year olds to elderly people taking some classes | ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On April 26 2009 18:44 Cpt Obvious wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 10:19 travis wrote: On April 25 2009 10:18 Lemonwalrus wrote: On April 25 2009 10:15 travis wrote: On April 25 2009 10:08 IdrA wrote: On April 25 2009 09:48 travis wrote: I don't think being atheist means anything to someone with a truly open mind. They'd just be accepting that they really don't have a fucking clue. And so if they desire to call that atheist, then whatever. atheists hold that there is no god, its agnostics who say that they dont know and theres no way of actually knowing either way. personally I always believed atheism just meant "lack of belief in a god". not "belief in a lack of god". the latter seems overbearingly presumptuous About as presumptuous as belief in any one god over all the other possible gods imo. well not if the person believes they've actually been given specific evidence to support it which I don't see how that could happen for atheism If half the world can be stupid, I sure as hell have a right to be as obnoxious about my beliefs as anyone else. It's not like me being reasonable would change anything about the 3 billion idiots actually believing in the fairy-tales. Besides, after everything I have learned in my physics studies, I'd say I've collected more evidence against the existence of a God than anyone can give me to prove the opposite. But like someone else already quoted, if you could reason with religious people, there'd be no religious people. So I'm just gonna be as retarded as them and say: I KNOW there is no God. But go ahead, drown your incompetence and fear in faith if that works for you. This is the sort of ad hominem that prevents healthy debate and discussion on topics like these. Something I want to clarify, though, is that the discussion should be between the beliefs of atheism and religion (which is still not really fair, because religion shouldn't be the main issue... at least w.r.t. Christianity). Science and Religion, or Christianity specifically, have no qualms, and is a non-issue. Cpt Obvious, I would sincerely like to hear about the evidence you've found (PM me or something). | ||
![]()
Hot_Bid
Braavos36373 Posts
On April 26 2009 20:05 BackHo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 26 2009 19:40 SaveYourSavior wrote: It's never too late to go back to a university I've seen 40 year olds to elderly people taking some classes I guess what I meant was that I graduated in 2007 with a law degree and am now working full time as a solicitor, so it would seem silly to quit my job just so I can pay to do some courses to satisfy my desire for intellectual debate. where did you go to school? | ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 25 2009 09:38 IdrA wrote: Show nested quote + On April 25 2009 08:44 PH wrote: On April 24 2009 18:05 Bosu wrote: How can you not stand a person that takes a stance weather it be atheist or religious. If you think people are going to hell for not having faith in jesus you damn well ought to preach to as many people as you can to save their soul. If you think that religion is a crock of shit you probably should try and let people know that they should stop wasting their lives. It's a pretty big deal either way. I don't care if someone wants to have a discussion/debate about it, but BOTH SIDES have to keep a relatively open mind...and the big misconception that leads to outright falsity is that atheism and agnosticism require an "open mind" to ascribe to, as opposed to some form of spirituality or religion. This is a blatant lie. They can entail just as much stubbornness and ignorance as any religious group. I've had plenty of perfectly fine and interesting discussions on religion. But on internet forums, you tend to only get the terrible ones where one side feels like they MUST win and that the other person is obviously less of a person for believing what they do. This is the part that I don't understand. You can't have a decent and intelligible discussion when you're making personal attacks and taking things personally from the other party. That's only going to lead to friction and a complete breakdown of the discussion. i dont think anyone thinks atheism requires open mindedness, actually its religion thats asking you to accept things. atheism/agnosticism requires only rationality, which does indeed make it objectively superior when it comes to a logical discussion on the topic. Logic hasn't even been proven to have a logical/rational basis, which I think is the biggest flaw in that argument. However, beyond that, even arguing for an atheist standpoint from a logical basis requires circular reasoning of some kind that no one but an atheist would accept. The same goes for him accepting a Christian's point of view on the existence of God. You can construct both from a basic logical point of view, but they'll both fail in light of one another. You can't use logic and rationality, though maybe empiricism, to disprove a god. On April 25 2009 11:06 Kurosaki wrote: If you're really interested in arguments about religion, take a modern philosophy class. You'll get plausible argument about religion. Talking about it on forums isn't very informative because many people are really simple-minded when it comes to religion. Read up on those who spent their life learning and discussing what exist and what doesn't through reasoning and sense perceptions. You'll find how complex people will go through to prove their point. If you want arguments from atheists, look up David Hume and John Locke. first post =D I agree with this completely. You NEED to take university level courses to get a discussion going that isn't half baked at all. That is necessary. It is also sufficient to take an upper division course...as then the students you'll be discussing it with won't be idiots either. I'm taking an upper division/graduate Philosophy of religion course right now with a great professor...I think he's an atheist, but he used to teach at Notre Dame. The bible is one of his favorite books as well, and he loves studying religions. He's one of the most open-minded people I've met. In addition, the people in my class are all so fucking like...not dumb...it's amazing. The kind of perspective this grants is invaluable, to me, as we have a mix of all sorts of people, both religious and not. Shit, there's even a protestant pastor in the class. | ||
BackHo
New Zealand400 Posts
| ||
PH
United States6173 Posts
On April 26 2009 20:05 BackHo wrote: Show nested quote + On April 26 2009 19:40 SaveYourSavior wrote: It's never too late to go back to a university I've seen 40 year olds to elderly people taking some classes I guess what I meant was that I graduated in 2007 with a law degree and am now working full time as a solicitor, so it would seem silly to quit my job just so I can pay to do some courses to satisfy my desire for intellectual debate. Try contacting a university's philosophy dept and ask when they'll have religion-centered classes...then see if you can fit it into your schedule I guess? lol...yeah, it doesn't really work if you're a full-time worker, I guess. Taking one of those classes is definitely eye-opening, though. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations |
Replay Cast
Code For Giants Cup
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Rogue vs Zoun
Clem vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Rex Madness
herO vs Rogue
Solar vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] WardiTV Spring Champion…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
SC Evo League
BSL Season 20
Replay Cast
SOOP
Zoun vs Solar
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Spring Champion…
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL Season 20
PiG Sty Festival
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
PiG Sty Festival
Afreeca Starleague
|
|