|
Why even call me ignorant if reasoning was my problem? Am I ignorant or am I stupid? Or maybe there some other insults you would like to hurl at me without justification? How can you construct a cogent argument if your premises are all false because you don't understand your own premises?
How are you positioned to tell me what's relevant when you admit you're completely ignorant? Is that another form of logical reasoning wherein you admit to be the worst placed person to make a decision, then make it regardless? I'd heavily suggest you learn about something before attempting to make an argument about it.
|
On January 09 2010 12:58 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:49 yhnmk wrote:On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote:
Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries.
Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god.
Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways. That cliche is inaccurate.
Why, because Dawkins says so?
I think making an scientific argument about faith is ridiculous. It should be sufficient to note that no one ever sees god to rule out his existence.
|
On January 10 2010 08:30 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
People will of course spin this to make blanket statements about muslims in general but really things like this happen under the flag of any religion.
No, things like this doesn't happen as often and with the same fanaticism in other religions compared to Islam. While your stance is a logical and reasonable, politically correct one I have a hard time seeing the reality you're describing.
|
On January 12 2010 04:59 L wrote:Show nested quote +Why even call me ignorant if reasoning was my problem? Am I ignorant or am I stupid? Or maybe there some other insults you would like to hurl at me without justification? How can you construct a cogent argument if your premises are all false because you don't understand your own premises? How are you positioned to tell me what's relevant when you admit you're completely ignorant? Is that another form of logical reasoning wherein you admit to be the worst placed person to make a decision, then make it regardless? I'd heavily suggest you learn about something before attempting to make an argument about it.
My premises aren't false and I understand them completely, they weren't even what was being questioned. You questioned the credibility of the specific examples I gave to support my premises. I have already explained why my argument doesn't rely on those two specific examples in my earlier post which you seem to have conveniently ignored.
As far as my ignorance, I think I have misspoken in my previous post which you quoted. What I meant was that I am ignorant on the heavy qualifications of Deuteronomy in later developments of the bible and that I am ignorant of accompanying rabbinical texts, not that I am "completely ignorant" on all topics discussed. At no point did I admit to being the worst person placed to make a decision, I simply admitted ignorance to things that "completely irrelevant to the point that I was making and to my life in general." To my limited knowledge, those two topics are not relevant to my argument overall, even if they discredit my specific examples, which you have only claimed that they do but not demonstrated in any way. Since I have questioned their relevance multiple times and you have yet to provide any reason at all to show why they are relevant or even to address the points I brought up I see no reason to believe that the are relevant. If you don't have anything productive to say I'm not going to respond to you anymore.
|
On January 11 2010 17:43 swat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2010 12:22 daz wrote:
Serbian nationalism had nothing to do with religion. You have to understand how Yugoslavia worked to understand the source of the Serbian nationalism. It stemmed mostly from the fact that Serbia was always the most powerful nation and then centre of Yugoslavia, and in order to keep Yugoslavia together Serbia had to forgo its own national interests for the interests of the other states and for Yugoslavia as a whole. After Tito died, a lot of Serbians started to resent this, since Tito was basically holding the country together. Milosevic came along and he basically ran on a platform of "hey we're the most powerful country why should we have to let everyone else have their way, we should start promoting our own interests". Of course Serbian people loved it so he was hugely popular. This rise in Serbian nationalism combined with the rise in nationalism of all the other states and the United States denying Yugoslavia trade credits and then offering economic aid to states that declared independence is was led to the breakup. After this basically everyone was at each others throats. And i wouldn't mind discussing what the Serbian military was doing in 93 and 94 if you wouldn't mind discussing what Bosnian Muslmis were doing to Bosnian Serbs before the military got there. Or what the Croation miliatry was doing at the same time. OR maybe you'd like to discuss what the American military was doing a few years later rofl? 1. 8% + of Croatian GDP during Yugoslavia was going to Serbia (yeah all that money going out of Serbia to the other nations...). 2. A disproportional amount of government positions were held by Serbians (yeah damn that equality... hell you can even look at the voting system used where Serbia practically had 3 votes rather than 1 (Vojvodina, Kosovo and Serbia) most the time even 4 when bullying Montenegro. 3. I agree that Serbia were most probably the most powerful. They had the largest population, amount of people in the army, positions in government but they were not the most industrialised (Slovenia was). 4. Yugoslavia before they broke up was taking aid from America (Tito was hilarious when he didn't get what he wanted from America he would go to Russia and vice-versa). 5. I ain't even going to go in to the bag of worms which is the blame game to who killed who, who killed how many cause when it comes down to it both Croatia and Serbia are to blame for genocide etc. But this is all off topic, I would agree with you though that nationalism was the main problem in Serbia / Croatia and for all the crap that happened but you cannot ignore that the nationalists used religion to rally the base.
Most of those points may be true and honestly I admit I don't know for sure whether Serbia was actually forgoing its own interests in every area but I do know that this was the perception of Serbian people at that time and is what lead to the rise of Serbian nationalism and Slobodan Milosevic. Religion was of course a factor and a tool used by people in power but it was by no means the driving force behind the conflicts.
As far as aid from America was concerned yeah Tito was getting but he died and for some reason by the late 80's the United States had made it a goal to break up Yugoslavia. To this end in 1991 the US Congress passed a law which cut off all aid and trade credits. This was a huge blow to the already floundering economy and caused a lot of internal tension. To make matters worse the US offered to resume issuing trade credits and sending aid to the individual countries if they declared independence which made it much easier for the nationalist parties in each country to gain popular support.
|
On January 12 2010 04:04 daz wrote:It's not a dodge, disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, no matter how long it goes on. You are one sick puppy if you think its ok to murder people for disobeying.
You dodged again - I said in my previous post that God's commandments toward US are to live meekly and to turn the other cheek when persecution arises (a very basic reading of the New Testament will show you this). You're still stuck on the fact that God destroyed disobedient peoples by commanding the armies of the Israelites to wipe them out - this is NOT a message to us, today, to do the same thing. God was punishing those people for defying His word for so long, NOT teaching us to follow suit and commit genocide whenever someone disobeys HUMAN rules...
Plus, you're having a hard time admitting that modern-day nations would act even quicker in the face of disobedience. How long does it take you after you've committed a crime to get thrown in jail? Anywhere from an hour to a day after committing the crime. If you keep committing crimes, what happens? You either get killed outright by people defending themselves, executed by the government, or put in prison for life. And this can happen in LESS THAN A YEAR'S time - imagine someone/some government waiting HUNDREDS OF YEARS to do this same thing - that would be one merciful, tolerant government, wouldn't it? Yeah - that was how God was. He waited so long and so patiently for people to stop doing what they were doing, and when they didn't, he killed them all. Government today would do the same thing, effectively, either by execution or life prison sentences in LESS THAN A YEAR for people following the same disobedient course of action. Compared to how long God waited and all the chances He gave, people/governments nowadays are tyrants. You have no point - sorry.
Finally, I would agree with you that disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, for a HUMAN. Unfortunately, you're taking it upon yourself to judge God's actions according to your own human standards, which doesn't work...God does what God wants, and if you believe that He created the universe, then you won't be so stupid as to question why or how or when God can do things.
As it is your knowledge of the Bible is limited enough - you still dodge the fact that God showed tremendous mercy by sacrificing his only Son to save the people who killed him, and the fact that God waited millions of times longer to punish disobedient people than any person or government would wait today. GG.
|
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
|
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
|
On January 12 2010 07:08 ThePhan2m wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.<
He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
|
On January 12 2010 07:10 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 07:08 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.< He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God.
then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
|
On January 12 2010 07:13 ThePhan2m wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 07:10 daz wrote:On January 12 2010 07:08 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.< He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God. then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same.
Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes.
|
On January 12 2010 06:45 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 04:04 daz wrote:It's not a dodge, disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, no matter how long it goes on. You are one sick puppy if you think its ok to murder people for disobeying. You dodged again - I said in my previous post that God's commandments toward US are to live meekly and to turn the other cheek when persecution arises (a very basic reading of the New Testament will show you this). You're still stuck on the fact that God destroyed disobedient peoples by commanding the armies of the Israelites to wipe them out - this is NOT a message to us, today, to do the same thing. God was punishing those people for defying His word for so long, NOT teaching us to follow suit and commit genocide whenever someone disobeys HUMAN rules...
Zzzz...there are plenty of people in the world today that defy the rules of your diety.
Plus, you're having a hard time admitting that modern-day nations would act even quicker in the face of disobedience. How long does it take you after you've committed a crime to get thrown in jail? Anywhere from an hour to a day after committing the crime. If you keep committing crimes, what happens? You either get killed outright by people defending themselves, executed by the government, or put in prison for life. And this can happen in LESS THAN A YEAR'S time - imagine someone/some government waiting HUNDREDS OF YEARS to do this same thing - that would be one merciful, tolerant government, wouldn't it? Yeah - that was how God was. He waited so long and so patiently for people to stop doing what they were doing, and when they didn't, he killed them all. Government today would do the same thing, effectively, either by execution or life prison sentences in LESS THAN A YEAR for people following the same disobedient course of action. Compared to how long God waited and all the chances He gave, people/governments nowadays are tyrants. You have no point - sorry.
Really, you're going to compare religious stipulations in an era before the advent of nationhood to modern, secular laws? o.O Also, the "HUNDREDS OF YEARS" thing has more to do with the early Israelites taking that long to build up a proper army and less to do with any sort of mercy.
Finally, I would agree with you that disobedience is no reason to commit genocide, for a HUMAN. Unfortunately, you're taking it upon yourself to judge God's actions according to your own human standards, which doesn't work...God does what God wants, and if you believe that He created the universe, then you won't be so stupid as to question why or how or when God can do things.
Ah, but the genocides were committed by humans in the name of your god. God didn't crush the heathens beneath his divine heel. Men did, in his name. Also, a god that "does what god wants", we lowly mortals be damned, doesn't sound like a particularly worthy deity to worship, no?
As it is your knowledge of the Bible is limited enough - you still dodge the fact that God showed tremendous mercy by sacrificing his only Son to save the people who killed him, and the fact that God waited millions of times longer to punish disobedient people than any person or government would wait today. GG.
It really wasn't much of a sacrifice, considering he was his own son (???). For us, it would be the equivalent of goading a small child to the point of hitting us, knowing all the while that no real harm could ever come of it, and then magnanimously forgiving the child afterward (but not before guilting the child into become our little servant).
|
On January 12 2010 07:18 daz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 07:13 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:10 daz wrote:On January 12 2010 07:08 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.< He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God. then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same. Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes.
and how did you come to that conclusion? inferior genes?
|
On January 12 2010 07:22 ThePhan2m wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2010 07:18 daz wrote:On January 12 2010 07:13 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:10 daz wrote:On January 12 2010 07:08 ThePhan2m wrote:On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children I dont understand, dont you get his point? He isnt saying its ok to slaugter his childern if you think that >.< He IS saying its ok to slaughter children, if you are God. then why do you attack him and saying you hope he doesnt have children??? he talks only about God and not about himself, and that God has his reasons for doing those things. He doenst say that we are suposed to do the same. Lol I didn't say that because I thought he would slaughter them, I just hope he doesnt have children so that he doesn't pass on his inferior genes. and how did you come to that conclusion? inferior genes?
by reading his post
|
On January 12 2010 05:02 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2010 12:58 Mindcrime wrote:On January 09 2010 12:49 yhnmk wrote:On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote:
Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries.
Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god.
Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
IMO religion attempts to answer "why" while Science attempts to answer "how". Anyways. That cliche is inaccurate. Why, because Dawkins says so? I think making an scientific argument about faith is ridiculous. It should be sufficient to note that no one ever sees god to rule out his existence.
It is inaccurate because the scientific method has allowed for a number of "why"s to be answered adequately. ex: Why do the majority of primates have opposable thumbs? No magical thinking is required to answer that question.
It should also be noted that various religions have made attempts to answer a number of "how" questions, but they have generally failed pretty hard at that. ex: How is it that man came to speak a multitude of languages? Well, there was this tower that angered God...
|
haha some posters are thinking like an 8 year old: ''Mama, they are bad guys'' ,''Mama we are good guys, right?'' ...maan grow up there arent good or bad ones and this whole story is a dramatization i really doubt and 1 200 000 000 living ppl are so bad. They should probably say the same for Americans coz Bush ruined their reputation
|
skypig, how do you know what God wants? Just because it says so in some book? And who is this God? How do you know him or even that he exists? You exchange facebook messages?
And why are you so proud of your biblical knowledge? You don't even seem to be too familiar with the book that you apparently love so much.
On January 09 2010 12:43 StarsPride wrote:
Religion and science. One answers the question. The other tries.
Science cant explain how we originated and i dont think it ever will. Im not saying religion is right but i am saying there is no way to know. Science and logic can only answer so many questions. And debunking religion is just as impossible as trying to find out how we originated through science and logic. I personally don't believe Creationism is the answer. Because Creationism is an answer to a question we don't understand by nature on how we came to be. And it cant be creationism cause that wouldn't explain god.
Don't turn this into a religion thread by calling other people who follow christianity,islam ect. stupid, cause you really are the idiot.
hahahahaha
Ya cause your religion does an excellent job of answering how we originated.
"Where did we come from?"
"Oh god did it and the dude happened to be there before the universe was created. Convenient isn't it? I'll also provide 0 proof for what I assert is the absolute truth and get upset if you say I'm lying or provide an alternate explanation that is just as unlikely."
|
My premises aren't false and I understand them completely, they weren't even what was being questioned. You questioned the credibility of the specific examples I gave to support my premises. You recognize that the structure of an argument is such that you have premises which support a conclusion. If you have to argue that your premises are correct, those premises themselves form seperate arguments in which there are sub premises.
Either way, your main position is based on a false premise, but you don't even know what it is because you refuse to do research to learn the barebones basics of what you're talking about.
What I meant was that I am ignorant on the heavy qualifications of Deuteronomy in later developments of the bible and that I am ignorant of accompanying rabbinical texts, not that I am "completely ignorant" on all topics discussed. At no point did I admit to being the worst person placed to make a decision, I simply admitted ignorance to things that "completely irrelevant to the point that I was making and to my life in general." If you think that's the extent of the incorrect content in your posts, rather than a few examples, you'd be rather incorrect.
Nor is that irrelevant in the least, seeing as it completely segregates the jewish, christian and islamic traditions in their use of these prior texts within the larger context of their faith and completely demolishes the point you were trying to make. If the text contains laws which are completely defunct because of subsequent developments, how would you be able to argue that they're an example of what the faith as a whole is about?
Either way, I will once again ask you to do some research on the matter.
I find it somewhat interesting that someone who seems to attempt to make an implicit argument for a rational human over a faithful one would be so vehemently opposed to gathering evidence to perform his rational calculation. Its as if you have the same blind faith that you deride in your opposites, only allotted in a different area.
|
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote:
Zzzz...there are plenty of people in the world today that defy the rules of your diety.
I know - the day will come when everyone will know that they have. I just hope everyone has the chance to think about it before they die.
I hate giving examples of scary suicide notes written by atheists who realized in their last moments that God actually does exist, so I won't. I just hope you think (and pray) if you have the guts to do so.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote:
Really, you're going to compare religious stipulations in an era before the advent of nationhood to modern, secular laws? o.O Also, the "HUNDREDS OF YEARS" thing has more to do with the early Israelites taking that long to build up a proper army and less to do with any sort of mercy.
Sure, why can't I compare? You guys whine about "big, bad nasty God killing all these people" and fail to realize that God had (and HAS) more mercy than all the people and governments of this world combined. As I said before, most government and ruling powers would not hesitate to incarcerate and execute people who broke the law repeatedly in the space of one YEAR, let alone waiting hundreds and hundreds of years for people to shape up, like God did.
And no, "hundreds of years" has NOTHING to do with Israelites "taking that long" to build up - it's too bad you don't read your Bible. The Israelites were such a large people to begin with they could have literally walked over any city they chose; that's why the Egyptians enslaved them, because they saw how large the Israelites were getting and feared getting overrun. Oh, and by the way, this was BEFORE God lead them from Egypt and they started dominating other villages...just so you can't make the argument that they "took a long time" to build up...LOL; they were ALWAYS big, if anything they got smaller later as God started punishing them for backsliding on his laws and getting corrupted by other nations' customs and idols.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you; read the Bible for yourself. There's a reason the Dead Sea scrolls confirmed the books found in the Bible; it's because everything in the Bible was witnessed, remembered, and recorded according to God's will and holds true to this day.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote:
Ah, but the genocides were committed by humans in the name of your god. God didn't crush the heathens beneath his divine heel. Men did, in his name. Also, a god that "does what god wants", we lowly mortals be damned, doesn't sound like a particularly worthy deity to worship, no?
Again, read your Bible. God gave explicit orders to the children of Israel to completely eradicate those nations that defied his commandments; in fact, not only did he give this commandment, but he punished and killed those Israelites that did not completely destroy the disobedient people. King Saul was put down by God and replaced by Samuel because he failed to utterly destroy some cities that were defying God, to give just one example (out of many).
And you're still making it sound as if God is some sort of arbitrary killer - you still don't get that He did what He did because people had been disobeying Him for hundreds of years; they had no excuse. In several places in the Bible, it says "Nevertheless, it is not the will of your Father that any of these little ones should perish." It also states, "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked." God explicitly says that He would rather have the wicked turn from his way, repent, and attach himself to God, rather than having to destroy the wicked for refusing to turn from his actions. Just to re-emphasize, neither you nor I nor anyone knows of anything or anyone on this earth that has that much mercy, patience, and tolerance to give so many chances to wrongdoers. God lifted thieves, murderers, and prostitutes out of the gutter and totally changed and saved their lives; I still hear and read about this happening today. That's not "lowly be damned", as you said, that's called "lowly be saved from eternal punishment." I guess you don't consider that mercy, but whatever - ignorance is only bliss for so long, son.
On January 12 2010 07:21 Draconizard wrote:
It really wasn't much of a sacrifice, considering he was his own son (???). For us, it would be the equivalent of goading a small child to the point of hitting us, knowing all the while that no real harm could ever come of it, and then magnanimously forgiving the child afterward (but not before guilting the child into become our little servant).
It wasn't "much of a sacrifice"? Obviously you're not a father if you can talk about your own son tortured and crucified being "not much of a sacrifice." Your small child analogy is laughable - God didn't "goad" anyone, nor did He force anyone to make any choices at all. He allowed his only son to be killed, to suffer all that pain and ridicule by soldiers and by his fellow Jews on the cross. I don't see how you think that's "goading a small child into hitting us." The fact that Jesus rose from the dead doesn't change the fact that he died and was tortured as horribly as the lowliest criminal, if not worse.
And as for "guilting" the child into becoming a servant ("guilting isn't a word, just to let you know), no one that follows Christ is "guilted" into it. You choose to follow Christ and to love God after recognizing how pathetic and weak as a human being you really are, how royally trashed up the world is, and how depressing it is to live a life based on material pleasures from which you will never derive happiness. I feel so bad for the people that commit suicide because they come to this realization and are unable to stop themselves from taking their own lives because it's so disgustingly sad when it hits you. God frees you from that garbage and gives you happiness that cannot be found elsewhere, regardless of your economic status, relationships, situation, or anything else.
So no, you don't come to God because you're "guilted into it", as you said. You must be cruising a lot of ignorant atheist websites to come up with trash like this, and it makes me sad to realize that people could actually think this, but hey, it's a sick world we live in, right?
And yes - read the Bible more and believe it.
|
On January 12 2010 07:07 daz wrote:
i don't even know what to say to that other then i hope you are trolling. if not then just please don't ever have children
You're funny, daz - this actually made me smile. You're just really, really bad at admitting that you don't have anything left to say.
When you grow the guts to refute even one point that I made, let me know. Otherwise just keep providing us with refreshing entertainment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
