|
On May 28 2011 00:51 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:49 zedi wrote:On May 28 2011 00:43 vyyye wrote:
If I was him I'd go and pretend I was praying instead of trying to act like a little douchebag. Jesus Christ, some people. I haven't been Christian in any part of my life but I didn't whine when I was asked to participate in Christian traditions.
What the fuck is wrong with people. I mean.. what's it matter? Really, what does a prayer change?
That said the reaction from the community is even more mind boggling. Tards on both sides of the fence. Acting against illegality and immorality is acting like a douchebag? Guess I'd rather be a douchebag then. If the kid didn't have to become a real party pooper there would never have been an issue. Do you really think he gave two fucks about upholding the law?
Of course he did, that's what he said himself. He knew what the consequences would be, just not in such a major bullshit scale feat. retarded christians.
|
On May 28 2011 00:45 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:44 Tony Campolo wrote:
It's actually shocking how many people on TL are Christians and proud of it, and argue in these religious threads claiming that these are only cases of 'extreme' fundamentalists. Anyone who is a true Christian shouldn't be playing Starcraft but instead spending their lives trying to save souls. Imagine this, that if you truly believe that someone who doesn't believe in God is going to go to Hell for all eternity, then it's actually grossly irresponsible and callous to be spending your life playing computer games when all these people are going to Hell if you don't somehow manage to convince them to give their lives to God. All it shows is that they don't truly realise the extent of the horrificacy of what they claim to believe. You really should read up on Christianity, I don't think you have a good grasp of what it means to be Christian in the 21st century.
I'm well-read up on Christianity. What do you think it means to be a Christian in the 21st century?
Would you say it's different to how Jesus wanted His disciples to live?
Is playing Starcraft how Jesus would have wanted you to live your life?
|
On May 28 2011 00:48 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:45 vyyye wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Tony Campolo wrote:
It's actually shocking how many people on TL are Christians and proud of it, and argue in these religious threads claiming that these are only cases of 'extreme' fundamentalists. Anyone who is a true Christian shouldn't be playing Starcraft but instead spending their lives trying to save souls. Imagine this, that if you truly believe that someone who doesn't believe in God is going to go to Hell for all eternity, then it's actually grossly irresponsible and callous to be spending your life playing computer games when all these people are going to Hell if you don't somehow manage to convince them to give their lives to God. All it shows is that they don't truly realise the extent of the horrificacy of what they claim to believe. You really should read up on Christianity, I don't think you have a good grasp of what it means to be Christian in the 21st century. Oh we all know what it means to be christian in the 21st century. It's to call yourself christian but not act like one. Christian-LITE. All of the privileges, none of the responsibility. Just another cult. A spoiled club.
Haha, have you read Grand Theft Jesus? It's the only book I've seen using the term Christian-lite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Jesus
|
On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence?
This is pure nonsense. It's like saying it requires faith to not believe in the easter bunny. By your logic, every belief ever requires faith. Theists make the claim that there is a God, therefore the burden of proof lies on them. Therefore the neutral position is an atheistic one, and thus doesn't require faith.
|
On May 28 2011 00:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:27 Metaphysic wrote:
I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse? Rosa Parks was not a kid. If the parents of the child complained about the law and separation of church and state, then it would be great. At least the kid would have had people he cared deeply about defending him.
Well, since he's graduating high school I assume he's 18 (or close to it) which legally makes him an adult.
Anyway, he's in the wrong because he didn't have the support of his family? That doesn't make any sense; he has the support of the law.
|
On May 28 2011 00:52 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:45 vyyye wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Tony Campolo wrote:
It's actually shocking how many people on TL are Christians and proud of it, and argue in these religious threads claiming that these are only cases of 'extreme' fundamentalists. Anyone who is a true Christian shouldn't be playing Starcraft but instead spending their lives trying to save souls. Imagine this, that if you truly believe that someone who doesn't believe in God is going to go to Hell for all eternity, then it's actually grossly irresponsible and callous to be spending your life playing computer games when all these people are going to Hell if you don't somehow manage to convince them to give their lives to God. All it shows is that they don't truly realise the extent of the horrificacy of what they claim to believe. You really should read up on Christianity, I don't think you have a good grasp of what it means to be Christian in the 21st century. I'm well-read up on Christianity. What do you think it means to be a Christian in the 21st century? Would you say it's different to how Jesus wanted His disciples to live? Is playing Starcraft how Jesus would have wanted you to live your life?
Is this guy for real? I mean, you can't possibly be serious?
I'm leaving this thread, I have never seen this much bullshit on TL. Guess there was a reason I never came to these threads.
|
On May 28 2011 00:51 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:44 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). I consider myself an agnostic. and not an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with and why is that and you would have the next task. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer 'I don't know" Isn't a position, you either hold a belief or you have an absence of one, whether you refuse to acknowledge this is irrelevant. Atheism doesn't claim to know either, it's merely "I have an absence of a belief in God, but it is not certain that one does not exist" You sound to me like an agnostic atheist. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, what with the quote"there can not be a God", that's not what it is. "distinct from the position there can't be a god" Like I've repeated several times, not atheism. Of course its a position. It's just not a belief, stemmed from faith. It is, in effect, the absence of faith. So, does that mean that atheists are a step above agnostics in the eyes of religion, because they also believe in something without evidence? To clarify Theist: Steadfast belief in God, without any evidence to show for it. Atheist: Steadfast belief there is no higher power, without any evidence to show for it. Agnostic: Does not choose either path, due to lack of evidence in either direction. Or do I have that wrong? That's my current understanding.
Yes this is completely wrong, and you have absolutely no understanding of Atheism. Atheists have an ABSENCE of a belief in God. No one is agnostic by your definition, let me ask you this Do you believe in God? If your answer is no you are in fact an atheist, hate to break it to you.
|
the hypocrisy and retardedness is pretty funny if you think about it, these guys hold the christian martyrs that died for their beliefs throughout the ages as idols, yet this kid stands up for what he believes in and guess what they do,
reality check time, it's amazing how many educated people across the world today can't put 2 and 2 together, and fuck religiousness vs. atheism, that's not even the real issue here.
|
On May 28 2011 00:27 NoobSh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:21 craz3d wrote:On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote:
He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything. I agree with you. What a selfish act. Why ruin everyone's fun just because you are the only one opposed to the prayer? Looks like even non-religious people can be intolerant of other religions, who woulda thunk it? Lol a selfish act? Ok so tell me this, is it selfish to stop a group of bullies from picking on a kid? You're ruining their fun. He stopped and illegal school-sponsored prayer if you really wanted to pray go fucking do it on your own time. He spoke out against something that wasn't right. He unlike most people isn't a fucking coward.
Okay, but is prayer hurting anyone? The bullies are hurting the kid in your example. Anyways, you're right, it's hard to ignore the fact that this prayer was illegal; however did he act out of care for the law, or did he act because he wanted to screw the other 99% of people who were for the prayer or possibly as a cry for attention?
|
On May 28 2011 00:57 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:52 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 00:45 vyyye wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Tony Campolo wrote:
It's actually shocking how many people on TL are Christians and proud of it, and argue in these religious threads claiming that these are only cases of 'extreme' fundamentalists. Anyone who is a true Christian shouldn't be playing Starcraft but instead spending their lives trying to save souls. Imagine this, that if you truly believe that someone who doesn't believe in God is going to go to Hell for all eternity, then it's actually grossly irresponsible and callous to be spending your life playing computer games when all these people are going to Hell if you don't somehow manage to convince them to give their lives to God. All it shows is that they don't truly realise the extent of the horrificacy of what they claim to believe. You really should read up on Christianity, I don't think you have a good grasp of what it means to be Christian in the 21st century. I'm well-read up on Christianity. What do you think it means to be a Christian in the 21st century? Would you say it's different to how Jesus wanted His disciples to live? Is playing Starcraft how Jesus would have wanted you to live your life? Is this guy for real? I mean, you can't possibly be serious? I'm leaving this thread, I have never seen this much bullshit on TL. Guess there was a reason I never came to these threads.
Ignorance is bliss.
|
On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with " and why is that?" and you would have the next task. Physics does a decent job of explaining rules. but not where they come from. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer. e: added stuff
Nope he has it right to some degree, in a dichotomy :
1) I believe in god
2) I lack the belief in god
there is no third logical position unless you don't even know what you are thinking, but than there is a different problem.
You are thinking about :
1) There is a god
2) There is no god
in this case the third position "I don't know" exists.
But even in that case it is not really a good position.
As for the questions about meaning. Are you sure those are actually sensible questions. There are many gramatically correct questions that are nonsensical and I suspect most questions about meaning of life and universe are of the same nature. That our language allows us to construct a question does not mean that question has an answer or even makes sense.
|
On May 28 2011 00:58 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:27 NoobSh1t wrote:On May 28 2011 00:21 craz3d wrote:On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote:
He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything. I agree with you. What a selfish act. Why ruin everyone's fun just because you are the only one opposed to the prayer? Looks like even non-religious people can be intolerant of other religions, who woulda thunk it? Lol a selfish act? Ok so tell me this, is it selfish to stop a group of bullies from picking on a kid? You're ruining their fun. He stopped and illegal school-sponsored prayer if you really wanted to pray go fucking do it on your own time. He spoke out against something that wasn't right. He unlike most people isn't a fucking coward. Okay, but is prayer hurting anyone? The bullies are hurting the kid in your example. Anyways, you're right, it's hard to ignore the fact that this prayer was illegal; however did he act out of care for the law, or did he act because he wanted to screw the other 99% of people who were for the prayer or possibly as a cry for attention?
I guess everyone wants to ignore the link I dropped. So here it is again:
http://www.cpsb.org/system/policies/CAPS/Statutes/172115.htm
According to Louisiana State law, a short moment of prayer is not illegal.
|
On May 28 2011 00:48 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Wow, you managed to completely not understand the post you were replying to :| Do you believe in god? If yes, you are theist. If no, you are atheist = lack of belief. It's nothing to do with likeliness or the possibility of the supernatural.
I don't know why I HAVE to choose a side. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. And that's a legit position to me, cause we can't know. And by saying "Hey, but it is just more likely that there is no god" and thus makin me an atheist, because I say "I don't know", you judge the likeliness. You just assume that my "I don't know" implies my lack of faith which is just plain wrong. I just don't know. Nothing more, nothing less. you just say that the existence of god needs proove and not the lack of god. That's ok, but something I refuse to rate.
From my point of view it is just as likely that nothing makes sense at all and is random energy (with no real origin as it seems), as that some higher entitiy made some pretty cool stuff here, and also that it is something entirely different. We'll never understand how an event horizon actually bends time to infinity or how the borders of the universe are made. Deal with it. That's just stuff our small brain can't handle, so why think of solutions and not just sit back and enjoying the right.
So again, it is a third position, right in the middle where no sides exist and I just say "Leave me alone, why think about it, we're too small anyways"
|
On May 28 2011 00:27 Metaphysic wrote:
I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse?
Suffer? Suffer what? A bunch of people going "our father who art in heaven..bla bla bla"? And how long do you think they're gonna go on and on for? 30 mins? an HOUR? Its just a bunch of people mumbling for 5 minutes at most. If it bothers him THAT much, he needs psychiatric help.
Rosa parks was defiant against the biased treatment she got due to being an african-american. Atheists aren't oppressed in a similar manner. This kid actually tried too hard to be a prick.
|
On May 28 2011 00:59 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:58 craz3d wrote:On May 28 2011 00:27 NoobSh1t wrote:On May 28 2011 00:21 craz3d wrote:On May 27 2011 13:39 aguy38 wrote:
He didn't have to pray. He could have just sat there. If you read the second line of the article it makes it sound like he said the majority should be stopped on account of him. Did they overreact to him? Hell yea they did, but at some point he should have had the common sense to just not say anything. I agree with you. What a selfish act. Why ruin everyone's fun just because you are the only one opposed to the prayer? Looks like even non-religious people can be intolerant of other religions, who woulda thunk it? Lol a selfish act? Ok so tell me this, is it selfish to stop a group of bullies from picking on a kid? You're ruining their fun. He stopped and illegal school-sponsored prayer if you really wanted to pray go fucking do it on your own time. He spoke out against something that wasn't right. He unlike most people isn't a fucking coward. Okay, but is prayer hurting anyone? The bullies are hurting the kid in your example. Anyways, you're right, it's hard to ignore the fact that this prayer was illegal; however did he act out of care for the law, or did he act because he wanted to screw the other 99% of people who were for the prayer or possibly as a cry for attention? I guess everyone wants to ignore the link I dropped. So here it is again: http://www.cpsb.org/system/policies/CAPS/Statutes/172115.htmAccording to Louisiana State law, a short moment of prayer is not illegal.
Brief time of silence =! vocal prayer.
|
On May 28 2011 00:57 vyyye wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:52 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 00:45 vyyye wrote:On May 28 2011 00:44 Tony Campolo wrote:
It's actually shocking how many people on TL are Christians and proud of it, and argue in these religious threads claiming that these are only cases of 'extreme' fundamentalists. Anyone who is a true Christian shouldn't be playing Starcraft but instead spending their lives trying to save souls. Imagine this, that if you truly believe that someone who doesn't believe in God is going to go to Hell for all eternity, then it's actually grossly irresponsible and callous to be spending your life playing computer games when all these people are going to Hell if you don't somehow manage to convince them to give their lives to God. All it shows is that they don't truly realise the extent of the horrificacy of what they claim to believe. You really should read up on Christianity, I don't think you have a good grasp of what it means to be Christian in the 21st century. I'm well-read up on Christianity. What do you think it means to be a Christian in the 21st century? Would you say it's different to how Jesus wanted His disciples to live? Is playing Starcraft how Jesus would have wanted you to live your life? Is this guy for real? I mean, you can't possibly be serious? I'm leaving this thread, I have never seen this much bullshit on TL. Guess there was a reason I never came to these threads.
Way to avoid the debate. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to actually be a 'true' Christian, one who takes Jesus seriously and the idea that people go to Hell after they die due to not accepting God as their saviour. You've never seen this much bullshit on TL... Yet I presume you happily eat the shit that the papal bulls enjoy shitting into your mind at Church every Sunday.
Edit: The point I am making is this. If you truly believed what you claim to believe, you'd spend every single waking moment trying to save souls from Hell, as every minute you waste is a soul that spends ETERNITY in Hell. Because you do not do this, and spend time on superficial things like computer games instead of saving souls from eternal torture, it is simply an ideal and delusion that you truly believe it.
|
On May 28 2011 01:00 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:48 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Wow, you managed to completely not understand the post you were replying to :| Do you believe in god? If yes, you are theist. If no, you are atheist = lack of belief. It's nothing to do with likeliness or the possibility of the supernatural. I don't know why I HAVE to choose a side. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. And that's a legit position to me, cause we can't know. And by saying "Hey, but it is just more likely that there is no god" and thus makin me an atheist, because I say "I don't know", you judge the likeliness. You just assume that my "I don't know" implies my lack of faith which is just plain wrong. I just don't know. Nothing more, nothing less. you just say that the existence of god needs proove and not the lack of god. That's ok, but something I refuse to rate. From my point of view it is just as likely that nothing makes sense at all and is random energy (with no real origin as it seems), as that some higher entitiy made some pretty cool stuff here, and also that it is something entirely different. We'll never understand how an event horizon actually bends time to infinity or how the borders of the universe are made. Deal with it. That's just stuff our small brain can't handle, so why think of solutions and not just sit back and enjoying the right. So again, it is a third position, right in the middle where no sides exist and I just say "Leave me alone, why think about it, we're too small anyways"
Alright this is a Yes or no question, it's very simple. Do you, the person I am speaking to right now, BELIEVE, that is, to hold a belief in a deity. IF YES, you are theist, IF NOT, you are an atheist, although you would be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
|
On May 28 2011 01:00 poorbeggarman wrote: Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:27 Metaphysic wrote:
I really don't understand people who think he should've just shut up and suffered through it. Do those same people think Rosa Parks should've just sat in the back of the bus like she was supposed to?
If not, then why not? The kid is actually trying to uphold the law, while Rosa Parks was breaking the law. Wouldn't your support for Parks be worse? Suffer? Suffer what? A bunch of people going "our father who art in heaven..bla bla bla"? And how long do you think they're gonna go on and on for? 30 mins? an HOUR? Its just a bunch of people mumbling for 5 minutes at most. If it bothers him THAT much, he needs psychiatric help. Rosa parks was defiant against the biased treatment she got due to being an african-american. Atheists aren't oppressed in a similar manner. This kid actually tried too hard to be a prick.
According to Christianity atheists are oppressed in the afterlife by serving a life sentence (with torture) in Hell.
|
On May 28 2011 00:59 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Meaning of Life and Life itself is pretty hard to explain. Where does everything come from? Why am I here? etc. All question not answered by scientist. Even the Big Bang does not explain why everything is as it is. Why particles behave as they do. Gravitrons, Higgs Bosons or whatever. Where do the rules come from? And if you can point that out, I'll probably answer with " and why is that?" and you would have the next task. Physics does a decent job of explaining rules. but not where they come from. So whenever somebody asks me about all this I just say I don't freakin know, how can I? and this position is absolutely distinct from there can't be a god. Cause there can be one. or two. or we're just an experiment. or this is a pretty cool video game of the future and you wake up when u die. And if they ask me what I think is the most possible solution is, I'll answer with " I DON'T FREAKIN KNOW" and get me a beer. e: added stuff Nope he has it right to some degree, in a dichotomy : 1) I believe in god 2) I lack the belief in god there is no third logical position unless you don't even know what you are thinking, but than there is a different problem. You are thinking about : 1) There is a god 2) There is no god in this case the third position "I don't know" exists. But even in that case it is not really a good position. As for the questions about meaning. Are you sure those are actually sensible questions. There are many gramatically correct questions that are nonsensical and I suspect most questions about meaning of life and universe are of the same nature. That our language allows us to construct a question does not mean that question has an answer or even makes sense.
Let me put it this way:
1) I believe that everything just randomly appeared with a pretty descent set of rules of physics.
2) I lack the believe that everything just randomly appeared with a pretty descent set of rules of physics.
You see that you can see it from a different point of view. And too me both concerns are vivid and require faith. So I don't think about it.
and to the person who said something about easter bunnies. Why don't you get that the world is kind of a wonder and pretty cool for pure randomness and there might exist a point of view where the absence of higher entities is just as unlikely as a god. There are enough points scientist will never explain.
|
On May 28 2011 01:03 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:00 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:48 marvellosity wrote:On May 28 2011 00:40 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 00:26 Olinim wrote:On May 27 2011 23:25 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:28 krbz wrote:On May 27 2011 15:19 Popss wrote:On May 27 2011 15:15 atheistaphobe wrote:On May 27 2011 15:08 krbz wrote:
Christianity is backed up by "stories" compiled into a book. The history is only of the stories and completely untestable. I would also like to add that they are stories from an age that had very little understanding of the world around them. They couldn't explain things so they created something to provide that explanation.
Scientific theory cannot take divine power into consideration as it cannot be subjected to testing and verified by multiple parties. It cannot stand in a scientific setting because all a religious follower can present is the book the have "faith" in. Social Sciences prove again and again that devout Christians live a healthier life and that prayer has an effect. Atheism is nothing. It cannot be proved. . What about atheism have to be proved. I actually really don't get that :S Atheism is the "belief" that their is no god. Theism is the "belief" that their is a god. They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly. Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. ^aka - The logical choice. Ah I keep messing up agnosticism and atheism. But yeah claiming that God does not exist feels about as ridiculous to me as claiming that he does exist. Unless you can show me proof for either. Guess that makes me agnostic. "Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities" actually, it is a third position. agnoticism does not judge the likeliness of a god nor refuses god or other higher instances. they just say that they don't know. did u ever see a poll? the answers are usually "Yes", "No" and "I don't know" (or similar). Three distinct positions. I consider myself an agnostic. and not at all an atheist. Wow, you managed to completely not understand the post you were replying to :| Do you believe in god? If yes, you are theist. If no, you are atheist = lack of belief. It's nothing to do with likeliness or the possibility of the supernatural. I don't know why I HAVE to choose a side. Maybe there is a god, maybe not. And that's a legit position to me, cause we can't know. And by saying "Hey, but it is just more likely that there is no god" and thus makin me an atheist, because I say "I don't know", you judge the likeliness. You just assume that my "I don't know" implies my lack of faith which is just plain wrong. I just don't know. Nothing more, nothing less. you just say that the existence of god needs proove and not the lack of god. That's ok, but something I refuse to rate. From my point of view it is just as likely that nothing makes sense at all and is random energy (with no real origin as it seems), as that some higher entitiy made some pretty cool stuff here, and also that it is something entirely different. We'll never understand how an event horizon actually bends time to infinity or how the borders of the universe are made. Deal with it. That's just stuff our small brain can't handle, so why think of solutions and not just sit back and enjoying the right. So again, it is a third position, right in the middle where no sides exist and I just say "Leave me alone, why think about it, we're too small anyways" Alright this is a Yes or no question, it's very simple. Do you, the person I am speaking to right now, BELIEVE, that is, to hold a belief in a deity. IF YES, you are theist, IF NOT, you are an atheist, although you would be either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.
My position is "I CAN'T ANSWER THIS QUESTION. cause we never will be able too, our brains are too small".
So I just refuse to answer your "yes" or "no" questions due to lack of information / brain
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
