20% of americans are athiests

[Krynn72]

So on that basis anything outside the realm of your personal experience neither exists or has any value then? There was no Roman Empire, man never landed on the moon, the big bang never happened?

Thats not at all what he is saying. There is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire, plenty of empirical evidence for the moon landing, and at least some empirical evidence for the big bang theory.

What he is saying is the anecdotal evidence which supposedly "proves" religions is not something to be taken into consideration.

 

[Kadayi]

**** off, Polokov.

LOL

Thats not at all what he is saying. There is a lot of empirical evidence for the existence of the Roman Empire, plenty of empirical evidence for the moon landing, and at least some empirical evidence for the big bang theory.

Please feel free to empirically prove to me that the Roman empire actually existed, and isn't an elaborate sham fabricated by let's say OJ Simpson, the Japanese, our great grandparents and the filthy Swiss. while you're at it you might even try proving to me that you in fact exist and aren't merely part of an elaborate hallucination I'm experiencing. Fact of the matter is, is that the vast majority of things in this life we accept as being with little or no evidence at all. If you turn the spotlight on one thing you have to turn it on the other to be fair.

 

[<RJMC>]

I say that you are all gay

my acnedote? this post

so yo all r gay

 

[theotherguy]

LOL



Please feel free to empirically prove to me that the Roman empire actually existed, and isn't an elaborate sham fabricated by let's say OJ Simpson, the Japanese, our great grandparents and the filthy Swiss. while you're at it you might even try proving to me that you in fact exist and aren't merely part of an elaborate hallucination I'm experiencing. Fact of the matter is, is that the vast majority of things in this life we accept as being with little or no evidence at all. If you turn the spotlight on one thing you have to turn it on the other to be fair.

True, but it takes a hell of alot more faith to believe that a magic, tribal skydaddy exists than believing the Roman Empire existed.

Look, we can make certain presuppositions, logical presuppositions about the world when we have enough confounding evidence to do so.

Presupposing the existence of an intelligent deity is by no means logical. You might as well presuppose the existence of a giant green lobster on mars.

 

[theotherguy]

Well, if they dont believe there is a god, but also dont believe there isnt a god, then how are they Deists at all?

Do you have any idea of what you're saying here?

You can't "believe there is a god, but also dont believe there isnt a god". Belief is a positive assertion. If you believe in a god, you are a theist, if you do not believe in a god, you are atheist. Atheist is the negative assertion.

 

[Krynn72]

Do you have any idea of what you're saying here?

You can't "believe there is a god, but also dont believe there isnt a god". Belief is a positive assertion. If you believe in a god, you are a theist, if you do not believe in a god, you are atheist. Atheist is the negative assertion.

I understand that, and I said as much in my previous post before. But he was saying agnostics are Deists. Or, I just got confused as to what he was saying. :/

Please feel free to empirically prove to me that the Roman empire actually existed, and isn't an elaborate sham fabricated by let's say OJ Simpson, the Japanese, our great grandparents and the filthy Swiss. while you're at it you might even try proving to me that you in fact exist and aren't merely part of an elaborate hallucination I'm experiencing. Fact of the matter is, is that the vast majority of things in this life we accept as being with little or no evidence at all. If you turn the spotlight on one thing you have to turn it on the other to be fair.

So you're saying all the physical artifacts that we have found, all the surviving structures, all the documents, all the thousand of pages of recorded dealings of the Roman Empire are all anecdotal evidence?

 

[theotherguy]

So you're saying all the physical artifacts that we have found, all the surviving structures, all the documents, all the thousand of pages of recorded dealings of the Roman Empire are all anecdotal evidence?

I think what polokov is getting at is a sort of sophism. He is implying that all evidence is anecdotal, because it relies on human senses.

 

[Letters]

people trying to logically argue come up with lots of illogical shit

semantics is boring as hell

overthinking sucks

unicorns are real

lalala

 

[Sudano]

"Ages 18-25." The future looks bright.

At least are children wont be molested..

whats the big deal, what good comes out of religion? All is see is people fighting and starting wars, and then when they are in deep shit start praying for help. trying not to be an ass here, really, tell me what good comes out of it.

 

[delusional]

Please feel free to empirically prove to me that the Roman empire actually existed, and isn't an elaborate sham fabricated by let's say OJ Simpson, the Japanese, our great grandparents and the filthy Swiss.

The roman empire didn't exist, but it wasn't fabricated by the japanese or OJ Simpson, it was by 16th-17th century clergymen.
[GVIDEO]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7300345524047693918&q=History%3A+Fiction+or+Science%3F&total=541&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0[/GVIDEO]

 

[Sudano]

Well, most of the time, your kids will grow to be smarter than you, so I see it like that. I think we, all humans, will screw up and end up killing our selves, or succeed and become smart and accualy try and find out what is "out there" from means of new technology. I think we are at a turning point right now, something big is going to happen, and we are going to either go UP, or go DOWN.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

You are a moron. A good scientist will not just assume. Take a ****ing science class.

Once again, you're a moron. I also am 99% certain unicorns do not exist. Anyone who thinks an agnostic person MUST be 50% - 50% needs to murder themselves.

I would deal with you right now, Lh'owon has already destroyed your post. I'm a moron? At least I READ the posts AND I don't use ad hominem. You do. Irony, much?

 

[Sudano]

Like I said, I don't really know anything about religions much, wtf does a unicorn have to do with it? lol?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Like I said, I don't really know anything about religions much, wtf does a unicorn have to do with it? lol?

Well basically, there is no evidence either way for god, so theists say "since there is no evidence he doesn't exist, I'll believe in him". At the same time, there is no evidence that unicorns exist, but no evidence that they don't - so if you believe in god, by the same logic you should believe in unicorns.

 

[Muffin Man]

Well basically, there is no evidence either way for god, so theists say "since there is no evidence he doesn't exist, I'll believe in him". At the same time, there is no evidence that unicorns exist, but no evidence that they don't - so if you believe in god, by the same logic you should believe in unicorns.

How many times have you mentioned unicorns in this thread?

 

[Top Secret]

Atomic quite clearly said that a "scientist would analyse the information he has got and say "well, there is no evidence, and no experiment can prove it, so it proboaly doesn't exist." Does that sound like assuming to you? He even said "probably doesn't exist". That is NOT assuming anything; it is drawing a rational conclusion from available evidence, without admitting 100% certainty.

What evidence? There is NO evidence. PLEASE, take a science course or five. Scientific method people.

I agree with you here - there is no reason an agnostic has to be 50-50, although I'd argue that from an agnostic's perspective percentages are a bit meaningless. An agnostic believes a satisfying conclusion cannot be drawn from the evidence, and so wouldn't invoke percentages.

The percentages are a mere grasp to indicate where I stand on this "fence" that people have created.

Technically, yes. While you can?t technically be an atheist, as you cannot actually disprove the existence of God, you can be as much an atheist about God as you are about Thor, Poseidon, and fairies. Let that sink in. An atheist, by your definition, is someone who denies the existence of god. How is that an irrational position to take, especially for a scientist? We can all deny the existence of unicorns without calling ourselves agnostics towards their existence.

Not true. You can prove that unicorns do not exist by simply searching the entire globe. It's highly impractical, but POSSIBLE. You cannot search for God.

You completely lost it here. I mean, what? You think that atheists are merely guessing? There is NO evidence for the existence of God! How is that "no scientific backing"? Sheesh. You'd have to be a fool to be an atheist as a guess .

I can completely render your comment moot with a statement. Prove to me God doesn't exist. You cannot. Just because something has no evidence does not mean it is false. You are committing a logical fallacy here. All atheists are guessing, just as every priest is GUESSING.

Deal with that twisted attempt at logic? No thanks. And as for your last piece of advice, I think my hypocricy-meter just exploded.

None of my statements have been hypocritical.

I would deal with you right now, Lh'owon has already destroyed your post. I'm a moron? At least I READ the posts AND I don't use ad hominem. You do. Irony, much?

I'm afraid he didn't. Please, people. Go to a university, take a few philosophy lessons, and take a few science classes. Learn WHAT logical fallacy is, and learn WHAT the scientific method is. Otherwise, you are both talking out of your asses here. I do not mean to sound like a high and mighty jackass, but seriously.

And also, it is impossible for me to use ad hominem, as you have no fact to which I may apply it to. Once you have scientifically proven that God does not exist, I would then be guilty of ad hominem.

"Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given"

Which would mean that you are assuming that the non-existence of God is a given. It is not.

I'm done with you both. Goodbye.

 

[cheddarrr]

im a "christian"
and im one of the few that know that a Joan De Arc move isnt going to work.. and I already know that everyone has their own opinons on what they think.. and that if they are curious of what i believe they will ask. im one of the few that wont force my beliefs down your throat and tell you they are fact.

you know wassup. i know wassup. if you have questions you'll ask.

 

[Uriel]

I'm just going to draw attention to my sig.

*taps sig

Read it

 

[kirovman]

I'm sorry to contradict you but the Bible doesn't tell the "Christians" to do any such thing, and your propagating sensationalist falsehoods by claiming it does. In all seriousness if you intend to rally against something at least have the decency to know what it is you are rallying against in detail.

Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.

'Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.'

'If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death. Their blood is on their own heads.'

It doesn't come much clearer than that. I don't see how you can deny it. These are supposed to be the direct words of the God almighty after all. If Christians think that people who would stone homosexuals to death are bigoted, then obviously God is a bigot. At the very least.

I do apologise, it doesn't mention stoning to death for that particular sin, only that the offenders must be put to death. However stoning is mentioned as a punishment for other sins in this chapter.

Considering that Leviticus is part of the Bible, and Jesus in Matthew 5:17 says that he has not come to abolish any of the old laws... it follows that Christians (followers of Christ, unless I am grievously mistaken) should put homosexuals to death.
I am not rallying against anything, I am simply informing what the Bible says, and what followers of the Bible *should* be doing if they are following it word for word.

I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way, it's very clear cut. I believe Mechagodzilla went over similar things with you before.

Fact of the matter is, is that the vast majority of things in this life we accept as being with little or no evidence at all. If you turn the spotlight on one thing you have to turn it on the other to be fair.

This is true, but it doesn't automatically give credence to religion. If anything, it is strong evidence that people are easily led, whether by information or misinformation.

However, I strongly believe that the Roman empire existed, because I have seen a Roman fort in my town, and the Roman wall, and I have seen the Colosseum in Rome to name but a few.
I have seen archaeologists excavating Roman tools, weapons and household items.
I have read history books and studied it in detail, and I have found no earth-shattering contradictions or paradoxes in the evidence (unlike the Bible or Koran for example).
It is fair to say the evidence to support the Roman Empire's existance is abundant and plentiful.
There is nothing supernatural or unbelievable or anti-scientific about the Roman Empire existing and there would be a more complex and conspiracy theory-esque explanation required to explain why it didn't exist.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Not true. You can prove that unicorns do not exist by simply searching the entire globe. It's highly impractical, but POSSIBLE. You cannot search for God.

I will quote the entire post later, however for now: You cannot prove a unicorn that turns invisble when you look at it is right behind you.

Also, I didn't mean ad hominem, apologise, I meant your childish name calling ,your pathetic attempts at being offensive and your amazing arrogence. You want to put yourself on a pedastel above me? Go **** yourself.

How many times have you mentioned unicorns in this thread?

I was explaining about why to Sudano why I kept mentioning them.

Also, please please MECHA come back. ;(

 

[THE_END]

Religeous people annoy the hell out of me with their stupid circular beleif systems and thinking that they are better than atheists

 

[Absinthe]

Atheist - "Someone who denies the existence of god." - Princeton

Agnostic - "A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)" - Princeton

They are nothing but simple definitions. Nowhere does it describe that a person who is Agnostic must be in the middle of the fence.

I would like links for those definitions.

An atheist is not somebody who denies the existence of gods. They can do that, but is not a requirement for atheism. An atheist simply does not believe in gods. It as absence of belief, not a belief in absence. If you are agnostic, you do not believe in God. You are technically a non-theist. It therefore follows that you are also an atheist. You need to stop thinking about atheism and agnosticism as mutually incompatible shades on the spectrum of theism. They're not. Most people who call themselves agnostics today are technically atheists. If you don't believe in God, you are one by default.

Myself, I'm 99% sure there is no God. But that is my GUESS. I can acknowledge to myself that it is my GUESS. I have NO scientific backing for it. Therefor, I am AGNOSTIC.

You're an atheist. You don't believe in a god.

If you are religious. I think you a fool.
If you are atheist, I think you a fool.

DEAL with it.

If you want to go out of your way to call yourself an agnostic, then I think it's you who is the fool.

"Hi! I'm Top Secret! I'm 99% sure there is no god, but I'm going to act like a fence-sitter with a shallow veneer of open-minded fairness. Never mind that this cowtow position only exists because it's considered dumb or rude to say that something without any evidence doesn't exist, even though I would gladly say the same to the million or so other unsupported fanciful ideas that exist in almost every other aspect of my life. Who cares about the statistical improbability? Who cares that most known Gods are pretty much bunk? I'm content to just pussyfoot around the middle of the road to seem moderate and inoffensive. This in turn makes me wise."

Stuff it. Please.

 

[PvtRyan]

You are a moron. A good scientist will not just assume. Take a ****ing science class.

Well, to be fair, in the end everything is an assumption since absolute certainty doesn't exist in this universe. But generally you're right here.

When there is no evidence of something, a scientist will not factor it into his model of the world. When a scientists conducts an experiment, he does not assume God doesn't exist, but he does not account for the possibility of God tampering with the experiment.

Once again, you're a moron. I also am 99% certain unicorns do not exist. Anyone who thinks an agnostic person MUST be 50% - 50% needs to murder themselves.

For the existence of God, there are two possibilities:

1) he exists
2) he does not exist

An agnostic isn't taking sides with either, he's in the middle of this.

You can't say you're 99% sure about the non-existence of God because that implies that the evidence that he does not exist is 99% conclusive (just missing that 1% of evidence to make it certain) while the very claim of an agnostic is that there is no evidence either way. So err.. way to kill your own argument?

Atheist - "Someone who denies the existence of god." - Princeton

Way to selectively quote. There's plenty more varying definitions on atheism, every one as "valid" as the next. Just analyze the fucking word for fuck's sake.

What's a theist? A theist is a believer in a personal God.

What is someone who is asocial? He is NOT social.

What is someone who is an atheist? He is NOT a believer in a personal God.

Nothing in the word implies an active denial of God. I do not believe in God, but I don't believe in his non-existence.

Seriously, how fucking hard is it? Very hard apparently since some found it necessary to come up with a clarification for stubborn people like you:

Weak atheist - Someone who does not believe in a personal god.

Strong atheist - Someone who claims there is no god.

Agnostic - "A person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)" - Princeton

They are nothing but simple definitions. Nowhere does it describe that a person who is Agnostic must be in the middle of the fence.

Well, we've affirmed that an agnostic cannot claim he is 99% sure there is no God, because that still implies there is certainty to be had and at least some evidence for his non-existence. So that invalidates every other percentage too, so you're right in saying that an agnostic isn't 50-50% sure about the existence of God, but he gives both possibilities equal credit. You don't make any claims of certainty towards either side, I'd call that giving both options equal likeliness.

Anyone who does not see this point is simply stupid - A true scientist would be Agnostic, as God cannot be proven true, nor false. Until such a test can be conceived to determine the truth, that is how they should remain. If a test could be devised that would either prove or disapprove the existence of "god" that were repeatable, then that is what a true scientist should claim.

Well, like Dawkins says, the claim of a God is a scientific one if you claim God has any effect on this universe. Theoretically, it's possible to gain 100% knowledge of the physical universe, practically it isn't of course, but the principle stands. If no influence of God is found, i.e.: something which the natural laws cannot account for, then the only remaining option for a theist (automatically a deist by now) is that he exists but has no influence on this universe. Which makes him entirely irrelevant.

Whether or not the concept of God can be disproved is dependent on how far you wish to stretch the concept. The classic "bearded guy in the sky on a cloud" god has LONG been disproved. No such guy was reported to be found by NASA on their way to the moon. And with 100% knowledge of the universe, the only remaining possibility is that he has no influence whatsoever on it.

Currently, some room for God in this universe certainly exists, we don't really know "why" the big bang happened, so a theist might say "God thought up this universe and its laws and let it happen through the big bang". But if we ever manage to create a model that explains the big bang, the God of the gaps loses his job there too by favor of Occam's razor (a natural approach is far simpler than an infinitely intelligent and complex being to explain a non-infinitely complex problem).

If something in this universe happens without a natural explanation you can say God did it. If there isn't anything, God hasn't been disproved but it does make him irrelevant.

Myself, I'm 99% sure there is no God. But that is my GUESS. I can acknowledge to myself that it is my GUESS. I have NO scientific backing for it. Therefor, I am AGNOSTIC.

Being 99% sure there is no God already implies 99% conclusive scientific evidence. Lol.

I'm not 99% sure there is no God, I simply don't hold a belief in him due to the lack of positive evidence in his favor. I don't calculate his existence into anything I do. He doesn't exist in MY world. You're the one with a claim of 99% certainty, which is PAINFULLY ironic coming from a self-proclaimed agnostic.

At the same time, you must automatically be agnostic towards everything in this universe then. The entire scientific principle is devised by men (and womanz), and its truth can and has been disputed. Without absolute truth (which can only be supplied by a perfect being, a god) you cannot have certainty, or backing, for anything. Are you agnostic towards an oxygen molecule that floats in front of your face at 15.02 cm distance being God? It could be. Are you sure the groceries you just bought are not figments of your imagination? You can't be sure, but for all intents and purposes you're non-believer in the claim that the apple you just bought is the alpha and the omega!

If you are religious. I think you a fool.

No, irrational at most. Plenty of intelligent theists.

If you are atheist, I think you a fool.

But you ARE an atheist. Do you belief in a god? No? Atheist it is then.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Well then, they aren't Christians if they don't care.

The bible tells true Christians to stone homosexuals to death.

Well, at least the Islamic Republic of Iran follows Christianity to the letter.

The bible does say somewhere that when Jesus showed up, the old testament idea of punishing sin isn't applicable anymore.

 

[kirovman]

I recall that it was Paul of Tarsus that wrote words to that effect. But Jesus said that the laws of the old testament are valid until the end of time.

Matthew 5:18
'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law.'

If you are a Christian, nothing should supersede that. Who is right? Jesus or Paul? They contradict each other. In Christian thinking, surely God and Jesus are infallible?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Christians, I'll answer for you: Christians

 

[Solaris]

I noticed a few pages back RJMC posted Einstein was religious.

This is a filthy lie and anyone who twists Einsteins words to make him to be religious should be ashamed on themselves.

 

[Asknoone]

Pretty much.

"Why can't people be nice and respect each others' beliefs?" is the mindset responsible for getting into this bizarre chrono-clash when technologically advanced nations still house people mired in first-century ideas.

People either have good reasons for their beliefs or they don't. If you don't have good reasons, you are subject to criticism. Now you might argue that harboring these beliefs is a victimless crime and that they don't effect you. You might say that it's simply a personal choice and it doesn't matter because it's not being imposed on you. I strongly disagree with this assessment. These "harmless" beliefs are what impedes equality in same-sex marriages, substitutes evolution for pseudoscience in school programs, halts critical scientific research, and sometimes influences whether or not your country goes to war. It doesn't need to be through some insidious abuse of executive power. The sheer power of voting - the process that allows these irrational beliefs to help shape society - is enough.

Imagine if the majority of your country believed that Asia didn't exist and was then given a vote over whether or not to include it in educational fields such as history or geography. Now you see the problem with pleas for respect.

It irks me so much that instead of adopting a position of honest criticism (like telling people they are wrong or have no credibility) has been passed over for this candyass pipedream where everybody's just nice to each other and all religious problems will eventually cease.

Quoted for omega truth.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I recall that it was Paul of Tarsus that wrote words to that effect. But Jesus said that the laws of the old testament are valid until the end of time.

Matthew 5:18
'In truth I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even the smallest stroke of a letter will pass away from The Law.'

If you are a Christian, nothing should supersede that. Who is right? Jesus or Paul? They contradict each other. In Christian thinking, surely God and Jesus are infallible?

Now christainity makes even less sense to me. I always assumed that Jesus, wiped the slate on the OT.

 

[kirovman]

Now christainity makes even less sense to me. I always assumed that Jesus, wiped the slate on the OT.

Well, that's what most "Christians" believe. But according to the Bible, they are wrong. They probably should be called Paulians, followers of Paul, the false prophet.

 

[Jintor]

Aethiest definition says all prophets are false, ammirite?

(Oh noes, Islam)

 

[Kadayi]

I do apologise, it doesn't mention stoning to death for that particular sin, only that the offenders must be put to death. However stoning is mentioned as a punishment for other sins in this chapter. Considering that Leviticus is part of the Bible, and Jesus in Matthew 5:17 says that he has not come to abolish any of the old laws... it follows that Christians (followers of Christ, unless I am grievously mistaken) should put homosexuals to death.
I am not rallying against anything, I am simply informing what the Bible says, and what followers of the Bible *should* be doing if they are following it word for word.

I think you'll also find that Jesus is pretty big on the idea that the people follow the spirit of the law throughout his teachings rather than the letter of the law as you claim they should. Jesus is also pretty big on the idea of forgiving people their Sins and indiscretions as well, in contrast to the severity of punishment you find in the old testament, because God realizes that mankind is inherently flawed, and is always going to break the laws he set down. The best God hopes for is that mankind aspires to follow them in heart. That is the same basic position and argument that any neighbourhood priest will give you regarding how Christians should see the teachings of the old testament. Also God isn't infallible as you claim. After the great Flood when God washes away the corruption of the first men he promises Noah that no matter what he will not visit such destruction upon mankind again.

I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way, it's very clear cut.

That's because you're easily lead and have an agenda rather than an open mind. In all seriousness you really need to know your subject if your going to try and argue in it. I found it amusing that you cite the now absent Mecha as if he was some bastion of piercing religious insight. Forgive me for daring to question the validity of a 21 year old from sticksvilles, anal retentive religious arguments Vs 2000 years of religious instruction/interpretation, and the daily devotions of billions of people throughout History. In the same way that you ask me to accept that the Roman empire existed because of the body of physical evidence that is in place, I'm wholly justified in asking you to accept that given the fact that Christians haven't been stoning Homosexuals to death constantly through out the ages that your interpretation as to what they should have been doing is clearly wrong. To claim otherwise is to purport that you are blessed with an insight into the teachings of the Christ/God/Yahweh that has escaped the minds of all those who have come before you. That's exactly the same position that Mecha found himself in, and he didn't have a valid response to that one either.

I'm not remotely religious, but I do tire of reading posts by fanatical atheists trying to tell Christians what they should be doing, as if their far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than their audience. There is something faintly vulgar and patronizing about it. That's not to say some Christians don't act in the same manner, but fanatics are found everywhere.

Holding to the notion of a omnipotent Godhead is no more far fetched an idea that holding to the science of mathematics and the premise of multiplication. You can't physically show someone multiplication in the strictest sense, but we all subscribe to it as a theory and principle.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Kadayi Polokov, what he was getting at was that the bible is gods word - and if you don't kill gays like it demands you are not technically a christian, since a christian follows the bible.

 

[Kadayi]

Kadayi Polokov, what he was getting at was that the bible is gods word - and if you don't kill gays like it demands you are not technically a christian, since a christian follows the bible.

I'm pretty sure you'll find it was men that wrote the bible in all it's various versions, not God.

As for his argument, if he was right as you claim why is there such a complete lack of gay killing going on throughout the world right now? Surely the body of evidence would favour his stance no? Logically that it's not, means something is clearly amiss in his position.

 

[kirovman]

I think you'll also find that Jesus is pretty big on the idea that the people follow the spirit of the law throughout his teachings rather than the letter of the law as you claim they should.

Not me. The Bible, which I have cited.

Jesus is also pretty big on the idea of forgiving people their Sins and indiscretions as well, in contrast to the severity of punishment you find in the old testament, because God realizes that mankind is inherently flawed, and is always going to break the laws he set down. The best God hopes for is that mankind aspires follow them in their heart.

I'm pretty sure there's another law where God explicitly states that following your heart will lead you to hell.

That is the same basic position and argument that any neighbourhood priest will give you regarding how Christians should see the teachings of the old testament. Also God isn't infallible as you claim. After the great Flood when God washes away the corruption of the first men he promises Noah that no matter what he will not visit such destruction upon mankind again.

I'm pretty sure that God is purported to be infallible/perfect/omniscient. Promising never to do the act of flooding again is not the same as admitting he was wrong.

That's because you're easily lead and have an agenda rather than an open mind. In all seriousness you really need to know your subject if your going to try and argue in it. I found it amusing that you cite the now absent Mecha as if he was some bastion of piercing religious insight. Forgive me for daring to question the validity of a 21 year old from sticksvilles, anal retentive religious arguments Vs 2000 years of religious instruction/interpretation, and the daily devotions of billions of people throughout History.

I have an open mind, I do not say 100% that religion is wrong or God does not exist. I do not believe you know me well enough to make a qualified judgement on my character, whether I am easily led and that I have an agenda. Attacking me does not attack my argument.

Am I not allowed to question the inconsistencies in religion without being labelled inaccurately as "21 year old from sticksvilles, anal retentive"?
I am attempting to engage in a debate here that I find interesting and you are bringing ad hominems in and authoritatively telling me that I am not well conversed with the subject (without providing any evidence that you yourself are).

In the same way that you ask me to accept that the Roman empire existed because of the body of physical evidence that is in place,

I'm not asking you to do anything.

I'm wholly justified in asking you to accept that given the fact that Christians haven't been stoning Homosexuals to death constantly through out the ages that your interpretation as to what they should have been doing is clearly wrong.

Because it says that in the Bible! I've just cited it! I am working on the assumption that the Bible is the book that Christians follow.

To claim otherwise is to purport that you are blessed with an insight into the teachings of the Christ/God/Yahweh that has escaped the minds of all those who have come before you. That's exactly the same position that Mecha found himself in, and he didn't have a valid response to that one either.

I'm just making a comment of what I understand from the Bible's texts. The fact that most of the worlds Christians follow the words of Paul instead of Jesus is an appeal to popularity and does not negate my argument.

I'm not remotely religious, but I do tire of reading posts by fanatical atheists trying to tell Christians what they should be doing, as if their far more knowledgeable about the scriptures than their audience. There is something faintly vulgar and patronizing about it. That's not to say some Christians don't act in the same manner, but fanatics are found everywhere.

Fanatical atheists? I am mearly trying to provide an analysis.
I don't understand why I shouldn't be allowed to analyse the holy scriptures and post what I think of them?

Holding to the notion of a omnipotent Godhead is no more far fetched an idea that holding to the science of mathematics and the premise of multiplication. You can't physically show someone multiplication in the strictest sense, but we all subscribe to it as a theory and principle.

Mathematics and science works, and it has allowed humankind to achieve amazing feats.
Mathematics is abstract, yes, but it's applications in reality are not flawed.

Science is evidence based and is self-critical.

To prove the point, when you are flying in an aeroplane, do you trust in the Science or Religion?

As for his argument, if he was right as you claim why is there such a complete lack of gay killing going on throughout the world right now? Surely the body of evidence would favour his stance no? Logically that it's not, means something is clearly amiss in his position.

Do you deny that the Bible advocates the killing of homosexuals?
You use the appeal to popularity again.

 

[Llama]

Don't bother responding to him. He either hasn't read the bible, or he's just stupid.

Also - Following your own path is explicitly stated by be punishable in the Old Testament, along with homosexuality.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I'm pretty sure you'll find it was men that wrote the bible in all it's various versions, not God.

But it says it's gods word. If you are a christian you have to follow gods word.

 

[Kadayi]

Kirov

If you think I'm going to be lured into one of those protracted quote wars that go nowhere you're much mistaken. I put one simple question to you in the post I made and you singularly failed to answer it. I'll put it to you again. If you can't satisfactorily answer it at length and in whole, with an actual solid position rather than try an skirt the issue with question responses then do the decent thing and give up flogging a dead horse.

In the same way that you ask me to accept that the Roman empire existed because of the body of physical evidence that is in place, I'm wholly justified in asking you to accept that given the fact that Christians haven't been stoning Homosexuals to death constantly through out the ages that your interpretation as to what they should have been doing is clearly wrong. To claim otherwise is to purport that you are blessed with an insight into the teachings of the Christ/God/Yahweh that has escaped the minds of all those who have come before you. That's exactly the same position that Mecha found himself in, and he didn't have a valid response to that one either.

Now before you attempt to answer forget all the 'was Paul of Tarsus valid' arguments, Christ questions the sense to the old testament laws in the other older scriptures as well which are strictly canon. That Christ doesn't invalidate the old laws of the old testament means they are still classed as sins, but that he as Gods representative forgives people their sins is of great significance, when it comes to whether people should truly be punished for them. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' I think is one of the more popular lines. Your also as well to pop down to your local synagogue and ask the Rabbi there why the Jews don't kill homosexuals because the fire and Brimstone old testament is a direct translation of their laws, and they don't have the teachings of Christ to get them out of that conundrum. Also less paranoia Kirov, the 21 year old from stickville I was referring to was our mutual absent friend.

Anyhows have fun dreaming up an answer. I'm off to to play TF2

For all the one line interlopers (Llama, AP) let the man argue his own position.

 

[Solaris]

If you think I'm going to be lured into one of those protracted quote wars that go nowhere you're much mistaken

YOU LOSE, Good day sir!

/Willy wonker

 

[kirovman]

Kirov

If you think I'm going to be lured into one of those protracted quote wars that go nowhere you're much mistaken.

Sorry but its the only way I can break down the argument into a manageable way, to make it easier for myself. Apologies for the inconvenience.

I put one simple question to you in the post I made and you singularly failed to answer it. I'll put it to you again. If you can't satisfactorily answer it at length and in whole, with an actual solid position rather than try an skirt the issue with question responses then do the decent thing and give up flogging a dead horse.

In the same way that you ask me to accept that the Roman empire existed because of the body of physical evidence that is in place, I'm wholly justified in asking you to accept that given the fact that Christians haven't been stoning Homosexuals to death constantly through out the ages that your interpretation as to what they should have been doing is clearly wrong. To claim otherwise is to purport that you are blessed with an insight into the teachings of the Christ/God/Yahweh that has escaped the minds of all those who have come before you. That's exactly the same position that Mecha found himself in, and he didn't have a valid response to that one either.

I would argue that homosexuality was a punishable offence in Abrahamically influenced societies, frequently by death, up until the age of liberalisation(1960s) and increasing secularism (earlier).

So I don't accept the "fact" that Christians haven't been killing Homosexuals to death through out the ages, and I think that Christianity was forced to abandon it by secular forces.

A lot of Christian societies did punish homosexuality, especially when the Church was at the height of its power.

Therefore I am unable to address your question in the current form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Europe still had death penalty laws for homosexuality in the 18th and even 19th Centuries.
I already explained that I mistakenly said stoning, rather than the broader "put to death".

I would also like to point out that homosexuality is just one example of many old testament laws.

Now before you attempt to answer forget all the 'was Paul of Tarsus valid' arguments, Christ questions the sense to the old testament laws in the other older scriptures as well which are strictly canon. That Christ doesn't invalidate the old laws of the old testament means they are still classed as sins, but that he as Gods representative forgives people their sins is of great significance, when it comes to whether people should truly be punished for them. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' I think is one of the more popular lines.

And as an adherent of the Bible, I would expect to kill others for breaking the Law, as I would expect them to kill me for breaking the law.

Your also as well to pop down to your local synagogue and ask the Rabbi there why the Jews don't kill homosexuals because the fire and Brimstone old testament is a direct translation of their laws, and they don't have the teachings of Christ to get them out of that conundrum.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with the workings of Jewish society. However I have read news articles about ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel demanding strict Torah laws.

I do accept that in the modern age, Christianity and Judaism seem much more moderate than in previous days. It does seem to me that it has a lot to do with external pressures. I also think that after being persecuted for centuries, the Jewish have developed a great degree of empathy and pragmatism.

Also less paranoia Kirov, the 21 year old from stickville I was referring to was our mutual absent friend.

Anyhows have fun dreaming up an answer. I'm off to to play TF2

Damn you and your TF2 beta! D: (Heh, I'm kidding, just upset that I don't have TF2, otherwise I'd probably be on there rather than arguing on forums).