New ALabama governor openly asks for non-Christians to convert

[Asknoone]

Long, I do not want to write that much......... didn't this thread die?

sigh

I don't really care who believes what so can you stop going on about this freaking thread ok? I will take that as a yes

yeah... that was uncalled for

thank you for killing this thread,

THANK YOU

well it is old news... I don't really care about what anyone believes and ther is no point in trying to debate someone into disproving their said beliefs, I am atheist myself so like I said I DON"T CARE what anyone believes and i won't bother anyone on trying to disprove their beliefs... I have no standpoint

yeah no limit is always on the political and lounge threads

Reading your posts:

 

[voodoospriest]

well it is old news... I don't really care about what anyone believes and ther is no point in trying to debate someone into disproving their said beliefs, I am atheist myself so like I said I DON"T CARE what anyone believes and i won't bother anyone on trying to disprove their beliefs... I have no standpoint

Seriously? You don't have a stand point? Is that why you are dissuading others from discussing their views? You know, I don't really give two shits about what you have for dinner but I don't try to impose my lack of opinion on you.

P.S. How long before you get banned? Can you please hurry up?

 

[Dead Phil]

Are you blind?, I made 1 comment, 1 and then I apoligized for it.

 

[Sheepo]

If you're referring to your second post... well I'm not exactly surprised no one realized it was an apology. Basically, take this:

If you have nothing that isn't atleast two of the following:

a) Unique
b) Insightful (or at the very least not incredibly obvious or well known)
c) Interesting
d) Relevant and coherent

to contribute to the discussion (and one of them has to be D), you need not post.

Edit: I threw in coherent after looking at your post history.

 

[Dead Phil]

Well then let me make a Formal apology to all those lives I have riuned due to the horridness of my comment:

I Dead Phil here by ask for an forgiveness for my outrightfull and unneeded comment I had made earlier, i regret my actions and hope that 1 day I may be respected and thought of as family here in HalfLife2.net forums. I have made many mistakes in my life but few that have evar effected the lives of more than several other other than myself...I am dearly and lovingly sorry for my actions........

 

[Shift]

Do you have some kind of blog I could subscribe to or something? I feel like I'm being robbed of precious insights whenever you don't pop into a thread to shed these little jewels of wisdom. Please, tell me more about the "I DON"T CARE."

This has literally made my day.

 

[Sheepo]

Well then let me make a Formal apology to all those lives I have riuned due to the horridness of my comment:

I Dead Phil here by ask for an forgiveness for my outrightfull and unneeded comment I had made earlier, i regret my actions and hope that 1 day I may be respected and thought of as family here in HalfLife2.net forums. I have made many mistakes in my life but few that have evar effected the lives of more than several other other than myself...I am dearly and lovingly sorry for my actions........

Oh, my mistake, I didn't realize you were too cool to care. I thought you might be interested in not wasting your own time posting inane and pointless shit while not annoying everyone else on the forum. If being an obnoxious irritation is all you really want from your stay here, please, carry on.

 

[comradesean]

thread driven off the road. Smashed through guard rail. Right off cliff. Smashed into bottom of chasm. Now burning into ashes.

 

[No Limit]

Okay, I'm not trying to defend the bible or it's message or claim that it has any kind of validity, but I don't think someone with such a pathetic misunderstanding of what is commonly established to be "Christ's message" should really be debating christianity. Really, it's sailed so far over your head it might as well be in heaven.

By all means explain it to me. What rules are there for what from the OT still applies and what doesn't? Is genesys still the literal description of creation or is it not? What if the OT has sins in it which are not covered in the new testament, do they still apply? I by no means pretend to be a biblical expert, from the sounds of it Shift definitely isn't either. Maybe you can fill us in.

 

[Krynn72]

The fact that it can't be disproven makes it a plausible belief, therefore it seems perfectly acceptable to me*.

I didn't read the rest of the thread to see if this was addressed, but... really? Really Sheepo?

 

[No Limit]

You act as if this is the first stupid thing sheepo has ever said.

 

[Asknoone]

I like Sheepo a lot, but I think his propensity to say "stupid things" (which is very, very small, I might add), is the least of his problems. This is a total tangent, but it needs to be said. Sheepo, why so absurdly self-conscious and ridiculous with how you're perceived? I think posts where you're sticking your head up to say, "Oh, was I too mean? I am trying" or "How was that mean?" or "I'm sorry about how mean that was I retract" are just completely inane, borderline attention-seeking. It's HL2.net. Who cares. You're not mean. You're clever and sharp and you've got things to say that I like to read. So sometimes you come across as caustic. It happens. Stop being such a willy about it.

 

[Sheepo]

I didn't read the rest of the thread to see if this was addressed, but... really? Really Sheepo?

You act as if this is the first stupid thing sheepo has ever said.

No, you're right, moderate christians should be sent to concentration camps. They're just unacceptable.

And Samon, I think you have a point, but this seems like a sort of random place to make it. I don't think I've been particulary timid, self-conscious, or apologetic in this thread at all. But yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head, but your point goes beyond this forum. My internet self is just a strange reflection and shadow of my real life self, and I'm afraid that aspect of myself will be changing in my personal life before it ever changes on the internet.

 

[No Limit]

And there he goes again.

Let me see if I can explain this to you. The issue is that you said "The fact that it can't be disproven makes it a plausible belief, therefore it seems perfectly acceptable to me".

What else that can't be disproven do you find to be a plausible belief? That unicorns exist? That santa might in fact be real?

Nobody is suggesting that christians should be treated as second class citizens (even if I think their views are a problem in our society), the issue is that your line of thinking here makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Asknoone]

And Samon, I think you have a point, but this seems like a sort of random place to make it. I don't think I've been particulary timid, self-conscious, or apologetic in this thread at all. But yeah, I think you've hit the nail on the head, but your point goes beyond this forum. My internet self is just a strange reflection and shadow of my real life self, and I'm afraid that aspect of myself will be changing in my personal life before it ever changes on the internet.

Oh, it has nothing to do with this thread at all. I just took the opportunity to say it. "a strange reflection and shadow of my real life self" - the same for anyone behind the mask of an avatar and a username.

 

[Sheepo]

Thinking up nonsense theories won't prove my point ridiculous. There are areas (okay, maybe just one really) where the existence of science and christianity do not necessarily disagree. The Big Bang, while it may not require the existence of a diety, doesn't preclude it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that people might like to think that the universe didn't just happen, that maybe instead of things going poof, an old bearded guy with a plan said poof. Other than that, the truly defining beliefs of Christianity are Christ: his miracles and resurrection. What makes that belief less absurd than unicorns (though I'll concede the difference may be marginal) is the culture and tradition of Christianity. No matter what you believe, there's little denying that 2000 years ago, some shit went down. But the real principle difference between silly mythical things and christianity is obvious: Christianity means something. That belief gives meaning to their life. No one's going to die or face ridicule to defend their belief in Unicorns and Santa, because when the smoke clears, they wouldn't really have anything to show for it even if they were right.

Actually, I think I'll just dig up a quote from an old stern thread for this next bit:

I'm sorry, that's just how reality works. Plus, you can sort of prove that Santa and the tooth fairy don't exist (atleast in the capacity that we understand them), but yeah, supernatural things and urban legends are pretty much impossible to actually outright disprove. I don't think unicorns are incredibly likely, but I'm not certain there's any sort of biological reason they couldn't exist. But anyway, that's the beauty of science, it gives everything a fair chance.

And all this has very little to do with what was actually being said at the time. You asked whether I thought the belief was acceptable. I gave the best answer I could and pointed out that, without clarification, I really had no idea what you meant. Since I still don't know what you mean I don't know how much this is worht, but yeah, I find the belief in unicorns and santa acceptable. Acceptable meaning: People with those beliefs should be accepted, so long as they're peaceful and productive members of society.

Edit: Well, I think it was good to hear it from some one else Samon. Thanks for being completely honest and somewhat kind.

Double edit! What's your point about everyone having the same relation to their internet self? It's not as if I implied otherwise.

 

[No Limit]

You say they are nonsense theories but they have just as much evidance against them as God does. And the issue here is not really God, the issue is christianity. And if you say christianity can't be disproven then I don't agree with that at all, it certainly can be. Because in order to be a christian you must believe in the bible, which means you believe in genesis (and all sorts of other silly stories). And that was disproven a very long time ago.

Yes, we don't yet know what created the big bang. Was it some kind of intelligent design, certainly possible (not plausible). But you can come up with just about any other theory you want (such as the universe doesn't even exist, this is all in our head) and they are just as likely. But to the question of was the universe created how genesis said it was created? Sure as hell not, we know it wasn't created that way. So that invalidates the bible as an infalible document which is the only set of books that makes someone a christian by definition.

Without there being proof behind something you can't say that the argument you are making is logical (on edit: logical is actually probably not the right word) and you sure as hell can't say it is plausible.

 

[Sheepo]

Well, you can argue what it means to be a christian all you want (Frankly, it seems that it would make sense for christians to define what it means to be christian, but you apparently have gone ahead and defined it for them. From now on 'christian' means what 'fundimental christian' used to mean, and the vast majority of christians can no longer be considered so. Glad you cleared that up.) but I'm defending the beliefs I'm defending, and nothing more. And you're actually right about the plausibility thing. The entire basis for my asserting all these things' plausibility is my misunderstanding of the word. You can read back over everything I've said and replace 'plausible' with 'possible'.

Edit: And I'm interested to see if Koorn comes back and says something, and if that thing will be "No, I really didn't think about what the sentence I quoted actually meant at all, nor did I consider the very obvious context of the sidenote indicated by the asterisk, which I didn't even cut out of the quotation." Because unless you guys tell me that 'acceptable' also means something entirely different from what I think it means, you don't belong in a democratic, free, or civilized society if you consider that sentence "stupid". But I doubt that.

 

[No Limit]

I think most christians (including shift) would agree that you need to follow the bible and take it to be the word of God in order to be a christian. How you interpret it is debatable but the premise that it is infallible isn't. I'm just guessing what by far the majority of christians would argue, that's really just a side point.

The main point is with the question of can the bible be disproven? And the obvious answer to any person that looks at this question objectively is that it not only can it be disproven but it already has been.

 

[Sheepo]

I'm not really interested in defining what christian means. It's not as if you'll have made atheism more right by proving christianity is more insane, by definition, than people realize. You'll have just invented the League of Churches Previously Known as Christian Churches Until the Prophet No Limit Showed Up and Told Us What Christian Actually Meant.

 

[Escaep]

. Because in order to be a christian you must believe in the bible, which means you believe in genesis (and all sorts of other silly stories). And that was disproven a very long time ago.

Do you believe the story of Genesis was a literal 7 days? (7, 24 hour days).

 

[No Limit]

I think you are missing the main point I am making. Is there actual physical evidance that the bible is wrong?

If you anwser correctly you will have said yes. Which means that atheism is actually far more logical than believing in the bible since the bible has been disproven, atheism hasn't. If you answer no then I would love for you to explain how chapter 1 of genesis doesn't violate just about everything we know about our universe (it's a really quick read).

 

[No Limit]

Do you believe the story of Genesis was a literal 7 days? (7, 24 hour days).

Shift actually made a good point about that, I was wrong. It didn't say exactly that, but I would argue that it implied that (doesnt matter, still wrong on my part).

But what genesis does say is that the earth came before the sun (since light came later). Now I asked shift to explain that to me but he was done, maybe you can tell me what the bible means by that.

 

[Krynn72]

"No, I really didn't think about what the sentence I quoted actually meant at all, nor did I consider the very obvious context of the sidenote indicated by the asterisk, which I didn't even cut out of the quotation."

Oh, um... yup.

Well, sorta yup. The people should be accepted. Their beliefs should not. Delusion doesn't help anybody. There is no proof God exists in any way, so it should not be believed. There is no proof that all the matter that existed at the time of the big bang has always existed, so that shouldn't be believed either. The only true fact we know about the origin of all things is that we don't know how it happened, so we shouldn't go around pretending we do and convincing others that we know the answer.

I'm not saying we should pack all theists into a space ship and launch them into the sun, but I think we should tell them to stop being stupid and accept the fact that we don't know where everything came from, and that their 'answer' is so unlikely that we can be as sure as we can be about anything that its wrong. Part of the reason why civilization works is that we can tell people to "shut up and dont be stupid." The only way people can stop being stupid is to stop making up false answers and simply strive to find the actual answers, or wait for others to find them.

So I'll say it again, I dont think people should be free from having their beliefs questioned. Especially since their beliefs will be preached to their kids/friends/etc. This goes for any stupid belief, not just theism.

 

[Sheepo]

Since I don't say anything along the lines of "People should be free from having their beliefs questioned", 'yup' does fine. But as long as we're going in this direction I should probably go ahead and say: There is no such thing as certainty. The only thing I could really be certain of is the fact that I have consciousness and I experience a bunch of sensory input. I could be heading to nirvana, in the matrix, in a doll city in the twilight zone, or three ****ing dreams deep. But I go with what reality is generally percieved to be, mostly because it's most likely to be true and it's all I've got. With those kinds of assumptions made on a daily basis, it seems hard for me to question other peoples' beliefs in what are quite obviously the gray areas of existence. When they claim to experience this real and powerful thing called faith which I will never be able to measure or see. It's why I'm in that noncomittal atheism thing (I don't keep up with my spiritual vocabulary), because being certain that any sort of god doesn't exist is just as much a practice of blind faith as anything else, and I rarely see any one with that faith called out.

 

[No Limit]

So you aren't certain that there is physical evidance that proves that genesis is bullshit? If it's not 100% in your mind what would you say it is? 99.99999999%?

 

[Sheepo]

Well I don't think science is bullshit. And it's the systematic way we understand reality. And I take reality for granted. So yes, I actually am 100%. I think that would've been clear from the numerous times, in this thread alone, I've pointed out that I think fundimentalists are idiots and that I only support moderate christians.

 

[No Limit]

But what might suprise you is that if you ask someone like Shift if there is physical evidance that proves the bible is wrong they would tell you absolutely not. This is not a fundamentalist position, it's the mainstream christian position.

 

[Sheepo]

Because Shift = The Mainstream Christian? Or because you say so? Or because what?

 

[No Limit]

I was gonna post some polls to show you but turns out that only about 40% of christians believe the bible to be the literal word of God (the rest must be going to hell). So although it's a large percentage maybe it's not as mainstream as I assumed it was.

But that makes no sense to me. If you think the bible is bullshit why would you call yourself a christian?

 

[Sheepo]

Who the **** cares, it's just semantics. That's what the word has come to mean to people.

 

[Krynn72]

Since I don't say anything along the lines of "People should be free from having their beliefs questioned", 'yup' does fine.

Then I don't understand what you said the original quote for. In what way are we not accepting of these people, if questioning their beliefs isn't it?

But as long as we're going in this direction I should probably go ahead and say: There is no such thing as certainty.

Hence why I said "as certain as we can be about anything." There is enough evidence to disprove so many things said in all religions that the chances of the God from the bible, or any diety envisioned by man existing are, by any practical measure, zilch.

 

[Shift]

No Limit, the very fact that you are judging Genesis on scientific merit, is also due to the same reason as to why just don't get anything the Bible says at all. The account of creation in Genesis, was given to people to understand, thousands of years ago, to people who still thought the Earth was flat, who had literally no grasp of physics or even the very language to make it work. Why would God start talking about huge explosions of matter and super intense heat, and an expanding universe, and stars forming and exploding, and supernovae etc? Most of these terms hadn't even been invented in any language yet!

The fact that anyone can read Genesis, and try to apply science to it, is actually hilarious to me. It wasn't written to explain how it happened, that was not its purpose, I mean hell, isn't perfectly obvious that wasn't its purpose? It was to state in a very clear fashion, WHO did it. I mean the Earth being created in six days? From who's perspective? Gods? Moses? If it was from God's perspective, a being that exists outside of time, then how does our perception of a day, apply to him? If it was from Moses', then he obviously wasn't around at the time, so was he getting day by day visions from God? There was morning and evening even before the sun was said to have been made clear in our solar system, so is it day and evening from Earth's perspective? Moses's perspective at the time of writing? God's perspective outside our physical realm?

I could go on and on. My point is, taking Genesis literalistically is just not how it is meant to be read (and before you say anything No Limit, this is from the opinion of any Bible expert), its not a scientific document and therefore cannot be judged on its scientific merits. Its like applying science to the documents regarding the Gaulic barbarian tribes during the Roman era. Its very clear message however, is that God was the creator of it all, so therefore, science can start being applied to either prove or disprove that premise, but thats a different topic altogther.

Part of the reason why civilization works is that we can tell people to "shut up and dont be stupid." The only way people can stop being stupid is to stop making up false answers and simply strive to find the actual answers, or wait for others to find them.

Pretty much the entirety of civilization has been based on a religious system one way or another. From Ancient Egypt all the way up to Medieval times when the Pope was the most powerful figure in the world. Despite all this, civilization has progressed perfectly, which is why Dawkins needs to shut up when he thinks getting rid of religion will somehow catapult our species into the space age. It wouldn't make a shred of difference to our technological standpoint, and I think the entire world would escalate into pure anarchy if religion were to be abolished. However, it will state that religion itself has no standing in my beliefs, Christianity is about faith, to call it religion is to make it Catholicism (which to be honest is more of an insult to Christianity if anything).

 

[Bad^Hat]

By all means explain it to me. What rules are there for what from the OT still applies and what doesn't? Is genesys still the literal description of creation or is it not? What if the OT has sins in it which are not covered in the new testament, do they still apply? I by no means pretend to be a biblical expert, from the sounds of it Shift definitely isn't either. Maybe you can fill us in.

Must you tie everything back to the point you're trying to make, regardless of what is actually said? How the hell should I know those things, and why would I claim to? I was trying to point out your fundamental misunderstanding of christianity's message (or at least "moderate" christianity as it's been described in this thread) rather than any kinds of specifics. Namely, that it doesn't "matter" which parts of the old testament are still valid and how accurately it describes sin, because Jesus did that cross thing and now they can just repent for being sinful and get a free ticket to heaven (unless they commit apostasy... I think). I've probably sapped all the poetry out of it with that description, but hopefully you can understand this much.

Earlier in the thread I asked Shift a similar question, namely if he saw all the biblical sins as immoral and whether he was actually repentant for them. I don't recall his actual response, but what I took away from it was that accounting for specific sins is insufficient, as man's sinful nature means he is always committing sin, whether aware of it or not, and veering off the path that God (so vaguely) set out for him. Therefore one must repent for being sinful by nature and ask christ for salvation from themselves. Or something. On a rational level, I still think this is pretty absurd, and I absolutely detest the idea of original sin and assumed guilt, but I (hopefully) understood what he was getting across well enough to know that debating the specifics or semantics of the word of the bible is largely pointless when taking his belief system into account.

But hey, by all means, please harp on the same tired point for several more pages to no real avail. I know you will.

Edit:

Why would God start talking about huge explosions of matter and super intense heat, and an expanding universe, and stars forming and exploding, and supernovae etc? Most of these terms hadn't even been invented in any language yet!

Off the top of my head - to prevent this very kind of misunderstanding? Leaving his works so open to interpretation hasn't worked out too well for his subjects, you've gotta admit.

Pretty much the entirety of civilization has been based on a religious system one way or another. From Ancient Egypt all the way up to Medieval times when the Pope was the most powerful figure in the world. Despite all this, civilization has progressed perfectly

Haha, not really.

Dawkins needs to shut up when he thinks getting rid of religion will somehow catapult our species into the space age. It wouldn't make a shred of difference to our technological standpoint, and I think the entire world would escalate into pure anarchy if religion were to be abolished.

First off: I don't agree with the notion that religion should die out entirely. I think that it very well could, given more technological advances and a greater understanding of our universe, but such a thing would occur naturally, and not because of one guy standing on a podium shouting those people down (if anything, that tends to strengthen people's resolve).

Having said that, I think you tend to ignore a lot of what religious institution has done to limit the progress of scientific discovery and human rights in the past. For sure, things seem pretty dandy now (at least in the first world), but it's hard to deny that, in most cases, civilization progressed despite this kind of influence, rather than because of or even alongside it. And yes, I'm taking all religion into account, and that includes all the icky ones you don't seem to approve of either. I'm honestly not too sure how you reconcile those views...

Another edit: Oh, and yeah, the world would most certainly descend into anarchy if religion were "abolished," because that would be a severe betrayal of people's basic human rights. However, there's a pretty big difference between religion being banned or outlawed and it just dying out for whatever reason, and I'm fairly certain you're misunderstanding Dawkins' position if you think he's campaigning for such a thing.

 

[voodoospriest]

Shift, please learn how to type coherently. The number of words that you miss out of your posts renders your argument almost incomprehensible. Also trying to use words with more syllables just to sound smart but not using them in the right context is shooting yourself in the foot. It feels like you are trying to be the intelligent face of Christianity when there is nothing intelligent about it. Any fool can believe in God but it takes a great deal more intellect and thought to believe that there aren't any Gods.

 

[No Limit]

Bad Hat I understand the whole Jesus died on a cross thing. All I am saying is it makes no sense. Which is why I tried numerous times to get Shift to explain to me who is going to hell and who isn't. If scott roeder who killed a doctor truly believes he is doing what christ wanted him to do then that means he is living with christ, according to shift's logic that means he is not going to hell. But according to shift's statements he is. So this makes absolutely no sense.

Shift, we already addressed the earth being made in 6 days part. I agreed with you that the bible never said this. But I asked you another question about what the bible did say. The bible said the earth came first and light came later. Does that mean the earth was made before the sun? Or was the bible mistaken when it said light (it really meant something else...what in that case)? You can argue all you want that people were too stupid to understand this mistake back in the day, but today we are smart enough to understand it. So why would God make this simple mistake when he knew we would eventually come to understand how the earth and the sun and just about all matter came in to existance?

 

[Eejit]

Why are atheists getting into such detailed debate about interpretation of a ludicrous work of fiction?

 

[brad92]

Oh, it has nothing to do with this thread at all. I just took the opportunity to say it. "a strange reflection and shadow of my real life self" - the same for anyone behind the mask of an avatar and a username.

That worries me a bit.

 

[No Limit]

Why are atheists getting into such detailed debate about interpretation of a ludicrous work of fiction?

It doesn't interest you in the slightest what christians are thinking when they justify this bullshit in their heads?

 

[Eejit]

It doesn't interest you in the slightest what christians are thinking when they justify this bullshit in their heads?

Nah, they all believe different parts of the bullshit are more important than others. Just depends on their pre-existing inclinations I think.