Religion discussion

Meatshield718 wrote:

ztron wrote:

Made in Finland wrote:None really. It's the 21st century, I don't think we need imaginary friends and made up, eternal punishments/rewards to teach people about morals and ethics anymore...

S0 h4rdc0r3
And my stands religiously are i don't fucking know whats up there Space dumbass it could be god or budda or whatever the fuck muslims believe in. I highly doubt anyone knows a guy that knows a guy that has an uncle thats bros with god and knows the whole scoop on the afterlife. So it can as easily be that a divine being created the universe as that some helium in space had bad gas and started creating planets.

Ztron, your random rambling makes my entire body hurt. What did you just try to say?

._.

Sorry I tend to ramble stupidly sometimes. What I'm saying is that I do believe there is some divine being that oversees all creation, but we don't know if he's god or if it is actually human. I think its just humanitys ego believing that the overseer of all creation is human. Its kind of weird i know but the way i see it, its pretty much a surprize on what awaits us after death.

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

I believe most early religions are a direct and or indirect result of the link above.

and Jag is somewhat right that early man needed god in a sense, maybe we've outgrown that though.

DeadApe wrote:

Made in Finland wrote:None really. It's the 21st century, I don't think we need imaginary friends and made up, eternal punishments/rewards to teach people about morals and ethics anymore...

Agreed. Agnostic maybe Atheist. Jag what you said was straight up dumb.

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

A lot of people benefit from having the presence of God in their lives. It's why there are prison outreach programs, and it's why substance abuse programs ask you to put your faith in some sort of higher power.

Mboddz agrees anyways that early man needed God. I don't think early man is that much different than modern man in the broad scheme of things. I've seen enough men with hardened hearts, and the testimonies of enough men, who turned to God in their times of need and come out of it better, more respectable humans. The kindest and most well rounded people I know were from a Baptist church I attended in the next town over.

The religious zealots in the news you hear about are often men who have followed dark paths and become corrupted. They resemble nothing of the good people I knew.

ApocalypseVVolf. wrote: Theism

Mythology

mboddz751 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

I believe most early religions are a direct and or indirect result of the link above.

and Jag is somewhat right that early man needed god in a sense, maybe we've outgrown that though.

I think the notion of ancient astronauts visiting Earth is just as ridiculous as something like Noah's Ark.

ztron wrote:

Meatshield718 wrote:

ztron wrote:

Made in Finland wrote:None really. It's the 21st century, I don't think we need imaginary friends and made up, eternal punishments/rewards to teach people about morals and ethics anymore...

S0 h4rdc0r3
And my stands religiously are i don't fucking know whats up there Space dumbass it could be god or budda or whatever the fuck muslims believe in. I highly doubt anyone knows a guy that knows a guy that has an uncle thats bros with god and knows the whole scoop on the afterlife. So it can as easily be that a divine being created the universe as that some helium in space had bad gas and started creating planets.

Ztron, your random rambling makes my entire body hurt. What did you just try to say?

._.

Sorry I tend to ramble stupidly sometimes. What I'm saying is that I do believe there is some divine being that oversees all creation, but we don't know if he's god or if it is actually human. I think its just humanitys ego believing that the overseer of all creation is human. Its kind of weird i know but the way i see it, its pretty much a surprize on what awaits us after death.

And we go back to what I believe in. I already have Vrazzle on my side.

I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that.

Say what you want, but more than a few people's lives have been turned around by becoming involved in such things.

I said in the beginning I'm not a very good Christian. I meant that, I'm not. I'm not big in all the afterlife deal, or accepting Christ as savior or anything, but I can admit that someone who acknowledges something larger than themselves, or wiser than themselves, is a good way to keep someone from becoming too ambitious for their own good, or just along a good set of morals.

Synonymous with a conscious. Your own, that is. Men praying for guidance, is almost like said men thinking deeply, remembering their morals, attempting to stay on 'the right track' so to say (If you were to ask me, and I were to say my honest opinion of it). Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

What we're talking about is not something we can detect in the slightest. The very essence of it is a mystery. There are multiple ways to the same point. The mind operates in so many ways, that said higher being doesn't need to be a god. There just has to be something that tells you something is wrong, that something isn't right and you shouldn't be involved in it. Most people call it a conscious. Religious people would say it's their god speaking to them.

Same difference.

What I believe in is staying true to morals, and I use Christianity as a rulebook. I fall all the time. We all do if we're truthful about ourselves, but when I fall, there's always God for redemption. There's always a second chance, as long as I'm truthful with myself.

You probably do it the same way. It's just that you don't believe in God. You just turn yourself around by adhering to what your conscious tells you.

Some things, there aren't words for. Some things you just need faith.

Holy double post batman!

Definitely No Such Thing as Space Jesus


Definitely no such thing. What you're looking at is actually just a very unusually (and ironically) colored nebula.

Spoiler:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

In any case, said notion can be nothing but a strawman. As I said, the existence of such a thing is a mystery. Something that cannot be detected, yet is omnipresent. It's not so much a question of logic, as it is of faith.

Some people don't trust in themselves fully, and usually for good reason (Nothing lasts in humanity. Empires fall, ideologies come and fade away, people evolve and devolve, they change their personal ideals). That's when people turn to gods.

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

ah wikipedia what a fine source of info you are

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

No, it's not. I know a bit about ignosticism. Ignosticism tends to argue more about what "God" really means rather than the existence of God. It's more in line with what ztron believes.

Taken from the agnosticism wiki,

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

That's about right. (and exactly what I said)

You don't need a god to have morals; it's called being human. Religion in general can be good in that it unites people in tough times, but considering all of the wars and slaughter it caused (remember the crusades? Makes the radical Islam attacks from today look like nothing) it might be better off without it. Furthermore, I believe every "miracle" can be explained without resorting to the supernatural; it is just that we as people like answers to things, and if we haven't discovered the reason yet, we just easily resort to a higher power to explain it.

Spoiler:

Slacker Hero wrote:

mboddz751 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_astronauts

I believe most early religions are a direct and or indirect result of the link above.

and Jag is somewhat right that early man needed god in a sense, maybe we've outgrown that though.

I think the notion of ancient astronauts visiting Earth is just as ridiculous as something like Noah's Ark.

how so? One's proposed as theory by a minority which knows its theory is in the minority. The other proposes the Ark as fact and cites one of the most vague sources in history

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

No, it's not. I know a bit about ignosticism. Ignosticism tends to argue more about what "God" really means rather than the existence of God. It's more in line with what ztron believes.

Taken from the agnosticism wiki,

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

That's about right. (and exactly what I said)

get the fuck over yourself dude. For someone who's talking about jag making a strawman, you're putting more words in his mouth than he did. Btw how do you know specifically what deadape was reffering to as stupid when all he said was "what jag said was dumb"...but i suppose i should've deciphered some specifics out of that sentence -_-

mboddz751 wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

No, it's not. I know a bit about ignosticism. Ignosticism tends to argue more about what "God" really means rather than the existence of God. It's more in line with what ztron believes.

Taken from the agnosticism wiki,

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

That's about right. (and exactly what I said)

get the fuck over yourself dude. For someone who's talking about jag making a strawman, you're putting more words in his mouth than he did. Btw how do you know specifically what deadape was reffering to as stupid when all he said was "what jag said was dumb"...but i suppose i should've deciphered some specifics out of that sentence -_-

Jag incorrectly tried to tell me about my beliefs. I was correcting him. I put no words in his mouth whatsoever. He told me I believed in ignosticism, and I told him no I didn't, and showed him that I believe in agnosticism. It was a completely civil conversation.

And I know what DeadApe was referring to as I spoke to him about it. And, he agreed with Finland, who only commented on the need for a God.

Alright. You guys DO realize what you are using to type this blabbering retardation, right? The internet. You are arguing about religion. On the internet.

You have committed high treason to anyone sane on this website.

Nobody wants to hear about your mundane bullshit beliefs. No one cares. If anyone is actually the kind of person that takes religious beliefs as a characteristic of someone's morality and being, they're an asshole. No 'but's or 'what if's, no. You should be thrown into a canal.

If you choose to start a religious debate on the internet, you should be dropkicked into a volcano, because the sound of you burning alive is much less painful than having to hear you tell me why my beliefs are crap in the most annoying fashion possible. You need to stop and think. People have WARS debating religion, what the fuck do you think is going to go down on an internet forum? This kind of shit will escalate into the most annoying thing on the site.

Snowwolf, I'd also like to advise you to remove that brick from your forehead before using a keyboard. Thanks.

While I agree with you West, I think its fun, even if I completely disagree with the participants.

WestHybrid 360 wrote:Nobody wants to hear about your mundane bullshit beliefs.

WestHybrid 360 wrote:If anyone is actually the kind of person that takes religious beliefs as a characteristic of someone's morality and being, they're an asshole.

^ Belief.

What's that now?

WestHybrid 360 wrote:You have committed high treason to anyone sane on this website.

WestHybrid 360 wrote:You should be thrown into a canal.

WestHybrid 360 wrote:you should be dropkicked into a volcano

WestHybrid 360 wrote:the sound of you burning alive is much less painful

Merry Christmas to you too!

Spoiler:

Super Mega King wrote:

mboddz751 wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

No, it's not. I know a bit about ignosticism. Ignosticism tends to argue more about what "God" really means rather than the existence of God. It's more in line with what ztron believes.

Taken from the agnosticism wiki,

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

That's about right. (and exactly what I said)

get the fuck over yourself dude. For someone who's talking about jag making a strawman, you're putting more words in his mouth than he did. Btw how do you know specifically what deadape was reffering to as stupid when all he said was "what jag said was dumb"...but i suppose i should've deciphered some specifics out of that sentence -_-

Jag incorrectly tried to tell me about my beliefs. I was correcting him. I put no words in his mouth whatsoever. He told me I believed in ignosticism, and I told him no I didn't, and showed him that I believe in agnosticism. It was a completely civil conversation.

And I know what DeadApe was referring to as I spoke to him about it. And, he agreed with Finland, who only commented on the need for a God.

god you argue like such a pretentious twat. I'm not even gonna work myself up

mboddz751 wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

mboddz751 wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:

Jagdgeschwader wrote:

Super Mega King wrote:I didn't really want to get involved in a religion argument, but...

I guess being humble, thinking about actions, sticking to sound morals and treating others as one would want to be treated is just straight up dumb then.

Yeah, no one really wants to listen to your ridiculous strawman. He's not saying any of that is dumb, he's saying man doesn't need a higher being for that. This is along the same line of reasoning that atheists can't have morals because they don't believe in God.

Because I'm saying an atheist has no morals. I believe you said that

Nope, not what I said at all. I said your message was a strawman, and the line of reasoning you were using is akin to the ridiculous notion that atheists don't have morons.

Most of you admit to being agnostic. That means you at least acknowledge something higher than yourselves. That takes faith in and of itself. What is said being's role then, if not to keep us on the right track?

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but this isn't exactly correct. It's not that we acknowledge that there's a higher power, it's that we acknowledge that there isn't sufficient information to determine whether there is or is not.

Anyway, you have your methods, and I have mine, that much is true.

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

That's more in line with what you're saying, rather than Agnosticism.

No, it's not. I know a bit about ignosticism. Ignosticism tends to argue more about what "God" really means rather than the existence of God. It's more in line with what ztron believes.

Taken from the agnosticism wiki,

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable

That's about right. (and exactly what I said)

get the fuck over yourself dude. For someone who's talking about jag making a strawman, you're putting more words in his mouth than he did. Btw how do you know specifically what deadape was reffering to as stupid when all he said was "what jag said was dumb"...but i suppose i should've deciphered some specifics out of that sentence -_-

Jag incorrectly tried to tell me about my beliefs. I was correcting him. I put no words in his mouth whatsoever. He told me I believed in ignosticism, and I told him no I didn't, and showed him that I believe in agnosticism. It was a completely civil conversation.

And I know what DeadApe was referring to as I spoke to him about it. And, he agreed with Finland, who only commented on the need for a God.

god you argue like such a pretentious twat. I'm not even gonna work myself up

I don't know why you're getting worked up in the first place. I'm not sure why you think I'm being pretentious =/

WestHybrid 360 wrote:Alright. You guys DO realize what you are using to type this blabbering retardation, right? The internet. You are arguing about religion. On the internet.

You have committed high treason to anyone sane on this website.

Nobody wants to hear about your mundane bullshit beliefs. No one cares. If anyone is actually the kind of person that takes religious beliefs as a characteristic of someone's morality and being, they're an asshole. No 'but's or 'what if's, no. You should be thrown into a canal.

If you choose to start a religious debate on the internet, you should be dropkicked into a volcano, because the sound of you burning alive is much less painful than having to hear you tell me why my beliefs are crap in the most annoying fashion possible. You need to stop and think. People have WARS debating religion, what the fuck do you think is going to go down on an internet forum? This kind of shit will escalate into the most annoying thing on the site.

Snowwolf, I'd also like to advise you to remove that brick from your forehead before using a keyboard. Thanks.

I just wanted a civil discussion about it, I didn't want to cause anything. I just wanted a Socratic circle type of talk not full out blasting each other on it. But I personally thought people, even the most arguementive, could have a nice discussion about it and if it becomes that bad and people aren't civil about it then lock the topic. It also doesn't make me judge them if they are another religion, I just wanted people to know more about each other in a spiritual sense. Is that so wrong?