- CHILD TRIES TO FORCE ATHIESM ON CAMEL:
- Jesus wouldn't shoot you. So why shoot him:
Ok, enough funnies. Just don't spam and resolve your issue here.
Oh, and Baby Jesus said:
No fighting. Just debating. Doesn't have to be about the christian god or Buddah or jebus or whatever, but just start off with a topic and go with it. Or continue with the arguement that you had on my little past blog past (ET, Fug, Caution, Bravo, Boxcar). This is two things you shouldn't do:
- CHILD TRIES TO FORCE ATHIESM ON CAMEL: - Jesus wouldn't shoot you. So why shoot him: Ok, enough funnies. Just don't spam and resolve your issue here. Oh, and Baby Jesus said: | |
Aug 25 2011, 10:08 am
|
|
Yusuke13
 |
What's with all of the controversial blog posts? o.o
|
Because I am truley bored. And I didn't feel like argueing with ET and the others on the post about GPS Implants or whatever.
Oh, and true BYONDlings will nay this. | |
Honestly, controversial blog posts are the only posts that ever really get any comments.
It's actually a form of trolling, like the Star Wars vs Star Trek posts people used to make ( not here, on other websites ) on purpose just to see people go back and forth on who had the best technology, the largest military, etc. etc. | |
I see your point, Neblim. I apologize for closing comments on the other post, but things were getting "out of hand".
Starwars > Star Trek. Shh. | |
Why lock the other thread.
Toad, I really don't see the point you're trying to make. Two things: 1) How is your analogy related and what makes you think I'm telling people to stop believing in the Bible? 2) The only use of "what if" in my comments was to show that the contents of biblical law doesn't matter, only its presence in the Bible does. This was in response to you and Bravo droning on about whether Christianity condones XYZ, which is completely irrelevant to the question of a Christian's moral status. Again, this is because the Christian accepts as premise that he will obey whatever the word of God is. | |
I is true BYONDling. -nay
Since you closed the old thread and cut off the argument, it probably won't start again. Besides, I'm sick of arguing now. It gets to the point when neither side will ever give in and we simply continue to reiterate over and over. | |
Toadfish wrote:
1) How (the fuck?) is your analogy related and what makes you think I'm telling people to stop believing in the Bible. The two statements are related because they're irrelevant nonsense that serves no purpose. Like I said, we could go all day with "if the Bible said this this and that, you would be that that and this" but it doesn't matter because it doesn't say it. If atheism meant "the belief in a narto frog deity" you would be retarded. ^ See how the sentence makes no sense and is irrelevant? Yeah. If you want to make yourself looks smart, it's probably not a good idea to have an argument consisting of "what ifs". | |
You somehow keep ignoring the point. I'm not sure if I'm getting "trolled" or whatever, but do you really not see the connection between:
1) "the Christian accepts as premise that he will obey whatever the word of God is." 2) "the content of biblical law doesn't matter" ? If God one day came down from the sky and told people to rape, loot and plunder, are you arguing they will, for some reason, refuse to? If not, are you arguing that this question is meaningless because it won't happen? Both lines of argument are extremely weak: - The word of God is absolute if one is an orthodox Christian. Thus, belief in God entails doing whatever he says. Refusing is not an option. - Even if God will never do such a thing, this is completely irrelevant because the only thing that matters in this argument (which is about a Christian's moral position) is the hypothetical possibility of this happening. A Christian accepts that should this sort of thing happen, he will oblige. This alone makes all discussion about exactly what the Bible says irrelevant to his moral position. (Away for about an hour). | |
I believe that the Bible is all we need to judge what is right and wrong (the current law to be exact, not the old Israelite Law). God won't give us any revelations, he already gave it to us in the book of Revelation. Now we wait it out until the end, making disciples of all nations.
| |
Toadfish wrote:
You somehow keep ignoring the point. I'm not sure if I'm getting "trolled" or whatever, but do you really not see the connection between: You somehow keep ignoring the fact that everything you've said so far has been rubbish. It seems you're trying to make God ( and his followers ) out to be evil by presenting a scenario to us that will never happen. No one cares about IF the Bible said to rape girls, or IF God came down and said hump chimpanzees. The point is he HASN'T and WON'T. It's the same as the stupid burrito argument. What if Darwin rose from the grave and declared that we actually never evolved! Then atheists would be stupid! Oh wait, that cannot and will not happen. So whats the bloody point of me mentioning it? Derp. | |
Let me jump in. You are assuming that the bible, written by humans, is completly true about what it's saying about God. You are also assuming that "God" as defined by christians is the "real god". We don't know everything. So, when you point out the many flaws and holes in religious arguements, don't be amazed when they don't have an answer for ya'.
| |
Neblim wrote:
Also, with microchips being "implanted", what stops a criminal from removing it? This is the same comment that i constantly thought about, besides criminals remove most of thier own bullets from thier wounds so whats the diffence? | |
Actually, a few claim to have technology within the chips that also detects blood preassure, logs it, and then sends it to an external source every half-an-hour. Some claim to last about 35 years. You could accurately tell when and maybe even how someone was killed.
It isn't just a "small" way to help prevent certain crimes, but it's also to keep track of them if they runaway or ARE kidnapped. Oh, and also, it would be pretty hard to remove. Most of the small ones are barely visible, if not completly unnoticable, and are usually deep within the shoudler/neck area. It would take a lot of cutting and searching to remove it. | |
What toadfish is saying I think is that if you're an atheist, your actions are based on you trying to figure out what is moral and what is not, whether they are just or in-just is immaterial.
Christianity isn't about morality, its just following orders under the threat of the whip. Christians would do anything that god told them, regardless of good or evil.Whether it would happen or not also doesn't matter. Its just a proof of concept, and shows the base itself is weak. Its morality vs obedience. If you are only obedient and not moral, once the threat of the whip is gone, you are capable of anything. Id like to stress that there is no ultimate solution for anything. There is nothing certain in life, especially when it comes to morality. The idea that one book solves all moral dilemmas is just ridiculous. If you've been living life you know things are more complicated than saying,"This is the rule, and it will always stand to be righteous". Reality has shades of grey. Anything promising an absolute should be be taken with a grain of salt. | |
Empirez wrote:
It seems you're trying to make God ( and his followers ) out to be evil by presenting a scenario to us that will never happen. Your reading comprehension is amazing. Did I say Christians are evil anywhere? I am saying that they don't act on a personal code of conduct. This doesn't make them immoral, it makes them amoral. No one cares about IF the Bible said to rape girls, or IF God came down and said hump chimpanzees. The point is he HASN'T and WON'T. It's the same as the stupid burrito argument. How many posts do I need to respond to before you realize how stupid this argument is? Does the fact you only 'love thy neighbours' because God told you so make you somehow good? If you are completely prepared to be inhumane for God's sake, does the fact you haven't yet (as he didn't tell you to) affect your moral position? Of course not. Yelping "BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN" at me is wasting both your and my time. What if Darwin rose from the grave and declared that we actually never evolved! Then atheists would be stupid! Uh, because obviously we don't believe in Darwin's word (like we believe in the word of God), we believe in his theory of evolution. If Darwin rose from the grave and said that people would call him nuts, but that wouldn't decrease from the value of his theory. Do you think science is a cult or something? Likewise, if you're awkwardly trying to say "what if Evolution was disproved? then atheists would be stupid! Therefore talking hypothetically is meaningless", this is completely irrelevant, because for the billionth time: 1) "the Christian accepts as premise that he will obey whatever the word of God is." 2) Therefore, "the content of biblical law doesn't matter" because a Christian will follow it whatever it is. The current biblical law is accepted only because it is the word of God, and a Christian accepts that the word of God is subject to change. He doesn't "conditionally" accept biblical law in its current state, he accepts whatever is written in the Bible, regardless of what is currently or might be written there. If you erased his memories of the Bible somehow, and fooled him to thinking God ordered to "kill babies" in there, he would do it, because God's law is unconditionally accepted by him. Darwin wrote: Let me jump in. You are assuming that the bible, written by humans, is completly true about what it's saying about God. You are also assuming that "God" as defined by christians is the "real god". We don't know everything. So, when you point out the many flaws and holes in religious arguements, don't be amazed when they don't have an answer for ya'. Whether the Bible is the word of God is completely irrelevant. I am assuming this is what Christians believe so I'll have something concrete to refer to, but you might as well replace all mentions of the Bible in my posts with 'word of God' and it would have absolutely no bearing on the argument. | |
Toadfish wrote:
Does the fact you only 'love thy neighbours' because God told you so make you somehow good? There we go. More proof you're trying to make me out to be evil. You don't have to come right out and say it, but it's evident in your writing you think you're righteous for where you got your morals and I'm evil for how I get mine. Basically you just called me evil. If I'm not good, there is only one other thing I can be - there is no "half evil, half good". Black, white. One or the other. So which is it? If you are calling me evil, then you just contradicted yourself when you said you didn't. If you are calling me good, then there is no point in you arguing with me. Either way, the entire point you've been trying to make ( and the way you went about it ) has been retarded. Your reading comprehension is amazing. I'm sorry. It's just that it's easier to read and understand arguments that, you know, make sense. | |
More proof you're trying to make me out to be evil. Caught me in the act. When do I get stoned? Now, if you are so inclined, you could calm down, give some thought to what I'm saying, and see if you understand my actual argument (rather than some twisted interpretation of it you seem to impose on me). It's very close to what you said about relative morality in the previous thread. It would also do you well to look up the definition of immorality, as opposed to amorality. If, after this, you are unclear about something I've said, I can also respond to intelligent, clearly phrased questions you might have. Of course you could keep thinking I'm calling you evil (or good, for that matter) and 'win' some imaginary argument you're having on this point with me. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Basically you just called me evil. If I'm not good, there is only one other thing I can be - there is no "half evil, half good". Black, white. One or the other. So which is it? You think the world is only black and white? That there is nothing in between? I'd like to live in whatever world you're from. Here on earth, problems have multiple outcomes, and effect various people in a massive scale of different ways. Every decision we make is not wholly good nor wholly evil.Even things you think are completely benign have a negative impact on someone or something. Add the fact that morals aren't completely objective, and this becomes even more ridiculous. | |
Another jumpin required? No one is good and no one is evil. The lines are too blured for there to be black and for there to be white. Perspective must also come into play. Some people think that Hitler is the greatest tyrant that ever lived. Others think differently.
In my opinion, Christians (In general) are good. They may try to help others and be kind and do something productive or other "nice" things out of their obediance to a deity that you don't believe in, but aren't they still doing good? Really, it's perspective once again. It's pointless to argue this because the only reason to argue religion is to either prove the other side wrong and/or convert them. You can't prove that God exist to everyone. You also can't disprove ALL the beliefs and teachings of many religions with science. Therefore, that is why I am going to speak from the terms of what the two sides do, and not the reason why they choose to do these things. Being athiest, christian, muslim, black, blue, ape, or one-eyed doesn't label you are "Good" or "Bad". Hypocrite or Trustworthy. Correct or Incorrect. It's just that. A label. So, in my opinion, I don't let any denomination or "cult" decide the rules. I believe in God. I don't believe in the thousands upon thousands of interpretations of the bible and other religious books concerning their "Gods". Not that I cherry-pick what to follow, but I think before doing something. Oh, and a black hole ate our Sun's daddy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44273287/ns/ technology_and_science-space/?GT1=43001 | |