The Anti-Christian conspiracy

Originally posted by saint4God
Stupidity is doing something knowingly wrong but choosing to do so willingly. Show me where I have done this.

That's not what stupidity means.

More literally,

given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner : lacking interest or point

Please demonstrate where I have done this.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by saint4God]

Consistant use of logical fallacy, even after these fallacies have been pointed out could be an example.

Mind you, I'm not calling you stupid, just demonstrating where you could have been perceived as such, as you requested.

The issue is trying to compare fact with fiction. Apples to oranges, saying that right and wrong are relative to the beholder. We've had someone lie to try to prove a point. That facts are subject to public opinion and other such nonsense. You do not see these as illogical?

We've had a spark of on-topic discussion. Let's go with that.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by saint4God]

I'm not sure how this is off topic. I don't believe there is an anti-Christian conspiracy, and I'm attempting to show it by invalidating Christianity altogether. In doing so, any "anti-christian conspiracy" would be viewed as removing a stain from society.

Anyway,

Your liberal use of fact v fiction is what I'm questioning, and have yet to have a solid answer explaining why the Bible is fact, while Winnie the Pooh is fiction.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
would be viewed as removing a stain from society.

stain? perhaps you'd care to explain why any particular christian would be a stain on society? and you are not allowed to use stereotypes. the moment you do, i'll have you red-handed in the cookie jar. you may proceed with the "oh gads, i'm so much better than you" spiel.

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
But not clearly enough apparently. How is the Bible real, and Winnie the Pooh not? And please, use a reference other than the bible to point out it's basis in fact.

it's real because saint says that god exists and god says it is fact because the bible says god says the bible is fact

honestly, that's what it boils down to

and God is not real because you say so? how is that different?

no, god is not real because the burden of proof has not been met

you see, the burden of proof is on the people that say god exists, not the atheists

Originally posted by saint4God
The issue is trying to compare fact with fiction. Apples to oranges, saying that right and wrong are relative to the beholder. We've had someone lie to try to prove a point. That facts are subject to public opinion and other such nonsense. You do not see these as illogical?

We've had a spark of on-topic discussion. Let's go with that.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by saint4God]

you are SAYING something is fact, without proof that said thing is fact
you cannot prove that the bible is fact

the other side, however, can prove that it is full of inconsistencies and fallacies

the burden of proof is on you

Who says? You? I don't think that's very conclusive either.

Where's the rule that says, you must do this or that? And if you don't have one, why do I?



[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
would be viewed as removing a stain from society.

stain? perhaps you'd care to explain why any particular christian would be a stain on society? and you are not allowed to use stereotypes. the moment you do, i'll have you red-handed in the cookie jar. you may proceed with the "oh gads, i'm so much better than you" spiel.

ooo

maybe it's the fact that the bible is false piece of hate-filled and inconsistant BS?

or maybe it's the fact that religion fosters illogical and irrational thoughts to give people the comfort they need to feel comfort and ignore the harsh truth of death?

honestly, there are many ways the world would benefit from a loss of christianity and all the other religions

how about you just look up the works of richard dawkins, he's got a few books on the subject

Originally posted by undo

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


no, god is not real because the burden of proof has not been met

you see, the burden of proof is on the people that say god exists, not the atheists

Who says? You? I don't think that's very conclusive either.

Where's the rule that says, you must do this or that? And if you don't have one, why do I?

[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

because i'm not claiming something exists, you are
you claim something exists, you must prove the existance of said thing

that's how it works out
if you don't have to, then i can make any claim i want without having to prove it

i have had the benefit (?) of seeing both sides of life, one with a Higher Power and one without. i didn't like the lifestyle of without. i prefer to follow Jesus' teachings. They make sense to me like Confuscism makes sense to most people. It was logical and thoughtful. It's what we humans do with it, that makes it less than it could be.


[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

Let's move to science then. I love science, I just don't love it to the point where it becomes the final answer to everything.

In science, sometimes a theory or hypothesis requires that you prove something else doesn't exist in order to prove something else does. So, scientifically speaking,
I don't find the logic of that particular argument very scientific. If I have to quit believing because you don't believe, the burden of proof is as much in your arena as in my own. Why would I want to prove to myself that Jesus doesn't exist?

For example, you contend that the teachings of Jesus should not control your life. Yet, you expect me to accept the rules of debate that give you carte blanche and me the burden of proof because other humans have told you Jesus isn't real. You want those rules to control my life, without my consent and on the pretence that you don't agree with what I hold to be personally (did you notice I said personally?) true.



[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
stain? perhaps you'd care to explain why any particular christian would be a stain on society? and you are not allowed to use stereotypes. the moment you do, i'll have you red-handed in the cookie jar. you may proceed with the "oh gads, i'm so much better than you" spiel.

I didn't say Christians specifically were a stain, but rather Christianity. Much the same way someone infected with HIV can be a very caring person, I can still think that AIDS is a bane on humanity. Christianity is a disease. One that I hope will some day be eliminated.

How is it a disease? If you don't mind me asking?
Hrm, is this the part where I hurl equally unsubstantiaed stuff about atheism in your general direction?

[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

Several basic concepts in Christianity make it a disease on mankind. Specifically, the concept that if you don't believe in it, or Christ rather, that you are a heathen and deserve to burn in hell. This basic concept lends itself to various dangerous results. Some of which include the automatic creation of a lower, almost less than human class.

It also lends itself to justifying the murder of millions of people thoughout it's spread, much like a disease. I'll get back with more, but there's a Heroes marathon on.

It actually never leant itself to murder of other people. Humans did that, but Jesus never taught it, in fact, He taught the opposite. I can't speak at length (I can speak on it, but not in a way you would understand without hours and hours of personal study) for the actions of Jehovah as that was a different covenant with a specific and separated people. But I can speak to what Jesus taught, which is the new covenant with the people of this planet.

Do you feel as if we are alone in the universe? Just out of curiosity.

Originally posted by undo



Let's move to science then. I love science, I just don't love it to the point where it becomes the final answer to everything.

In science, sometimes a theory or hypothesis requires that you prove something else doesn't exist in order to prove something else does. So, scientifically speaking,
I don't find the logic of that particular argument very scientific. If I have to quit believing because you don't believe, the burden of proof is as much in your arena as in my own. Why would I want to prove to myself that Jesus doesn't exist?

For example, you contend that the teachings of Jesus should not control your life. Yet, you expect me to accept the rules of debate that give you carte blanche and me the burden of proof because other humans have told you Jesus isn't real. You want those rules to control my life, without my consent and on the pretence that you don't agree with what I hold to be personally (did you notice I said personally?) true.
[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]

i came to the conclusion that jesus isn't real on my own, just so you know
i DON'T CARE what rules you live by, it is your life

however, your belief contends that my life is not only immoral because i refuse to accept the existence of being whose existence has no proof, but that it will lead to an eternity of suffering in hell
i think that puts your personal beliefs up to more scrutiny than mine

FYI, I'm not an Athiest. I have my own beliefs, but they don't allow for exclusion of anyone or anything.

maddnessinmysoul,

you said:

however, your belief contends that my life is not only immoral because i refuse to accept the existence of being whose existence has no proof, but that it will lead to an eternity of suffering in hell
i think that puts your personal beliefs up to more scrutiny than mine

my response:

well actually, that's not what i believe. jesus said judge not lest ye be judged and i assumed he meant it. so i have no clue what your fate will be or mine for that matter. i only know what he said to make our lives more bearable and the assurance of an afterlife. such as being kind and cooperative and charitable and non-judgemental. the fact that we people don't get the simple things like that right, pretty much indicates why there was a need for them to be taught in the first place lol. of course, we would eventually figure it out on our own but that's only on the proviso that we didn't kill each off first. that our collective fate may end up with mutual destruction scenarios, proves that all it may have done is delay the inevitable a little while.

[edit on 29-11-2006 by undo]