Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

IT'S THOSE DIRTY SANDMONKEYS

Maybe God wanted Rudy Giuliani to be president

God was flying the planes. Metaphorically, of course, because belief in a mono-theistic deity is what led to such violent strife between cultures. He wasn't literally flying the plane because he isn't actually anywhere. If the pilots didn't believe in God (Allah in their case), or if they didn't believe in an afterlife filled with virgins and bliss for their actions, they never would have undertaken the flight. No one would have.

But, of course, that's different than traditional faith, right? Not so. Christians, and sane religious individuals everywhere, still believe in a God, an afterlife, eternal bliss, etc. They just haven't yet been called to commit atrocities for the sake of achieving them (though they have in the past, as religious history of any sort will attest to).

And the common denominator for both is faith. The faith of the terrorist pilots was the same same that leads Christians to believe the attacks were part of their God's plan. It's the same faith that is dangerous and violent in this country (and others) not just in the Middle East, but takes the form of bigotry and intolerance, or political influence over morality-driven legislation.

Belief in an afterlife, or faith in general to make it more abstract, is what caused 9/11. I wish more people would see that, because as long as anything is done in the name of blind faith, there will be the potential for atrocities such as 9/11.

ushom, your faith in god is misplaced and clouading your better judgement. try having faith in a good human being or your own goodness or happiness instead.

where was god on 9/11? imaginationland

Maybe God thought it was a good thing. For all we know God was sitting on a cloud cheering on the "terrorists".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
God was flying the planes. Metaphorically, of course, because belief in a mono-theistic deity is what led to such violent strife between cultures. He wasn't literally flying the plane because he isn't actually anywhere. If the pilots didn't believe in God (Allah in their case), or if they didn't believe in an afterlife filled with virgins and bliss for their actions, they never would have undertaken the flight. No one would have.

But, of course, that's different than traditional faith, right? Not so. Christians, and sane religious individuals everywhere, still believe in a God, an afterlife, eternal bliss, etc. They just haven't yet been called to commit atrocities for the sake of achieving them (though they have in the past, as religious history of any sort will attest to).

And the common denominator for both is faith. The faith of the terrorist pilots was the same same that leads Christians to believe the attacks were part of their God's plan. It's the same faith that is dangerous and violent in this country (and others) not just in the Middle East, but takes the form of bigotry and intolerance, or political influence over morality-driven legislation.

Belief in an afterlife, or faith in general to make it more abstract, is what caused 9/11. I wish more people would see that, because as long as anything is done in the name of blind faith, there will be the potential for atrocities such as 9/11.

You make it sound like if we banned religion, the world would suddenly be free of senseless killings. But Atheists are responsible for more death than religion: Stalin, Polpot, Mao etc. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 in the name of a religion.....3,000 was good day for Stalin.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You make it sound like if we banned religion, the world would suddenly be free of senseless killings. But Atheists are responsible for more death than religion: Stalin, Polpot, Mao etc. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 in the name of a religion.....3,000 was good day for Stalin.

Atheists don't kill senselessly. They always have a very logical reason why all those people need to die (such "they questioned why I killed all those people"

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You make it sound like if we banned religion, the world would suddenly be free of senseless killings. But Atheists are responsible for more death than religion: Stalin, Polpot, Mao etc. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 in the name of a religion.....3,000 was good day for Stalin.

Are you considering all the people who have been killed over religion over recorded history? The number is much higher...

However, you are correct, banning religion would not stop senseless killings. To get rid of senseless killings we would have to remove all attachments. Both Religious and Atheistic people have attachments that lead to evil and suffering.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Atheists don't kill senselessly. They always have a very logical reason why all those people need to die (such "they questioned why I killed all those people" That sounded horrible.

I mean, I think extremism is showing the negatives of faith and religion with the belief of a religion being superior to all others but we should not die because of a belief. It is far from logical killing people because of faith. And believe it or not, Atheist have killed alot more that religious people have throughout history.

the thing is that atheISM isnt responsible for those deaths. just the individual preferences of the atheists who did it, while a lot of the stuff done by theists IS motibated by relegion. {i.e. ud never blame the cold blooded murder of a family by a christian on CHRISTIANITY unless that faith actually played a part in the incidence of the murder}

Originally posted by JacopeX
That sounded horrible.

I can imagine.

Originally posted by JacopeX
I mean, I think extremism is showing the negatives of faith and religion with the belief of a religion being superior to all others but we should not die because of a belief. It is far from logical killing people because of faith. And believe it or not, Atheist have killed alot more that religious people have throughout history.

I think you missed my point and my prodding at the tendency of atheists on this board to act like Vulcans.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You make it sound like if we banned religion, the world would suddenly be free of senseless killings. But Atheists are responsible for more death than religion: Stalin, Polpot, Mao etc. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 in the name of a religion.....3,000 was good day for Stalin.

hitler was a christian. he incinerated six million jews. he was also a vegetarian. shud i blame those acts on him being christian and vegetarianism then?

relegion is responsible for more deaths that atheism, simply because atheism never starts anything and at any given time in the ancient world, the number of beleivers{due to ancient superstitiion and stronger social pressure} was greater than number of proclaimed non beleivers in anything. so how can you say atheists have killed far more?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
the thing is that atheISM isnt responsible for those deaths. just the individual preferences of the atheists who did it, while a lot of the stuff done by theists IS motibated by relegion. {i.e. ud never blame the cold blooded murder of a family by a christian on CHRISTIANITY unless that faith actually played a part in the incidence of the murder}

Your example seems to defeat your first point. Theists are individuals too and the fact that they have a set of common beliefs does not mean that they kill because of those shared beliefs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your example seems to defeat your first point. Theists are individuals too and the fact that they have a set of common beliefs does not mean that they kill because of those shared beliefs.

However, remember the quote "kill them all and let god sort them out". Arnaud-Armaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, and "spiritual advisor" to the Albigensian Crusade.

You will never hear an Atheist use a god to rationalize their killing. They will use some other excuse, but the trump card of "god told me to" is not there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Your example seems to defeat your first point. Theists are individuals too and the fact that they have a set of common beliefs does not mean that they kill because of those shared beliefs.

and i never claimed they did{infact i think that is what the example of a christian is there for} . but WHEN they kill or harm due to relegious beleifs, than you can and SHUD blame the relegion. but u cant blame ATHEISM if an atheist kills beause "atheism" has no doctrines.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, remember the quote "kill them all and let god sort them out". Arnaud-Armaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, and "spiritual advisor" to the Albigensian Crusade.

You will never hear an Atheist use a god to rationalize their killing. They will use some other excuse, but the trump card of "god told me to" is not there.

They have one less way to rationalize murder. So what? They can still say "It sounded like fun" which is just as perverse.

Also, few people actually believe god specifically told them to do something.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and i never claimed they did{infact i think that is what the example of a christian is there for} . but WHEN they kill or harm due to relegious beleifs, than you can and SHUD blame the relegion.

No, you should still blame the person. When billions of people have a set of beliefs but only a handful kill because of them the fault is in the person not the beliefs.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
but u cant blame ATHEISM if an atheist kills beause "atheism" has no doctrines.

Except not believing in God. Theists can (and do) argue that because they lack that moral guidance.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will never hear an Atheist use a god to rationalize their killing. They will use some other excuse, but the trump card of "god told me to" is not there.

It's the fact that they were Atheists that allowed them to commit all those senseless murders.


"Atheism is not caused by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

-Dinesh D'souza

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They have one less way to rationalize murder. So what? They can still say "It sounded like fun" which is just as perverse.

Also, few people actually believe god specifically told them to do something.

However, if you are trying to convince those around you that you are right, god told me to is very compelling and cannot be disputed easily. All other rationalizations fall under law, but god does not.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It's the fact that they were Atheists that allowed them to commit all those senseless murders.


"Atheism is not caused by reason but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."

-Dinesh D'souza

Atheism is not the reason they killed people. Power was the reason.

I do not respect Dinesh D'souza. He is just a propagandist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, if you are trying to convince those around you that you are right, god told me to is very compelling and cannot be disputed easily. All other rationalizations fall under law, but god does not.

If you claim god told you to do it you won't get off because it's suddenly justified. You'll simply be institutionalized.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you claim god told you to do it you won't get off because it's suddenly justified. You'll simply be institutionalized.

Not if you are a leader in the church or any other religious structure. Those people speak for god.

no you shud not. u shud blame the relegion. because it is the relegious teaching that LED to a negetive act as opposed to the person's entirely personal choice. hence relegion is to blame. ofcourse you can blame WRONG INTERPRETATION of relegion but that is another thing. u cant just blame the individual.

the fact that sum1 is ATHEIST doesnt allow or disallow a person from doing anything. moral guidelines as ive mentioned many times before are not based on relegion alone, humanitarianism and logic can be used to come up with morals. as such, ATHEISM is not to blame but the negetive philisophy that the PERSON has which led to the act. just like moral guidelines{sumwhat} are available in relegion, yet if a relegious person chooses to not follow them and spill the blood of an innocent family for reasons OTHER than relegion than relegion isnt to blame for those acts even if the person is christian or muslim or watever.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not if you are a leader in the church or any other religious structure. Those people speak for god.

Manson started a religion. He didn't get off.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
no you shud not. u shud blame the relegion. because it is the relegious teaching that LED to a negetive act as opposed to the person's entirely personal choice. hence relegion is to blame. ofcourse you can blame WRONG INTERPRETATION of relegion but that is another thing. u cant just blame the individual.

It is the responsibility of the individual to make that interpretation. If the religion was to blame all of it's followers would be killers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Manson started a religion. He didn't get off.

And so did Jesus. Sometimes it's not the person who starts the religion, but the power hungry person who finds himself in position to do great harm.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so did Jesus.

He didn't kill anyone. Nonetheless even he didn't get off for his crimes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sometimes it's not the person who starts the religion, but the power hungry person who finds himself in position to do great harm.

You keep changing your position. A power hungry person that is willing to kill, will kill whether they find a position in a religious organization or not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He didn't kill anyone. Nonetheless even he didn't get off for his crimes.



You keep changing your position. A power hungry person that is willing to kill, will kill whether they find a position in a religious organization or not.

How am I changing my position? Maybe you are assuming something.

God doesn't intefere any longer in the things happening here on earth

Originally posted by Utrigita
God doesn't intefere any longer in the things happening here on earth

That is too convenient.

Giving the martyrs in the planes the strength to do his holy work?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is too convenient.

why is that???

I find it logical to assume that since God used his Son jesus to save mankind, because mankind constantly sins, God doesn't see a reason to interact actively with earth more because no matter what happens we are all saved in the end.

Originally posted by Utrigita
why is that???

I find it logical to assume that since God used his Son jesus to save mankind, because mankind constantly sins, God doesn't see a reason to interact actively with earth more because no matter what happens we are all saved in the end.

You make extraordinary claims, but then you say, god doesn't do that any more, that way no one can prove you wrong. That is what I mean by convenient.

Jesus was just a man. He had a revolutionary teaching, but it was not a new teaching.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How am I changing my position? Maybe you are assuming something.

It seemed to me that you went: Theists -> Religious Leaders -> People in Positions of Power

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It seemed to me that you went: Theists -> Religious Leaders -> People in Positions of Power

My only point is: evil is a path that humans take. Religion can lubricate this path by supplying rationalizations. This is true for a lot of organized human activity like politics. However, Atheism is not organized, therefore to say that it serves the same function as other organizations is ridicules.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
You make it sound like if we banned religion, the world would suddenly be free of senseless killings. But Atheists are responsible for more death than religion: Stalin, Polpot, Mao etc. 3,000 people were killed on 9/11 in the name of a religion.....3,000 was good day for Stalin.

Surely you see the illogic of your own argument, no?

The terrorist attacks would have never existed if not for religion. But no one could suggest to me with any credibility or evidence that those maniacs did what they did because they were atheist, or if they had followed a religion the same thing wouldn't have happened.

Crazy comes in all forms. But religion leads to it far easier. Religion, for all of its purported goos, is based upon irrational blind faith. Atheism, for how much criticism it takes in public opinion, is based on reason. I fail to see how the latter is more harmful.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
hitler was a christian. he incinerated six million jews. he was also a vegetarian. shud i blame those acts on him being christian and vegetarianism then?

My point exactly.




...

However, we've established at length via my arguments with him that Mota is insanely bigoted toward atheists, so his response shouldn't come as a surprise.

Such a horrible point.

Hitler might have been a christian but he did not act like one at all. It's like if you are white and you are called a racist because of the support of Jim crow laws from whites. Very bad logic. Of course, this is all due to extremism which is basically a sinful way to spread your faith to others and showing ignorance or hate towards other people in what they believe in.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Surely you see the illogic of your own argument, no?

The terrorist attacks would have never existed if not for religion. But no one could suggest to me with any credibility or evidence that those maniacs did what they did because they were atheist, or if they had followed a religion the same thing wouldn't have happened.

Crazy comes in all forms. But religion leads to it far easier.


The fact that Mao, Stalin and Polpot were Athiest is what gave them the go-ahead (in their minds) to slaughter those millions.

So when Athiests point the finger at religions for being responsible for death and destruction, they also have to realize that Athiests aren't innocent.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

My point exactly.




...

However, we've established at length via my arguments with him that Mota is insanely bigoted toward atheists, so his response shouldn't come as a surprise.

Hitler was raised Christian, it ended there. Same with Stalin.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Such a horrible point.

Hitler might have been a christian but he did not act like one at all. It's like if you are white and you are called a racist because of the support of Jim crow laws from whites. Very bad logic. Of course, this is all due to extremism which is basically a sinful way to spread your faith to others and showing ignorance or hate towards other people in what they believe in.

That's the point though. Leonheart was saying you can't blame Christianity for Hitler....you blame Hitler for Hitler. And I agree. It was in response to Mota trying to make the same logical fallacy about atheists.

I'd also like to point out that atheism actually didn't enter the conversation until Mota brought it up out of nowhere to slander it. It's off-topic, and even if he's right (he's not) it doesn't shed any of the burden of religion's hand in 9/11. False AND hateful. A good combination.

Originally posted by JacopeX
Such a horrible point.

Hitler might have been a christian but he did not act like one at all. It's like if you are white and you are called a racist because of the support of Jim crow laws from whites. Very bad logic. Of course, this is all due to extremism which is basically a sinful way to spread your faith to others and showing ignorance or hate towards other people in what they believe in.

There are a lot of Christians, in the world, that don't act like one. However, your point is correct.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That's the point though. Leonheart was saying you can't blame Christianity for Hitler....you blame Hitler for Hitler. And I agree. It was in response to Mota trying to make the same logical fallacy about atheists.

I'd also like to point out that atheism actually didn't enter the conversation until Mota brought it up out of nowhere to slander it. It's off-topic, and even if he's right (he's not) it doesn't shed any of the burden of religion's hand in 9/11. False AND hateful. A good combination.



I'm not calling Athiests killers, I'm pointing out to the ones who blame religion for terrible things that Atheists aren't angels and in history there are Athiests responsible for horrendous things. 3,000 (the number of people killed on 9/11) is child's play compared to Stalin or Polpot.

Originally posted by parenthesis
God works in mysterious ways. Which in my opinion, makes prayer and doing anything holy in general, worthless.

Maybe doing good things is worth while, just because it is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not calling Athiests killers, I'm pointing out to the ones who blame religion for terrible things that Atheists aren't angels and in history there are Athiests responsible for horrendous things. 3,000 (the nuber of people killed on 9/11) is child's play compared to Stalin or Polpot.

If you'll read my opening post again, I think you'll that you're missing the point. Religion does good. Yay! But it's based on evidence-less faith, which allows for irrational violence for the sake of that faith. Christian, Islam, Hindu, doesn't matter. Take away the terrorists (largely irrational and wholly unsupported) belief in an afterlife, for example, and we never would have had the New York attacks.

Atheists do bad things. All the time. So do Christians. If I was feeling petty, I could probably dig up some estimates from the crusades, or add Hitler's total to religion's evils, and we'd compare notes. But that would be pointless. Most of those cases are just crazy men, and it has little to do with dogma anyway.

Bottom line: Atheism doesn't have any built-in mechanism that slants it toward unreasonable action or violence. Religion does.

And, as before, you are calling atheists killers because you're implying that they are predisposed to it because of their beliefs, though you haven't actually stated why this is. So despite what you'd like us to think, this is pretty uninformed.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
God was flying the planes. Metaphorically, of course, because belief in a mono-theistic deity is what led to such violent strife between cultures. He wasn't literally flying the plane because he isn't actually anywhere. If the pilots didn't believe in God (Allah in their case), or if they didn't believe in an afterlife filled with virgins and bliss for their actions, they never would have undertaken the flight. No one would have.



Completely disagree with you there Digi.

Those monsters flying the planes had a hatred for anything that the is consider Americanism and capitalism.

They hate us and even if there was no God. They still hate us for what we have and what we believe.

We have what they don't have. Which is FREEDOM. That's why they hate us.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Crazy comes in all forms. But religion leads to it far easier. Religion, for all of its purported goos, is based upon irrational blind faith. Atheism, for how much criticism it takes in public opinion, is based on reason. I fail to see how the latter is more harmful.

Not all atheists are rationalists.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Bottom line: Atheism doesn't have any built-in mechanism that slants it toward unreasonable action or violence.

Actually it does, because it removes barriers that would normally make a person say "Wait a minute, this is wrong."

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Bottom line: Atheism doesn't have any built-in mechanism that slants it toward unreasonable action or violence. Religion does.

No it doesn't. People do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not all atheists are rationalists and thus atheism does not have to be based on reason.

Because it isn't.

"Atheism is not caused by reason, but by a kind of cowardly moral escapism."
-Dinesh D'souza

Evil deeds don't stem from religion, they stem from simple human nature. Even if there was no religious belief people would find other reasons to hate others, and kill and maim as a result. Instead of doing it in the name of God, they'd do it in the name of french fries, or something.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually it does, because it removes barriers that would normally make a person say "Wait a minute, this is wrong."

Sorry Quiero, that's BS. That thinking is based on the idea that all morality is based on some kind of religious foundation; as if it's not possible to have decent independent morals outside of what a certain religion has told us. Athiests as a whole would agree with most theists as a whole about what is and isn't wrong.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not all atheists are rationalists and thus atheism does not have to be based on reason.

You talk about Atheists as if it was a belief. It is not a belief, but a disbelief in a God. There is no code, or set of rules for Atheists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You talk about Atheists as if it was a belief. It is not a belief, but a disbelief in a God. There is no code, or set of rules for Atheists.

If the claim is made that "atheism is based on reason" (which it was) then all of it's followers must be rationalists and have a reason for what they do.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the claim is made that "atheism is based on reason" (which it was) then all of it's followers must be rationalists and have a reason for what they do.

Ya, but I didn't agree with "atheism is based on reason".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, but I didn't agree with "atheism is based on reason".

Then why respond to me?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then why respond to me?

I missed the other one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not all atheists are rationalists.

Not all atheists are anything in particular. And the non-belief in a deity, which is all atheism is, has literally nothing to say about morality. Nothing. Blaming "atheist morality" (which doesn't actually exist, though Christian mroality certainly does) is like blaming a child for hitting someone because he believes in Santa. The two are unrelated.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Completely disagree with you there Digi.

Those monsters flying the planes had a hatred for anything that the is consider Americanism and capitalism.

They hate us and even if there was no God. They still hate us for what we have and what we believe.

We have what they don't have. Which is FREEDOM. That's why they hate us.

Take away their belief in an afterlife, which is an irrational belief based on faith rather than evidence, and would the attacks still have happened? Much less likely.

....

The most common idea I see here is that atheists have no standard form of morality, and thus are predisposed to violence. First, this would assume that if left to their own reason, most people will settle on violence. Second, atheism itself is simply a belief in no deity....any moral decisions people make beyond that are their own, and not linked to the body that is "atheism". On the contrary, most religious texts advocate some form of violence (Islam clearly, and Christianity for those who are willing to be honest about their scriptures) and anyone acting on their behalf is actually acting "for" their religion. "Atheist morality" doesn't exist. It's individual choice. "Christian morality" most certainly does exist, or Islam, etc. Anything done from a moral standpoint under those religions is a direct reflection of the religion.

Most modern morality (at least standard morality in society) is leagues beyond what would have been practiced or preached in any ancient religion. I'm much more willing to trust someone who is using modern standards of goodness to decide their morals, than someone who takes vague, multi-interpretational text from millenia ago and act as though it is infallible.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually it does, because it removes barriers that would normally make a person say "Wait a minute, this is wrong."

I dealt with most of this above. But religious ideals are as arbitrary and flawed as any person's morality might be if they determined it for themselves. You're saying that Christian (or religious) morality has the objective final say in what is right and wrong, but it doesn't, and most times it's completely f*cked up when you actually read what people use religion to justify.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If the claim is made that "atheism is based on reason" (which it was) then all of it's followers must be rationalists and have a reason for what they do.

The point was made because it doesn't have faith involved with it. So I stand by it. I wasn't implying that all atheists are rationalists. That was an addition you made. But none have blind faith that leads to irrational violence. They may be irrational anyway, but it's from something other than their atheism.

Originally posted by BackFire
Sorry Quiero, that's BS. That thinking is based on the idea that all morality is based on some kind of religious foundation; as if it's not possible to have decent independent morals outside of what a certain religion has told us. Athiests as a whole would agree with most theists as a whole about what is and isn't wrong.

Nicely put.

He was there keeping it from being worse.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no code, or set of rules for Atheists.

Actually...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u55/WatchOut_02/Atb.jpg

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The point was made because it doesn't have faith involved with it. So I stand by it. I wasn't implying that all atheists are rationalists. That was an addition you made. But none have blind faith that leads to irrational violence. They may be irrational anyway, but it's from something other than their atheism.

Lack of faith does not imply reliance on reason.

Blind irrational faith does appear in atheists, just not in the form of God. Some soldiers will been blindly follow orders, cult leaders can convince people to throw their lives away, prisoners in death camps have been known to believe that their salvation in imminent.

Originally posted by Mindship
He was there keeping it from being worse.

hmm

While everyone was looking the other way Jesus saved a bunch of other planes of hijackers?

Originally posted by DigiMark007



Take away their belief in an afterlife, which is an irrational belief based on faith rather than evidence, and would the attacks still have happened? Much less likely.



Yes, it still would have happen. 9/11 wasn't the first nor will be the last time these people will attack us. Clear point: "They hate us". Doesn't matter if we were Buddhist or Atheist or Misc. They hate anything that is American.

Here,religion was use as the scapegoat. Deep down behind all these attacks it's the hatred for us. Why? They're jealous of us. They hate anything that is connected to the US.

Their hatred drove them to the point of complete and utter stupidity and idiocy. That they fail to see their own hypocricy. Case in point. These terrorist hate everything that involves capitalism. However, when they're making those videos featuring Osama. They fail to see that when they bought and use the camera and the tape with which to make the video. They contributed in someway to capitalism.

Go ahead and take away their beliefs....they still going to hate us.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yes, it still would have happen. 9/11 wasn't the first nor will be the last time these people will attack us. Clear point: "They hate us". Doesn't matter if we were Buddhist or Atheist or Misc. They hate anything that is American.

Here,religion was use as the scapegoat. Deep down behind all these attacks it's the hatred for us. Why? They're jealous of us. They hate anything that is connected to the US.

Their hatred drove them to the point of complete and utter stupidity and idiocy. That they fail to see their own hypocricy. Case in point. These terrorist hate everything that involves capitalism. However, when they're making those videos featuring Osama. They fail to see that the when they bought and use the camera and the tape with which to make the video. They contributed in someway to capitalism.

Go ahead and take away their beliefs....they still going to hate us.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, right, they hate you for your freedom, eh?


Haha, great.

Originally posted by Bardock42
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, right, they hate you for your freedom, eh?


Haha, great.

Yes, they hate us. We have what they don't have. That's what makes them jealous.

*hugs freedom*

living by a realm of reason and logic absent of faith is to presume you somehow know everything
there are things that aren't rational or logical or that can be explained by what we know
to believe there are things humans don't know or understand is the most logical view of all in my view

Free will. We are all born with it. We are free to do what we want, whether it is giving money to church, or flying an airliner into a building. Those who piloted the hijacked planes did so on their own accord, God knew what was going on, he wasn't going to magically stop it. We are not his slaves, he is not going to MAKE us do what he prefers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
hmm

While everyone was looking the other way Jesus saved a bunch of other planes of hijackers? Didn't Jesus have his own comic for a while?
Anyway, it would be more of a, "God works in mysterious ways" kinda thing.

Originally posted by Mindship
Didn't Jesus have his own comic for a while?

One issue at least. He beat up the entire Greek pantheon.

Originally posted by Mindship
Anyway, it would be more of a, "God works in mysterious ways" kinda thing.

Mine would be more fun.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you considering all the people who have been killed over religion over recorded history? The number is much higher...

However, you are correct, banning religion would not stop senseless killings. To get rid of senseless killings we would have to remove all attachments. Both Religious and Atheistic people have attachments that lead to evil and suffering.

Right so it isn't the religion that causes the killing, and attachment doesn't necessarily consist of "religion". Some consider Buddhism to be a religion (even though it's a psychology in my opinion) but assuming it is in fact a religion, you can't have a religion say that "the only way to freedom is through the unattachment of all things (religion including)." The solution is not to strip man of everything good and bad, but to simply strip man of the bad. Buddhism tries this but they doubt and ask "what is truly bad?" So out of security it is best to strip man of everything and leave him at that. Granted it's an understatement but the result is still the same. And though we have a duty to purify the imperfection within us, we are inherently social creatures that must extend to the purification of the imperfections in our neighbors as well. And no not the purification as is the stereotypical belief of fire and killing, but purification through discipline and practice, love and kindness. These are not philosophies to just Buddhism, but to Judaism Christianity and Muslim as well (and the others I didn't mention).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lack of faith does not imply reliance on reason.

Blind irrational faith does appear in atheists, just not in the form of God. Some soldiers will been blindly follow orders, cult leaders can convince people to throw their lives away, prisoners in death camps have been known to believe that their salvation in imminent.

But that has nothing to do with their beliefs or their atheism. And I conceded that atheists can be stupid, irrational, or violent in my last post, but stipulated that it isn't linked with their atheism (because it isn't). It's just "normal" stupidity, the kind that can be found in anyone regardless of belief.

And hopefully your soldier example wasn't leading toward a "no atheists in foxholes" argument, because that's not much more than religious smugness.

...

It still comes down to me to "Where does religion or atheism lead to irrational actions?" For religion, the answer is faith. For atheism, the only answers thus far have been gross misinterpretations of what atheism is, or trying to ascribe more to it than is justified.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It still comes down to me to "Where does religion or atheism lead to irrational actions?" For religion, the answer is faith. For atheism, the only answers thus far have been gross misinterpretations of what atheism is, or trying to ascribe more to it than is justified.

They don't. Religion is a good man moving somewhere. Atheism is merely a good man standing still. Both subjects perform evil acts out of misunderstanding (a warped form of good). But religion is not the center of a religious man's error as atheism is no sooner guilty of the same. And as a catholic I find it stomach churning to hear that atheist have no morals. The only thing an atheist and a religious person differ in any important way is motivation.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But that has nothing to do with their beliefs or their atheism. And I conceded that atheists can be stupid, irrational, or violent in my last post, but stipulated that it isn't linked with their atheism (because it isn't). It's just "normal" stupidity, the kind that can be found in anyone regardless of belief.

And the point I'm trying to make to you is that those same forms of idiocy are responsible for much of the horror that seems to come out of religion.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And hopefully your soldier example wasn't leading toward a "no atheists in foxholes" argument, because that's not much more than religious smugness.

Didn't even occur to me actually.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It still comes down to me to "Where does religion or atheism lead to irrational actions?" For religion, the answer is faith. For atheism, the only answers thus far have been gross misinterpretations of what atheism is, or trying to ascribe more to it than is justified.

No atheism doesn't lead to irrational actions but it's also no form of salvation (tired couldn't think of a better word) from innate human irrationality. Which is, in my opinion, the source of evils done in the name of God or faith. People would and do perform such actions without the help of religion and trying to say "hey look religious people did bad things their faith must be at fault" is very insulting.

I'll attempt to compromise with you SC, because I realize that you understand my point. But I think you're giving religion too much credit by saying that it's entirely (or even mostly) general human ignorance and irrationality, and that religion plays no part in it.

Sometimes, yes, it's not connected with any religious (or non-religious belief). Maybe even the majority. But whereas atheism does nothing to contribute to that, religion certainly has the potential to.

Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, and it is the foundation of many religions. Faith fosters an environment, either culturally (where an area is dominated by religion) or individually within a religious person, where irrational acts are more likely to occur because of that faith.

So I don't intend to insult when I say that religion leads to violence, I merely wish to point out a truth that I see. Because I see blind faith, the kind religions promote, to be a plague upon the world...the kind that creates environments in which acts like 9/11 can occur. Similar events would certainly occur sans faith, but not as many imo.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'll attempt to compromise with you SC, because I realize that you understand my point. But I think you're giving religion too much credit by saying that it's entirely (or even mostly) general human ignorance and irrationality, and that religion plays no part in it.

Sometimes, yes, it's not connected with any religious (or non-religious belief). Maybe even the majority. But whereas atheism does nothing to contribute to that, religion certainly has the potential to.

Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, and it is the foundation of many religions. Faith fosters an environment, either culturally (where an area is dominated by religion) or individually within a religious person, where irrational acts are more likely to occur because of that faith.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, and it is the foundation of many religions. Faith fosters an environment, either culturally (where an area is dominated by religion) or individually within a religious person, where irrational acts are more likely to occur because of that faith.


Actually Faith is more of a calculated risk then an actual "leap of faith" or "blind acceptance."

Originally posted by DigiMark007

So I don't intend to insult when I say that religion leads to violence, I merely wish to point out a truth that I see. Because I see blind faith, the kind religions promote, to be a plague upon the world...the kind that creates environments in which acts like 9/11 can occur. Similar events would certainly occur sans faith, but not as many imo.

These are perhaps more acts of ignorance then actual acts of religion and/or faith. You would be fallacious to consider that the events of 9/11 are the center of "Muslim" belief. In fact the minority of Muslims live in the middle east. The rest of Islamic religion (the large rest) live in the far east. So why do we not hear of them? Where is there support for the 9/11? Simple, because the middle east Muslim's are interpreting a part of their scripture differently then the far eastern Muslim's are doing. So one side is acting out of ignorance of the correct way then the other. And because we know that the means do not justify the ends, and the ends to the Terrorists are very selfish, then it would be safe to conclude that the middle eastern interpretation of their scripture is an ignorant one. And out of "warped good" derived action you have the results you see today.

Ignorance (a root of pride) leads to sin, or in this case, hatred/violence.

Originally posted by AOR
Actually Faith is more of a calculated risk then an actual "leap of faith" or "blind acceptance."

Ask a Bible Belt Christian or Muslim extremist to defend their religion without resorting to pure faith. They won't. And question any spiritual person persistently and, however intelligent, it comes to faith eventually. True faith is the kind that "knows"....so its not a risk when they are intuitively sure of themselves through their faith.

Originally posted by AOR
These are perhaps more acts of ignorance then actual acts of religion and/or faith. You would be fallacious to consider that the events of 9/11 are the center of "Muslim" belief. In fact the minority of Muslims live in the middle east. The rest of Islamic religion (the large rest) live in the far east. So why do we not hear of them? Where is there support for the 9/11? Simple, because the middle east Muslim's are interpreting a part of their scripture differently then the far eastern Muslim's are doing. So one side is acting out of ignorance of the correct way then the other. And because we know that the means do not justify the ends, and the ends to the Terrorists are very selfish, then it would be safe to conclude that the middle eastern interpretation of their scripture is an ignorant one. And out of "warped good" derived action you have the results you see today.

Ignorance (a root of pride) leads to sin, or in this case, hatred/violence.

I would never condemn Muslims in general, nor the majority of them. Most are peaceful, so please don't try to turn my words into more than they are. But I have no qualms with attacking their beliefs if I find them wrong. So one sect interprets the writings differently than others, and most are peaceful while only a few are violent. Fair enough. Faith still underlies both, and as I stated before, it creates the environment in which irrational acts can occur more frequently as a result of that faith, which has no evidence and is the single most powerful driving force in many peoples' spiritual lives (certainly the extremists).

that is about the most self righteously ignorant thing i have heard on this thread. although THIS comes close too {although the above is a result of nationalistic propaganda but the bottom is a result of relegious propaganda}


pretty much a lie and an arrogant rationalisation of a wrong point of view.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Yes, it still would have happen. 9/11 wasn't the first nor will be the last time these people will attack us. Clear point: "They hate us". Doesn't matter if we were Buddhist or Atheist or Misc. They hate anything that is American.

Here,religion was use as the scapegoat. Deep down behind all these attacks it's the hatred for us. Why? They're jealous of us. They hate anything that is connected to the US.

Their hatred drove them to the point of complete and utter stupidity and idiocy. That they fail to see their own hypocricy. Case in point. These terrorist hate everything that involves capitalism. However, when they're making those videos featuring Osama. They fail to see that when they bought and use the camera and the tape with which to make the video. They contributed in someway to capitalism.

Go ahead and take away their beliefs....they still going to hate us.




dude please STOP. you are sooooooooo delusional, ur gonna make me crack a rib just trying not to laugh. actually it isnt even funny anymore, you need a reality check.

Please, do not allow your mind to wonder and begin making assumptions; I understand that you meant well, but the situation is simple. The thread that I submitted deals with theology, and there are issues about theology that I understand, misunderstand, agree, and disagree with; and my having faith in God has nothing to do with theology. Theology is merely--in some cases--complimentary, while other revelations push my faith to the limit. As I have stated on other threads, my faith in God was something that I was inherently born with; this belief in God was nothing I could touch or quit understand, but I knew--very strongly--that I believed in God. It was only after serving in the Army did I pay attention to my--seemingly natural urge--to pursue God in some way, shape, or form. I studied and prayed (spending roughly 500 dollars in the process). But what really attracted me to religion, Chrstianity more specifically, was prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the coming Messiah and the case for the resurrection. Naturally, I was apprehensive, and only after learning of the Dead Sea scrolls did I learn to appreciate scripture, at least prophecy and the case of the resurrection; theology is something I still have trouble with today, but I remain neutral and continue to study. Often times I saw deeper meaning in difficult Bible passages once I laid aside knee jerk reactions based on emotion. In any case, we can make charges about God and the Bible, but that doesn't change the disposition of the world; the world contains hard working people simply raising families, and others are aborting babies at high school prom dances and cooking dogs in ovens after robbing home owners. Despite my doubts about theology, at times the Bible simply makes more sense than the world we live in.

WuvRMhaBNSg

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You make extraordinary claims,

Am I to understand that positive ore negative ???

but then you say, god doesn't do that any more, that way no one can prove you wrong. That is what I mean by convenient.

Well I just told why I believe that God doesn't intefere any longer, if we go by the bible (which I would be the most appropriate in this thread) then God doesn't intefere in mortal life after the death of jesus, as he did before (The plagues in egyptm, The flood, etc.).

Jesus was just a man. He had a revolutionary teaching, but it was not a new teaching.

Going by the history perspective ore by the Bibliocal perspective.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Where was God on 9/11?

God was taking a dump, okay. You don't like being bothered while you're using the bathroom, do you? No? That's what I thought.






Also God can't do everything for us. He test us constantly. Its up to us to do the good. Not him. He takes measures after death.

Same place "he" always "is".

Sitting there facilitating both negative and positive in the world maybe.

Maybe sitting there going "When will you lot realise that if I do exist, then I dance to my own tune and that I aint some mascrocosmic janitor to be called upon at will."

"And where has god been in the number of killings since 9/11" is also another pertainant question.

what a load of crap.

Exactry.

It all is.

no, I meant your post.

you think God is gonna swoop down and magically stop all the murders? He will when he reclaims his kingdom on earth, but until then we act on our OWN FREE WILL. God wasnt going to suddenly appear in the cockpit of those airliners and avoid the twin towers.

Nope.
I understood you, that you you meant my post.
I dont belive you understood the sardonicism dripping from it on every level.

The real reason that he (The "God" god as is described by humans) wouldn't, is down the problem he has with the whole 'lack of existance thing'.

so, do you not believe in god, or do you in fact believe in him and just hate him?

Its not as simple as that.

Im technically atheistic when it comes to belief in a single entity capable of judging us/acting on that.

EG: I dont believe in the Bible as a word for word account, yet can see the moral value in some of its parables. I have a conscience and rely on that rather than a guide book (written by men) in making my decisions concerning others.

But i'm a shade or two off agnosticism, generally.


Im definitley angry with the way that religion is used as a device for manipulation constantly and the followers that commit many an actrocity in God's name at some times, yet at others their whole concept of a god is surpressed/forgotten is sake of personal gratification.
And all the illusions that a religion will grant you a special relationship with god the first place, despite god apparently loving all his children etc.
And that prayer somhow gains you an audience with something that is apparently meant to be watching you the whole time?

Theres too much blaming things on/ crediting god with this and that
and not enough looking within and claiming responsiblity for actions for my liking.

And if there is the "godexistsbutwehavefreewill" debate, then its high time that either we quit the praying and get on with it.

So I guess im in the "Open minded, but not about indoctrinations"
"Feel failed by conventional concept" camps.

Hope that answers it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
no, I meant your post.

you think God is gonna swoop down and magically stop all the murders? He will when he reclaims his kingdom on earth, but until then we act on our OWN FREE WILL. God wasnt going to suddenly appear in the cockpit of those airliners and avoid the twin towers.
If a parent stood by passively while their child was being killed and said "the criminal here has the freedom to make his own decisions and I have not abandoned my child", then most rational adults would regard that parent as either cruel or insane.

Why make exceptions for a God which is claimed to be infallible and perfectly good? Why is it ok for God to stand by and watch people suffer?

Word.

I'm more benevolent than god... If i was out for a stroll and came across a kid drowning in a pond, i would try to save him. God, on the other hand, would do nothing. I'm better than god.

Originally posted by Storm
If a parent stood by passively while their child was being killed and said "the criminal here has the freedom to make his own decisions and I have not abandoned my child", then most rational adults would regard that parent as either cruel or insane.

Why make exceptions for a God which is claimed to be infallible and perfectly good? Why is it ok for God to stand by and watch people suffer? It's one thing if the suffering is brought about by God, like if he did something along the way that makes mankind suffer, but all the suffering you refer to is brought about by man. We have brought it upon oursleves. God placed us here with the oppurtunity to prosper and believe in him, to have faith that he is a deity. He sacrificed his only son to save us from our sins.

But, like the proverbial parent you refer to, he isn't going to hold our hand along the way, he isn't gonna do everything for us. He is gonna let us do what we want to do, he is going to let us choose to worship him, to worship Allah, to worship Satan, or to worship nothing, along with several other choices.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's one thing if the suffering is brought about by God, like if he did something along the way that makes mankind suffer, but all the suffering you refer to is brought about by man. We have brought it upon oursleves. God placed us here with the oppurtunity to prosper and believe in him, to have faith that he is a deity. He sacrificed his only son to save us from our sins.

But, like the proverbial parent you refer to, he isn't going to hold our hand along the way, he isn't gonna do everything for us. He is gonna let us do what we want to do, he is going to let us choose to worship him, to worship Allah, to worship Satan, or to worship nothing, along with several other choices. He gave us the free will and he made us imperfect.

It is brought about by him. Sorry to burst your bubble there.


Also, I am sick of hearing the "he sacrificed his only son", that's also a load of crap. Sacrificing means giving up, not letting him feel some pain over the course of 32 years and then having him for an eternity in heaven to rule besides him. That's called a ****ing promotion, not a sacrifice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He gave us the free will and he made us imperfect.

It is brought about by him. Sorry to burst your bubble there. who exercises the free will? that's the whole point, WE exercise it. And when did I say that we are perfect? hmm?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
who exercises the free will? that's the whole point, WE exercise it. And when did I say that we are perfect? hmm?

You said "It's one thing if the suffering is brought about by God, like if he did something along the way that makes mankind suffer" and I said that he did something along the way to make mankind suffer. So, yeah. Score one for me. Also this:

I am sick of hearing the "he sacrificed his only son" thing, that's also a load of crap. Sacrificing means giving up, not letting him feel some pain over the course of 32 years and then having him for an eternity in heaven to rule besides him. That's called a ****ing promotion, not a sacrifice.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You said "It's one thing if the suffering is brought about by God, like if he did something along the way that makes mankind suffer" and I said that he did something along the way to make mankind suffer. So, yeah. Score one for me. Score one for you? Lets see.....what exactly did he do along the way to make mankind suffer?

You'd probably see things differently if you were tortured, whipped, and crucified. "Some pain?"...pfft. Why not just say it was a "slight discomfort?"

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Score one for you? Lets see.....what exactly did he do along the way to make mankind suffer?

Create them. Make them imperfect. Give them free will. Put them on a dangerous planet. And on top of that not intervene when it was really easy for him to do so.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You'd probably see things differently if you were tortured, whipped, and crucified. "Some pain?"...pfft. Why not just say it was a "slight discomfort?"

Probably was less than that for a divine being. So, yeah, he got tortured 3 days. Big deal. Many, many humans died much worse than him. And he still got resurrected and is now all powerful and worshipped forever together with his loving father

Originally posted by Bardock42
Create them. Make them imperfect. Give them free will. Put them on a dangerous planet. And on top of that not intervene when it was really easy for him to do so.I get your point here, I really do, but the thing is that you cannot expect him to bail us out, to pull our nuts out of the fire when we get into hot water from something that WE caused. As far as the free will thing goes, would you rather he ruled over uslike a tyrant, that we were nothing but automatons? WWII: we caused it, why should he intervene? You can't say that God making us imperfect is the reason for our suffering.



Well, this is your stance on this, and I can sense that there is nothing I can say, nor anyone else can say to change it, am I correct?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I get your point here, I really do, but the thing is that you cannot expect him to bail us out, to pull our nuts out of the fire when we get into hot water from something that WE caused.

Wouldn't expect that, I think he's an old fairy tale pervert anyways. Just saying that if he exists and did indeed create us, all the suffering in the world is solely and ultimately due to him.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
As far as the free will thing goes, would you rather he ruled over uslike a tyrant, that we were nothing but automatons?

His existance alone makes that happen. And people believe he does intervene with prayers. So, I wouldn't mind if he'd intervene in our lives as long as he makes them great for all of us.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
WWII: we caused it, why should he intervene?

He created Hitler.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You can't say that God making us imperfect is the reason for our suffering.

Yeah I can, I did and I would be correct if God existed.



Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well, this is your stance on this, and I can sense that there is nothing I can say, nor anyone else can say to change it, am I correct?

Facts would help.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Wouldn't expect that, I think he's an old fairy tale pervert anyways. Just saying that if he exists and did indeed create us, all the suffering in the world is solely and ultimately due to him. Lemmee ask you this, do you think God is all knowing?



Yes, he intervenes with prayer, to a certain degree. But, as I said, he is not gonna hold our hand while we pee. He is gonna let us make our own choices and suffer the rewards and/or consequences.



Yes, he created Hitler, but Hitler was not created evil, Hitler, on his own accord, exercised his FREE WILL and became evil. God had NOTHING to do with it.



I need your answer on the first quote of this post before I can go on here.





What you're saying is not facts, they are your personal opinion.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Lemmee ask you this, do you think God is all knowing?


No, I believe he doesn't exist.

I do think that many Christians believe God is all knowing though.


Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, he intervenes with prayer, to a certain degree. But, as I said, he is not gonna hold our hand while we pee. He is gonna let us make our own choices and suffer the rewards and/or consequences.


Except for when he intervenes with prayers. Sure.



Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yes, he created Hitler, but Hitler was not created evil, Hitler, on his own accord, exercised his FREE WILL and became evil. God had NOTHING to do with it.



God knew that Hitler would become evil. At least God knew that he could become evil. Besides, when do you think Hitler suddenly decided "Hey...I am going to be evil today".



Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
need your answer on the first quote of this post before I can go on here.


Ok.



Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What you're saying is not facts, they are your personal opinion.

Nah.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I believe he doesn't exist.

I do think that many Christians believe God is all knowing though.I believe this too. And I aint gonna lie to you and say I know why God does this, why God allows this. The same Christians who believe that God is all knowing and all seeing also believe that God works in mysterious ways. As far as knowing WHY he sits back and allows children to be raped, allows murders to run amuck, allows war and famine and AIDS, no one has an answer for this. Some things we are not meant to know in this life.





Even then he isn't holding our hand, making our decisions for us, he is more or less offering guidance, placing the answer within sight, giving us strength to get through whatever we are going through.







This relates to my answer in the first quote. also, don't you think that Hitler made decisions with his own free will that made him evil? And if he had made different decisions, that instead of being an evil murderer, that he might have been a great leader?









Where are your facts? I want facts. I can't provide you with any, I am going on my faith.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Where are your facts? I want facts. I can't provide you with any, I am going on my faith.

*jabs fist into air in triumph*

*then hangs head in realization that the victory is a hollow one*

...read anything I've written in this thread if you're confused about the reaction.

...

Also, prayer has never been shown to do anything. Anecdotes are wonderful for fueling faith without providing real evidence, but any controlled double-blind study conducted to test the effects of prayer has found no correlation whatsoever. The most prominent study of its kind actually had a negative correlation between health of the people being prayed for as opposed to those who were not receiving prayers.

I don't mean to imply that prayer has negative effects, of course. That would imply it has an effect at all. The results are merely random, because remote prayer does nothing.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
*jabs fist into air in triumph*

*then hangs head in realization that the victory is a hollow one*

...read anything I've written in this thread if you're confused about the reaction.

...

Also, prayer has never been shown to do anything. Anecdotes are wonderful for fueling faith without providing real evidence, but any controlled double-blind study conducted to test the effects of prayer has found no correlation whatsoever. The most prominent study of its kind actually had a negative correlation between health of the people being prayed for as opposed to those who were not receiving prayers.

I don't mean to imply that prayer has negative effects, of course. That would imply it has an effect at all. The results are merely random, because remote prayer does nothing. It's not a victory, nor is it a loss. I am relying on my faith for my argument, what are you relying on?

You cant rely on a "study" to determine whether praying is beneficial or not. It's just not feasible.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's not a victory, nor is it a loss. I am relying on my faith for my argument, what are you relying on?

You cant rely on a "study" to determine whether praying is beneficial or not. It's just not feasible.

No, I have loads of empirical evidence to suggest that religions in general are pretty asinine. Their only bastion of hope would be studies or evidence that would prove me wrong...examples like the prayer thing fail miserably, and anecdotes are, as stated before, nothing that can be taken as anything but fanciful stories.

And yes, seeing that there's a lack of any feasible evidence for prayer is a much more valid reason for not believing in prayer, than it is to believe in it based on blind faith. I'm not saying I know for certain (none of us can know for certain about anything, so it runs both ways) but it's clearly the more logical conclusion.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, I have loads of empirical evidence to suggest that religions in general are pretty asinine. Their only bastion of hope would be studies or evidence that would prove me wrong...examples like the prayer thing fail miserably, and anecdotes are, as stated before, nothing that can be taken as anything but fanciful stories.

And yes, seeing that there's a lack of any feasible evidence for prayer is a much more valid reason for not believing in prayer, than it is to believe in it based on blind faith. I'm not saying I know for certain (none of us can know for certain about anything, so it runs both ways) but it's clearly the more logical conclusion. so what you are saying to me, more or less, is that there is no way I can prove God's existence, or that praying works.

god just did it for the lulz

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The most prominent study of its kind actually had a negative correlation between health of the people being prayed for as opposed to those who were not receiving prayers.

Only the people who knew they were being prayed for had a negative correlation. When they were prayed for without being told there was no difference from people who weren't prayed for.

Originally posted by leonheartmm


dude please STOP. you are sooooooooo delusional, ur gonna make me crack a rib just trying not to laugh. actually it isnt even funny anymore, you need a reality check.

Oh, I'm sure you have all the answers store inside a little pocket.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
so what you are saying to me, more or less, is that there is no way I can prove God's existence, or that praying works.

No. There's clear ways that one could show that either one is likely, or even just a possibility. But so far, any attempt at either has failed miserably.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only the people who knew they were being prayed for had a negative correlation. When they were prayed for without being told there was no difference from people who weren't prayed for.

Right. That's the study I was referring to. So like I said. No evidence to support prayer having any effect on anything. If any conclusions could be drawn, the only possible explanation is that increased stress from knowing they were being prayed for (and the pressure to "perform" and get better) caused them to deteriorate. But that's a perfectly causal explanation, not a supernatural one.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
um...thats all useful info, but I meant facts that God doesnt exist.

Why would you mean that? It's in no way what we have talked about. You have to ask your question on the topic at hand not random things that crossed your mind.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
um...thats all useful info, but I meant facts that God doesnt exist.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9971372#post9971372

...if you're truly persistent (see also: stubborn) no amount of evidence or non-evidence will suffice. See ushomefree or JIA for extrapolation on this point. But this is my little summary, and I think it applies pretty well to your question.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Oh, I'm sure you have all the answers store inside a little pocket.

not at all. however, i know for a fact that the oppinions expressed by you previously are unnbeleiveably far away from the truth and biased to a degree not generally seen on kmc.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
#2 applies if you assume God was intending the creation of Christianity.

#3 applies because God surrendered his son to humanity's judgment.

Two doesn't apply because there is no deity surrendered to.

Three doesn't apply as he did not surrender his son. He didn't give it over to anyone, Jesus is now doing exactly what God intended, he wasn't surrendered to anybody. It's certainly not the "ultimate sacrifice".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No. There's clear ways that one could show that either one is likely, or even just a possibility. But so far, any attempt at either has failed miserably.



I see it like this: I cannot prove his existance, but at the same time, no one can disprove it. It all boils down to faith.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I see it like this: I cannot prove his existance, but at the same time, no one can disprove it. It all boils down to faith.

I can't dissprove the existance of a unicorn in the orbit of jupiter. You believe that too?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=9971372#post9971372

...if you're truly persistent (see also: stubborn) no amount of evidence or non-evidence will suffice. See ushomefree or JIA for extrapolation on this point. But this is my little summary, and I think it applies pretty well to your question. I read the whole page, and I see no evidence that disproves Gods existance. FAITH....is that such a hard concept?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I read the whole page, and I see no evidence that disproves Gods existance. FAITH....is that such a hard concept? It's a bullshit thing. Having blind faith like you is idiocy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a bullshit thing. Having blind faith like you is idiocy. You and I have talked about this. It's not blind faith.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Two doesn't apply because there is no deity surrendered to.

Himself. The cross became a center of Christian faith because Jesus died on it.

Maybe a stretch there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Three doesn't apply as he did not surrender his son. He didn't give it over to anyone, Jesus is now doing exactly what God intended, he wasn't surrendered to anybody. It's certainly not the "ultimate sacrifice".

Sure he did. Sent his son down for 33 years to work on the mortal coil. Jesus was surrendered to what ever fate awaited him there. It worked out nicely for God, sure, but doesn't make it less of a sacrifice.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You and I have talked about this. It's not blind faith. Yeah it is.Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Himself. The cross became a center of Christian faith because Jesus died on it.

Maybe a stretch there.



Sure he did. Sent his son down for 33 years to work on the mortal coil. Jesus was surrendered to what ever fate awaited him there. It worked out nicely for God, sure, but doesn't make it less of a sacrifice. A-actually it does.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah it is.to you, maybe, but not to me.

explain.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
to you, maybe, but not to me.

explain. If it is not supported by any facts it is just blind.

And I explained why it is hardly a sacrifice at all.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If it is not supported by any facts it is just blind.

And I explained why it is hardly a sacrifice at all. What is something you believe deeply in, something that no one, no matter what they say, can make you waver?

But the Bible tells them so; that book is full-o-facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
But the Bible tells them so; that book is full-o-facts. You cant take the Bible literally.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You cant take the Bible literally.

Recalibrate your sarcasm detector, it's failing.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I read the whole page, and I see no evidence that disproves Gods existance. FAITH....is that such a hard concept?

I linked to a post, not the page.

*slaps forehead*

And it was reasoning for not believing, or at believing (quite assuredly) that Christianity is bollocks.

And faith is the problem. I understand it completely....I just couldn't disagree with it more than I already do. It's the single most harmful force in religion, both in the form of physical violence and the indirect violence it comitts on reason.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is not a good place to look for answers to the problems of today.

No that is correct,it is not.

edit.

Originally posted by leonheartmm


dude please STOP. you are sooooooooo delusional, ur gonna make me crack a rib just trying not to laugh. actually it isnt even funny anymore, you need a reality check.

Sorry Wind But Leon hit the nail right on the head here.This is a topic your way off base on and clueless about.

Mr Parker joined the discussion? Well you know things are going downhill now.

Hey, they just switched back to mechanical web-shooters in the comics. Go burn a car in triumph or something.






P.S. post pics pleez.

I finally realised thats not an important thing to worry about anymore,havent you noticed I never post there anymore?

like if KD joins it doesnt go downhill? your hysterical

Originally posted by Mr Parker
I finally realised thats not an important thing to worry about anymore

Uh...

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/7466/customsig8473cegifgj4.jpg

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Uh...

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/7466/customsig8473cegifgj4.jpg





uh whats that prove? did i say anything about a certain movie here? uh no.

Right.

Anyway....

So how bout them androgynous nephilim? Eh?

*looks around*

...ah damn, wrong thread for that too.

...

I guess it's up to me to rescue the thread. Here we go:

Religion = Wrong on every count. Atheism = Sweet nectar of life for the little boys and girls of the world.

Thoughts?


















lulz. not serious of course

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I linked to a post, not the page.

*slaps forehead*

And it was reasoning for not believing, or at believing (quite assuredly) that Christianity is bollocks.

And faith is the problem. I understand it completely....I just couldn't disagree with it more than I already do. It's the single most harmful force in religion, both in the form of physical violence and the indirect violence it comitts on reason. OK, Whats the harm is someone having faith in something they can't prove exists? What if by having faith in this something, in this case God, it helps them feel better about themselves and their life? If anything, mucking about through life not believing in anything is harmful, NOT choosing to believe in God.

Faith is a poor means for acquiring beliefs as it can lead to any conclusion.

I have faith that one day you'll send me deliciously nude pics of yourself.

Yes, I'm forum stalking you.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What is something you believe deeply in, something that no one, no matter what they say, can make you waver? There is nothing.