I wanted to see the reply you would have against that argument but you backed out of it. I wanted to see the question answered so I attempted to get a response by jumping in to the argument.
Idk, I believe in God, and I believe in what God says, even if it might sound weird to you.
"supposed" as in I BELIEVE that cutting your … moreballs off and get breast implants won't literally change your gender, but if it makes you feel good about it, DO IT, I WON'T HATE THEM.
It's not, it isn't being a dick, maybe it is to you, not to me.
I'm talking specifically about the point of the easter bunny and santa.
You are, we aren't
Christianity is not the only religion.
That's true but it's the one George is defending.
I believe it's *Agnostic :P
Yes, and you have full responsibility to choose whether you want to believe in God or not, because no matter what you choose, his first priority is that you have the freedom to choose, for good or bad
I wanted to see the reply you would have against that argument but you backed out of it.
It wasn't apart of the argument so therefor… moree I don't need to answer it. I didn't back out.
I wanted to see the question answered so I attempted to get a response by jumping in to the argument.
The question wasn't apart of the argument. I don't need to answer it and you're only getting this response.
Because the argument is him insulting Atheists...How many times do I have say this. Read the replies before randomly jumping in to defend your religion.
We are but there is no point in jumping into this, you didn't insult Atheists.
I didn't talk about Christmas with him, so that argument is unrelated to the argument me and him are having right now.
I wanted to see the reply you would have against that argument but you backed out of it.
It wasn't apart of the argument so therefor… moree I don't need to answer it. I didn't back out.
I wanted to see the question answered so I attempted to get a response by jumping in to the argument.
The question wasn't apart of the argument. I don't need to answer it and you're only getting this response.
Your refusal to answer is a clear sign that you know what would happen. I'm passed the insult 30 minutes ago. It wasn't even directed toward you in the first place.
Your refusal to answer is a clear sign that you know what would happen. I'm passed the insult 30 minutes ago. It wasn't even directed toward you in the first place.
Your refusal to answer is a clear sign that you know what would happen.
No, it shows I refuse to answer a question unrelated to the argument at hand.
It wasn't even directed toward you in the first place.
Still insulting.
When I said "Expert atheists" I was talking about scientists that are atheists. I didn't want you to assume I was talking about scientists who were religious, which you would respond that they were biased.
Sure, "Expert Atheists"...First off it's scientists who made the conclusion and not Atheists, also no it isn't, don't believe everything you… more read on the Internet. Also theories are flawed but change to receive new data, Evolution as it is isn't "Almost certainly wrong", it just isn't completely correct.
All scientists usually agree that Evolution is either correct or close to correct. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.
they were biased
Wouldn't had said that. Should have just said expert scientists...even then I would say it's wrong since I know NO "Expert scientist" that says it's wrong.
When I said "Expert atheists" I was talking about scientists that are atheists. I didn't want you to assume I was talking about scientists who were religious, which you would respond that they were biased.
See, you missed the point entirely! If you believe in evolution then no amount of testing can be trusted. It's like having a calculator that always gives the answer of 5 when you do 2 + 2. Darwin's dilemma is talking about our entire species thought process is flawed, and we can never be sure if our testing is even accurate.
Actually you are wrong about most scientists being atheist. It's been shown than in religious countries the scientists are mostly atheist. In Secularist countries the scientists are more religious.
Right, the human mind "is" flawed which is why you "don't" just simply trust thoughts. It's prudent to put them under scrutiny. This is wh… morey things like the scientific method exist, to help "deal" with the fact that human minds are flawed fundamentally. This is why you "don't" trust everything you read, and "don't" just believe things because it feels good to believe them.
This is part of the reason that, while scientific progress hasn't been exclusively achieved by atheists; the vast majority if the scientific community is made up of atheists, and it's been this way for a while; because you need to understand "not" to just trust the human mind.
Sorry, but atheism doesn't "invalidate itself." Having a flawed brain doesn't mean you can't work with what you have. You just need to be careful to look out for the errors that human brains are "going" to be subject to.
Do you know of any children who didn't believe in Santa but come to believe in him as adults? Probably not. Same can't be said for God. There are many scientists who were atheist for most of their lives before converting to religious people.
Santa "could" be a religion if he was marketed correctly. The main idea is that they are both make believe. Both were imagined out of thin… more air and pushed as ideas to keep people in line. Most adults don't need a magical man in the sky watching their every move to be a good person, at least I don't think they do.
Must I really break this down into even simpler terms? This is embarrassing.
Science works differently now than back then
And it will work differently generations from now.
They had very limited data back then, so it was the best conclusion they could come up with.
Compared to what they will have later we have very limited data now, and the current view is the best conclusion we can come up with.
Its was nothing else than a guess, not scientific fact
Science attempts to answer questions. How? We start with a problem, we then apply the best inferences we can to match the singular problems with the larger problem at hand from the data we collect through experiments and such. We are guessing. The only differences between our guesses and the guesses of the people placing a God in the sun is we have had more time to gain inferences and we are not content to accept "this is how it is" as the sole answer. As you seem to like to do.
Science works differently now than back then so i dont see your point. They had very limited data back then, so it was the best conclusion they could come up with. Its was nothing else than a guess, not scientific fact.
Also, if you "do" have a "good" reason to believe it, then please feel free to PM me with it. I'm the kind of person that will change my vi… moreews when presented with good evidence that contradicts my current views.
I'd "love" for there to be an afterlife, but so far all anybody has had to offer is wishful thinking or absolute nonsense in regards to its existence.
Antony Flew who was a professor at Oxford before he died. He preached Atheism for over 50 years. It was science that caused him to convert to belief in God.
If you're going to act like this there is no reason to have a debate. Several official interpretations by expert commentators who make their living studying all the translations of the Bible have supported Babylon being both a geographic location and a symbol of evil/oppression, which is likely meant to be Rome. If you read and study the Bible without any judgement you will see that much of it's content is meant to be taken figuratively, Jesus speaks in freakin' parables for pete's sake. Not everything in the Bible is made to be taken literally, if you weren't so hellbent on proving everything in the Bible wrong, and looked at it from a neutral and logical pov to understand it's true meaning, you would see that. But I can already tell from the way you're acting that you aren't interested.
I wasn't literally being condescending. I was just metaphorically being condescending.
I'm not sure how else to respond. If you take th… moree words in Jeremiah for what they actually say, it's absolutely clear that Jeremiah was flat out wrong. Saying that he was talking about Babylon "non-literally" when the text gives absolutely no indication that he was is as obnoxious as a kid saying he didn't take the cookie from the cookie jar when you saw him take the cookie.
I agree, but I don't think it's acceptable to try to bring other people down just because you aren't happy with where you are in life. It's immature imo.
I'd like to add to the conversation. The city was destroyed. God (er... the man who wrote this portion of the bible) paints the daughters a… mores the cause of the incest thereby making them terrible and preserving Lot's saint - like nature by having the daughters get him drunk before sexing him up. So if you want to believe this story fine, but what is mentioned before the destruction of the cities is outright horrible. Lot, after speaking with the angel, is confronted by an angry mob outside his house looking for some angel ass. This is, or course, not acceptable. So Lot, being the godly man he is, offers his two virgin daughters to the crowd in the angels stead. Yet he is still a loved follower of God. Explain that to me.
I'd like to add to the conversation. The city was destroyed. God (er... the man who wrote this portion of the bible) paints the daughters as the cause of the incest thereby making them terrible and preserving Lot's saint - like nature by having the daughters get him drunk before sexing him up. So if you want to believe this story fine, but what is mentioned before the destruction of the cities is outright horrible. Lot, after speaking with the angel, is confronted by an angry mob outside his house looking for some angel ass. This is, or course, not acceptable. So Lot, being the godly man he is, offers his two virgin daughters to the crowd in the angels stead. Yet he is still a loved follower of God. Explain that to me.
Antony Flew who was a professor at Oxford before he died. He preached Atheism for over 50 years. It was science that caused him to convert to belief in God.
I already told you that only I can see this magic eight ball, that is very much absolutely 100% real.
There's no way you can prove it doesn't exist, so therefore it must be true.
You mean, "Well, since you just pointed out the only illogical argument I can stand by in this discussion, I might as well imply that you're stupid to make me seem and feel smarter. When in all reality, I'm a complete tryhard."
It's like watching a terrible horror moving that you watch just about every day of your life. You know what's going to happen, and most of it is completely idiotic.
I just wouldn't bother with him, all he ever does is spew double standards. It goes this way for people who believe in religion but for peop… morele who don't it doesn't go that way. And whenever he's backed into a corner in an argument he just starts saying the same shit like with this one, he keeps stating that no one knows the definition of fact. It's really easy to view the patterns that are created within each of his arguments, and predict every time what's going to happen when he gets into one.
Santa, is a human being that gives presents to kids that is MADE UP for MARKETING SCHEMES. Where in the hell did you even get 'supernatural creature' from?
So you dont even know anything about Santa Claus and its origins?
ps. How would Santa manage to deliver presents around the world, without supernatural powers? Your ignorance and childish behaviour is pretty amusing, so keep going.
santa is supernatural creature as any other.
I am literally ROLLING on the floor.
Santa, is a human being that gives presents to kids that is MADE UP for MARKETING SCHEMES. Where in the hell did you even get 'supernatural creature' from?
So you dont even know anything about Santa Claus and its origins?
ps. How would Santa manage to deliver presents around the world, without supernatural powers? Your ignorance and childish behaviour is pretty amusing, so keep going.
I dont need to imply that you are stupid, you are doing it just fine by yourself. I never imagined that someone would have so much trouble understanding the meaning of one simple word.
You mean, "Well, since you just pointed out the only illogical argument I can stand by in this discussion, I might as well imply that you're… more stupid to make me seem and feel smarter. When in all reality, I'm a complete tryhard."
That sounds like a fact. ^
Maybe you should go google what that means.
I dont need to imply that you are stupid, you are doing it just fine by yourself. I never imagined that someone would have so much trouble understanding the meaning of one simple word.
Comments
It wasn't apart of the argument so therefore I don't need to answer it. I didn't back out.
The question wasn't apart of the argument. I don't need to answer it and you're only getting this response.
But you can be trangender without altering your body at all.
I'm confused about your God comment. Where in the bible/torah/Qur'an does it say that asking people to call you 'he' instead of 'she' is wrong?
God says it is wrong to wear clothes with more than one fabric in them.
Do you wear clothes with more than one kind of fabric in them?
I am not arguing about Santa or the Easter Bunny.
...Yes...How can you not see that?
Your point?
Oh , is it?
I agree with your idea
How was it not part of the argument?
Because the argument is him insulting Atheists...How many times do I have say this. Read the replies before randomly jumping in to defend your religion.
I'm not having a argument with you.
Your reply was eaten.
Your refusal to answer is a clear sign that you know what would happen. I'm passed the insult 30 minutes ago. It wasn't even directed toward you in the first place.
No, it shows I refuse to answer a question unrelated to the argument at hand.
Still insulting.
You know what, fuck it. I'm a bigger man. If i sad anything that offends you I am sorry.
I like how this thread became a religious debate.
When I said "Expert atheists" I was talking about scientists that are atheists. I didn't want you to assume I was talking about scientists who were religious, which you would respond that they were biased.
At least it's not fecking Kenny vs Jane.
All scientists usually agree that Evolution is either correct or close to correct. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.
Wouldn't had said that. Should have just said expert scientists...even then I would say it's wrong since I know NO "Expert scientist" that says it's wrong.
See, you missed the point entirely! If you believe in evolution then no amount of testing can be trusted. It's like having a calculator that always gives the answer of 5 when you do 2 + 2. Darwin's dilemma is talking about our entire species thought process is flawed, and we can never be sure if our testing is even accurate.
Actually you are wrong about most scientists being atheist. It's been shown than in religious countries the scientists are mostly atheist. In Secularist countries the scientists are more religious.
Do you know of any children who didn't believe in Santa but come to believe in him as adults? Probably not. Same can't be said for God. There are many scientists who were atheist for most of their lives before converting to religious people.
Here is a link to the famous cardiac surgeon talking about it.
Must I really break this down into even simpler terms? This is embarrassing.
And it will work differently generations from now.
Compared to what they will have later we have very limited data now, and the current view is the best conclusion we can come up with.
Science attempts to answer questions. How? We start with a problem, we then apply the best inferences we can to match the singular problems with the larger problem at hand from the data we collect through experiments and such. We are guessing. The only differences between our guesses and the guesses of the people placing a God in the sun is we have had more time to gain inferences and we are not content to accept "this is how it is" as the sole answer. As you seem to like to do.
Maybe you would listen to an MIT Chemistry professor.
Or professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford
On a completely unrelated note. I just found this gif.
Antony Flew who was a professor at Oxford before he died. He preached Atheism for over 50 years. It was science that caused him to convert to belief in God.
If you're going to act like this there is no reason to have a debate. Several official interpretations by expert commentators who make their living studying all the translations of the Bible have supported Babylon being both a geographic location and a symbol of evil/oppression, which is likely meant to be Rome. If you read and study the Bible without any judgement you will see that much of it's content is meant to be taken figuratively, Jesus speaks in freakin' parables for pete's sake. Not everything in the Bible is made to be taken literally, if you weren't so hellbent on proving everything in the Bible wrong, and looked at it from a neutral and logical pov to understand it's true meaning, you would see that. But I can already tell from the way you're acting that you aren't interested.
I agree, but I don't think it's acceptable to try to bring other people down just because you aren't happy with where you are in life. It's immature imo.
FOTD Lounge?
Stared from a comment and now we are fighting....
Yeah the Sodom story isn't anti-rape or anti-gay...It's anti-angel rape.
I'd like to add to the conversation. The city was destroyed. God (er... the man who wrote this portion of the bible) paints the daughters as the cause of the incest thereby making them terrible and preserving Lot's saint - like nature by having the daughters get him drunk before sexing him up. So if you want to believe this story fine, but what is mentioned before the destruction of the cities is outright horrible. Lot, after speaking with the angel, is confronted by an angry mob outside his house looking for some angel ass. This is, or course, not acceptable. So Lot, being the godly man he is, offers his two virgin daughters to the crowd in the angels stead. Yet he is still a loved follower of God. Explain that to me.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” -Albert Einstein
I just love that quote.
All and all, like you said, it can be made up.
No one is even using that logic.
You mean, "Well, since you just pointed out the only illogical argument I can stand by in this discussion, I might as well imply that you're stupid to make me seem and feel smarter. When in all reality, I'm a complete tryhard."
That sounds like a fact. ^
Maybe you should go google what that means.
It's like watching a terrible horror moving that you watch just about every day of your life. You know what's going to happen, and most of it is completely idiotic.
I am literally ROLLING on the floor.
Santa, is a human being that gives presents to kids that is MADE UP for MARKETING SCHEMES. Where in the hell did you even get 'supernatural creature' from?
So you dont even know anything about Santa Claus and its origins?
ps. How would Santa manage to deliver presents around the world, without supernatural powers? Your ignorance and childish behaviour is pretty amusing, so keep going.
Oh the irony...
I dont need to imply that you are stupid, you are doing it just fine by yourself. I never imagined that someone would have so much trouble understanding the meaning of one simple word.
Zykelator , just stop. You're making an ass out of yourself.