AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → [nec]Christianity vs Atheism

3094 566827
kiddslayer12
offline
kiddslayer12
70 posts
Nomad

I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.

  • 3,094 Replies
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

logic is almost entirely based on point-of-view. If A Christian is taught that the Bible is the ultimate truth, then the person would consider it logical to worship. an atheist, however, would consider it illogical because of their point-of-view, which is that the Bible is not true. So logic is not a valid support in any argument, because it can be bended to the person's point-of-view.

Objective logic? (Though objectivity is a myth) There is society logic, which is the logic that everyone have been taught, or should know of, like Logically enough the sky is blue. Or something. I lack a proper example.

Oh, and:
Jihad (not sure why you broke up the word into syllables)

Depends on the source and the time the source was made. Might even depend on the language the word was learned in at first. Like I would not write Quo'ran, but either Quoran, Qoran or even Koran, but since you write like that, I do too. Basically because of a lack of knowledge in how to spell the word along with a psychological need to please you, and become less different, so you are able to see my points as well. To imitate others are the way to be part of the group, therefore I do so.
Skyla
offline
Skyla
291 posts
Peasant

I'll reply tomorrow, it's 8 am here and I haven't got any sleep, but:

just like religion cannot Evolve or die?


Religion can die, look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, just to name a few.

Oh, and I've read the entire English version of the Quo'ran, however you want to spell it, and it's spelt "Jihad," we can't go around playing with language . Also, the Arabic version of the Quo'ran, when it mentions "Jihad" mentions it as a word, and it is a one syllable word in Arabic.

-Skyla.
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

just like religion cannot Evolve or die?


You missed a dot.
just like religion cannot (just look at what the westerlings are doing to the muslim countries!). Evolve or die?

So the right sentence is "Nothing that stay the same can survive, just like religion cannot." "Evolve or die?"

Oh, and I've read the entire English version of the Quo'ran, however you want to spell it, and it's spelt "Jihad," we can't go around playing with language . Also, the Arabic version of the Quo'ran, when it mentions "Jihad" mentions it as a word, and it is a one syllable word in Arabic.

Totally fine with me, I have just learned it by texts about it, so there is the mistake. Thank you for correcting, and sleep tight.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

FYI, religions can also evolve. Most of Christianity evolved. Only fundamentalist sects that emphasise the rigidity of their dogma do not evolve.

So logic is not a valid support in any argument, because it can be bended to the person's point-of-view


The logic that most people refer to when they use such terms as "reason" and "rational" is a layman's version of predicate logic. That's the type that says "if A then B, if B then C therefore if A then C" etc. but really, it's more rigorous than that.

Much more rigorous. This is just one school of logic, mind you.
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

...and since people are talking about the spelling, I was under the impression that the proper Roman spelling was Qu'ran

Skyla
offline
Skyla
291 posts
Peasant

Just before I sleep. Stropsil, what if the Romans got it wrong? Too bad the original spelling is in Arabic, huh?

-Skyla.

thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

Logically enough the sky is blue.


that's illogical. the sky is obviously cyanophycean. (this supports my argument that logic is based on point-of-view)
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

that's illogical. the sky is obviously cyanophycean. (this supports my argument that logic is based on point-of-view)

And Cola hydrates... But well, that is YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Not let the rest of us have or logic, then you can have yours.
Everything is subjective, but if you were talking like that to my IS teacher, he would have stabbed you with words AND made you fail...
choazmachine
offline
choazmachine
1,044 posts
Nomad

No, a belief. Many super-christians are saying that the whole bible is the only thruth. I am just saying that I like to think there is someone out there taking just a tiny care of us. That is what I believe in.
I am not defying science, I just find it... I find that it miss something.

Look up the definition of christianity, you will see theory in there. . .
And christianity is missing a big something too-- some evidence?!

"Proven", to an extent. It is a law (or something) that scientific facts are only facts for a time, until there have been more research. Actully you cannot say that anything have been proven to be a hundred percent correct.

Meh, not 100% fact but around there, nothing can be completely proven.

Don't correct me if you don't know what you're talking about. Gravity is not a fact because there's no way to absolutely prove it. And a fact is 100% correct, not 99.9 or less.

That's why I said 99.9%--also there is no way to to 100% prove anything, keep that in mind.

Well, you are just telling me and everyone else who believe in religion that we are wrong? Because your science tells you you are right.
I have seen many atheists try to "question" christianity, and always end up "Can you prove that and that". That is not questioning, that is like third grade bullying.
Really do not mind it, when it is the fanatics, but the regular christians? We just have something more than science to believe in. And have I been shoving my belief in your face, then I will apologize for being rude and narrowsighted. It was not my intention.

No, don't take it personally, you didn't bother me. You weren't rude. Maybe Atheists can become a little to offensive. I, for one, don't think I have [If I did, sorry] but all Im asking for is answers to my questions. For Im a debater. But the number one thing that drives me to ask is, Im a pre-biologist. Learning the arts of science. And for those who say 'science can't be proven', Im OK with that! Because Im not looking to prove people wrong, but to help those certain people whom question their very existance. And Im one of those people. I just wonder, 'how can a being have such power'?

Pretty sure this statement, among many others, is a fact: "Jupiter is a planet."
There are many facts in bioscience. A lot of the information in Biology is proven to be fact, cells and respiration, to name a few.

Just because they are real, doesn't meant they are fact. And for one jupiter might not be a planet. It can be a whole new classification yet to be discovered. Same with cells. Just because you see them, doesn't mean they are fact. Maybe we are made up of intelligent creatures with cloaking robes that conceal them as celsl?!?!?
LOL, just blabbering on, sorry. :]

Religion can die, look at the ancient Greeks and Romans, just to name a few.
Oh, and I've read the entire English version of the Quo'ran, however you want to spell it, and it's spelt "Jihad," we can't go around playing with language . Also, the Arabic version of the Quo'ran, when it mentions "Jihad" mentions it as a word, and it is a one syllable word in Arabic.

Oh, yes it can. [Just to be precautious- this isn't pointed to anybody. Just throwing this out as example!]
Do you know why we know so little on the mayans? Because when a group of converters [christians] wanted to show them their beliefs, the mayans wanted none of it. So as a responce, they burned the library containing all the books of the mayans, down. Only a few books remained. How sad is that? How people can do that, and have no concearn over future and past? History as a whole?!

Logically enough the sky is blue.

Is it now?!
Huh, who would've guessed that?
What I see is a color we happen all to see. But what if we where all colorblind? And all the real colors existed on new spectrums? Hm? Then I would have no clue what the REAL color of the sky was. . .Pity. But for simplicity, yeah, let's go with blue. :P
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

What I see is a color we happen all to see. But what if we where all colorblind? And all the real colors existed on new spectrums? Hm? Then I would have no clue what the REAL color of the sky was. . .Pity. But for simplicity, yeah, let's go with blue. :P

Funny thing, I have tried to convince my teacher that there is a possiblity that we all see colours differently (what you see when you look at the blue sky would be yellow to me), and that we just happen to think it is the same colours, while colourblind people just have the combinations that make them colourblind.
He pushed me so hard down into the floor that I had to use a latter to get up from the hole...

History as a whole?!

History is a lie:P (no, not gonna commen the rest of that statement, because I already did)

No, don't take it personally, you didn't bother me. You weren't rude. Maybe Atheists can become a little to offensive. I, for one, don't think I have [If I did, sorry] but all Im asking for is answers to my questions. For Im a debater. But the number one thing that drives me to ask is, Im a pre-biologist. Learning the arts of science. And for those who say 'science can't be proven', Im OK with that! Because Im not looking to prove people wrong, but to help those certain people whom question their very existance. And Im one of those people. I just wonder, 'how can a being have such power'?

It would be ever so nice if God could be proven, but then there was nothing to believe in, I guess. I am still learning about science too (second semester starting Monday), so I see your point. I just get stabbed by some Atheist because I defend believing and fantasy. SO good we are on (basically) the same team.
Some Christians are butts when it comes to their religion, because they think it is the only thruth, and some Atheist are butts with their science because they think it is the only thruth.
I like agnostics, they seem to never be butts.
1angelette
offline
1angelette
30 posts
Nomad

Some Christians are butts when it comes to their religion, because they think it is the only thruth, and some Atheist are butts with their science because they think it is the only thruth. I like agnostics, they seem to never be butts.


How many times do I have to say that atheism is not the cult of science? I think this is the third or fourth time that accusation has come up on this thread. And agnostics are wimps. XD

Sheesh, stop the existence quibbling. Technically, we can't be -sure- that gravity or evolution exists. Neither can we be sure that the copy of Hamlet I have on my table right here exists. Perhaps the light waves bouncing off of it, and the tactile sensation of its pages, and the sound I hear when I drop it, and its rather peculiar taste (goes off to brush teeth), are all somehow elaborately constructed synapses being fired in my brain by some puppetmaster/god/thing. However, we behave as if copies of Hamlet exist. 'Cause they do. Likewise, gravity exists. 'Cause we fall down. And evolution exists. 'Cause we're ninety-eight percent similar to chimpanzees. And so on.

Now, when we carry this school of thought -- rationalism, I believe it's called, or empiricism or something like that -- to its logical conclusion, we realize an opposite: We can conclude that something DOESN'T exist. When I am told that there is a fairy floating RIGHT in front of me, but see nothing reflecting light within six inches of my face, and wave my hand in front of my face and feel nothing, I can conclude that there is in fact no fairy. In the same way, when there is NO evidence showing a god, we can come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Life is much easier to live when you can believe in your copy of Hamlet, thank you very much.
choazmachine
offline
choazmachine
1,044 posts
Nomad

Funny thing, I have tried to convince my teacher that there is a possiblity that we all see colours differently (what you see when you look at the blue sky would be yellow to me), and that we just happen to think it is the same colours, while colourblind people just have the combinations that make them colourblind.
He pushed me so hard down into the floor that I had to use a latter to get up from the hole...

Jeez, rough teacher.

It would be ever so nice if God could be proven, but then there was nothing to believe in, I guess. I am still learning about science too (second semester starting Monday), so I see your point. I just get stabbed by some Atheist because I defend believing and fantasy. SO good we are on (basically) the same team.
Some Christians are butts when it comes to their religion, because they think it is the only thruth, and some Atheist are butts with their science because they think it is the only thruth.
I like agnostics, they seem to never be butts.

Oh, yea. If God was proven, then there still would be scientists. But they would study the birth of God. Seriously, if there is a God, whom did he come from?
I kind of like my story before:
'The This' pointed at the nothing and said "This is boring", for wich 'The Other' replied "Yeah, let's make a new Something to which who will rule the whole Uniplex!"

It's kind of funny, XD.
----------------------------------------------------------
And you always get those people on each side that contradict each other. And when they get into a debate, they take things out of context and start personal arguments. I try to deal with it, but sometimes it's too much.
----------------------------------------------------------
And to bring back another issue in this thread, off-topics.
Yeah, Buddhism and Islam are all eastern and they are different. But they do not concearn the debate here.
Also, what the hell is all this coke stuff in here for? Seriously, if you are that excited to start a religion off of coke and or pepsi, that's great but start a NEW THREAD!
-Thanks
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,657 posts
Jester

How many times do I have to say that atheism is not the cult of science? I think this is the third or fourth time that accusation has come up on this thread.

Uhm, did not say so? Just saying that some individuals that call themselves atheists tend to slap my face with some facts and yelling at me that there is no way God or anything that is not fully proven by science can exist, just as some member of religious communities slap me in the face with their wonderfull bible that is so much better than my own, or is my own, but still slaps me in my face with them?
Nothing about a cult in my wording, "some" just means a number of??

when there is NO evidence
we can come to the conclusion that there is no[...]


Oh, and the conclusion that the blue fish was extinct until someone slapped you in the face with one after a million years. Great.

But well, that is your world. I could prove that theoretically there would be living dragons today, and you would not believe me before I hunt one own and shoot it...

Uhm, fun:
its a logical conclusion that I am RIGHT
or:
a fairy
choazmachine
offline
choazmachine
1,044 posts
Nomad

AGH! I ninjaed myself!

How many times do I have to say that atheism is not the cult of science? I think this is the third or fourth time that accusation has come up on this thread. And agnostics are wimps. XD
Sheesh, stop the existence quibbling. Technically, we can't be -sure- that gravity or evolution exists. Neither can we be sure that the copy of Hamlet I have on my table right here exists. Perhaps the light waves bouncing off of it, and the tactile sensation of its pages, and the sound I hear when I drop it, and its rather peculiar taste (goes off to brush teeth), are all somehow elaborately constructed synapses being fired in my brain by some puppetmaster/god/thing. However, we behave as if copies of Hamlet exist. 'Cause they do. Likewise, gravity exists. 'Cause we fall down. And evolution exists. 'Cause we're ninety-eight percent similar to chimpanzees. And so on.
Now, when we carry this school of thought -- rationalism, I believe it's called, or empiricism or something like that -- to its logical conclusion, we realize an opposite: We can conclude that something DOESN'T exist. When I am told that there is a fairy floating RIGHT in front of me, but see nothing reflecting light within six inches of my face, and wave my hand in front of my face and feel nothing, I can conclude that there is in fact no fairy. In the same way, when there is NO evidence showing a god, we can come to the conclusion that there is no God.
Life is much easier to live when you can believe in your copy of Hamlet, thank you very much.

Well, I have nothing to add, nor say!
Well thought through and managed to pickpocket every fault in each argument. And she said everything that was on my mind. Jeez, can't get better than that!
Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

And agnostics are wimps


Such generalisations mark the foolish.

I'm sure some agnostics are conflict-avoidant, others are quite adamant about their stance e.g. Bertrand Russell. One would do well to note the distinctions, seeing as agnosticism isn't nearly as politicised as stance as the Atheist and Christian factions.

We can conclude that something DOESN'T exist.


I would argue that you can't. As you implied in your own post, debating about existence is less than constructive...before I get to this, I need to quote something else:

Now, when we carry this school of thought -- rationalism, I believe it's called, or empiricism or something like that -- to its logical conclusion


Empiricism specifically claims that knowledge comes from experience, so your practice is correct insofar as you base your claims on your experience. However you've overstepped the mark- you cannot claim to have knowledge of non-existence due precisely to your lack of experience. Therefore anybody who claims to be an atheist on grounds of "rational, justified belief" is implicitly subscribing to some form of realism.

Rationalism, as opposed to empiricism, claims that you can gain knowledge from drawing "intuitive conclusions independent of sense experience" on the nature of the world, but I'll leave it up to you as to which school you actually espouse.

At any rate, I find both realism and its polar opposite idealism to be less powerful than transcendental idealism, hence my stance on arguments of existence. If you have questions about that, though, I suggest you ask Moegreche as he's the Kant expert, not I.

As for the rest, this is known as the "invisible elephant" conundrum.
Showing 466-480 of 3094