Religion as a mental illness

[Augusto]

Well, well, well...

It seems some people have been working in defining religion as a mental illness from different angles. There are several arguments in youtube. This one is focused on observation and simple logic; check it out:

<iframe width="640" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ra9owgTI41U?fs=1&start=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(240, 244, 247);"></iframe>

Apparently, this is view on religion is spreading really fast. I wouldn't be surprised that no matter what or who, religion will end up being qualified as a mental illness.

OK this one is good, now it's a biologist investigator from Oxford saying the same thing:

<iframe width="640" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a73xAaxyCNk?fs=1&start=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(231, 234, 239);"></iframe>

You know this is the kind of scenario that might lead to a social revolution, right?

When more and more people start talking about it, including experts, well... I just can't wait. I'm trying to figure out the attitude of the Pope (for instance) when this thing end up blowing in his face.

[tailfins]

There's a board member you just have to meet: Gnostic Bishop.

[Augusto]

Yeah? And why is that? :)

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Perhaps he wanted me to add to your file with this university professors course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff57n4&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Oh, thanks Gnostic Christian Bishop...! Very interesting video.

I guess it's okay christians don't post here, it would be weird.

:dance:

[tailfins]

Oh, thanks Gnostic Christian Bishop...! Very interesting video.

I guess it's okay christians don't post here, it would be weird.

:dance:

Back in my college days, I used to see some students debate things like this for hours and hours and hours. The one that wore down last supposedly "won". Back then onlookers referred to it as psychological masturbation. It isn't terribly productive. The winner can then be referred to as a MasterDebater.

[Augusto]

I fail to see how your post is relevant.

[Max R.]

There's a board member you just have to meet: Gnostic Bishop.

Odd these two show up about the same time, isn't it?

[Max R.]

Well, well, well...

It seems some people have been working in defining religion as a mental illness from different angles......

Since the vast majority of human beings have spiritual beliefs, over 95%, I find it fascinating that both you and Gnostic Bishop, someone I consider to have moderate to severe mental issues, to be in such close agreement.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Odd these two show up about the same time, isn't it?

The usual false witness.

Check the start date and repent.

Oh, wait. One has to be a man to repent.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Back in my college days, I used to see some students debate things like this for hours and hours and hours. The one that wore down last supposedly "won". Back then onlookers referred to it as psychological masturbation. It isn't terribly productive. The winner can then be referred to as a MasterDebater.

You ignore the fact that it was a teacher d not students that was doing the teaching of an accredited course.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

Hi Augusto,
welcome to the board.

the video you posted is... well... kinda lame.
But if you want to discuss the points he makes. I'm willing to talk about them ( he makes a lot of assertions).
When i say discuss i mean i review the concept and points strengths and weaknesses.
i've tried to do this with GC bishop but he's not a honest conversationalist.
If you want a real discussion to review the question. "IS religion a mental illness"
than lets talk.
if you showed up to just to promote the idea that "Religion is a mental illness".
Ok fine, see ya, have fun.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

How about a real comparison that has meat on the bone----
as in--- Liberalism as a mental disorder!
A far greater case can be made for that!!!! --Tyr

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Hi Augusto,
welcome to the board.

the video you posted is... well... kinda lame.
But if you want to discuss the points he makes. I'm willing to talk about them ( he makes a lot of assertions).
When i say discuss i mean i review the concept and points strengths and weaknesses.
i've tried to do this with GC bishop but he's not a honest conversationalist.
If you want a real discussion to review the question. "IS religion a mental illness"
than lets talk.
if you showed up to just to promote the idea that "Religion is a mental illness".
Ok fine, see ya, have fun.

Now now. No denigrating me without actually showing what you mean. Christian.


IS religion a mental illness.

Being crazy or sane is a large spread. Le's see if we can get closer to some standard or base line.

Is believing in 72 virgins waiting for someone in heaven a sign of a stable mentality or a delusional one.

I would say that believing that is close to the insane side than the sane side. Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

How about a real comparison that has meat on the bone----
as in--- Liberalism as a mental disorder!
A far greater case can be made for that!!!! --Tyr

The O.P. made his case. Make your.

I put up a university professor for the O.P.'s POV.

What do you have for yours.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

Now now. No denigrating me without actually showing what you mean. Christian.
....
Regards
DL


Question for gnostic... (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50812-Question-for-gnostic)
#23 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49788-Why-does-God-not-follow-the-Golden-Rule-His-best-rule&p=736362#post736362)

[Augusto]

Hi Augusto,
welcome to the board.

the video you posted is... well... kinda lame.
But if you want to discuss the points he makes. I'm willing to talk about them ( he makes a lot of assertions).
When i say discuss i mean i review the concept and points strengths and weaknesses.
i've tried to do this with GC bishop but he's not a honest conversationalist.
If you want a real discussion to review the question. "IS religion a mental illness"
than lets talk.
if you showed up to just to promote the idea that "Religion is a mental illness".
Ok fine, see ya, have fun.

Yes, I happen to be very interested on this subject. I would love discussing it.

[tailfins]

Odd these two show up about the same time, isn't it?

Augusto speaks Spanish whereas Gnostic Bishop doesn't, hence they are not the same person. There are also other notable differences.

[revelarts]

Yes, I happen to be very interested on this subject. I would love discussing it.


Ok cool I'll watch again later and make sure i'm not misrepresenting the guys points.

There are a couple of ways to come at this but there are 2 things that hit me off the bat.
One is the definition of "mental illness".
And the other is the way the word "religion" is used apposed to other types of beliefs.

He sorta start with a generic and broad definition of "mental illness" he pulled from the Mayo Clinic.
Well Ok that's fine I guess but if you think about it that definition can practically be applied to everyone at some point. Some more easily than other no doubt but still MOST/All depending on how you read it. This is point about the mental health field i've made before. Even the Psychiatrist are alarmed about the ever increasing forms of "mental illness" that psychologist add to the D.S.M., "the psychiatric BIBLE", each year. link (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/may/12/dsm-5-conspiracy-laughable) The kids of the past 15 years or more have been medicated for "mental problems" that generations past understood as being a mischievous or rambunctious. They've even got a mental disorder now called “oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)” which basically means if you defy or question "AUTHORITY" to much you must be kinda crazy. That's very convent if you're a dr.... in authority. One articles notes that by what the DSM considers NORMAL "If seven-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality." link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603369.html)

Guessing the age of the guy in the video I suspect that he went to school with other kids, mostly boys, who were medicated for so called "mental issues". There are reports out now that 1 in 5 americans are on some kind of mental health meds or should be. the U.S. mental health drs and drug companies have many convinced they are mentally ill. Other countries by some miracle aren't as crazy as the U.S.. But we are exporting our views of mental illness so others can catch up.... and buy more drugs btw..

Is it a big surprise that religion might be tossed into the mental illness bag as well? It's not "normal" to believe in things that ...well... that most people or the dr's don't believe in right?
Also just to take this train of thought to the end, we all know that Stalin... the atheist... and many other soviet block countries used psychiatry and psychiatrist to lock up those that didn't agree with or believe in the communists program... you know crazy people... and many of those were infected with the mental illness of religion.

So this "NEW" trend of thought is really not new at all.

But if the guy in the video wants to stick by current U.S. medical assessments of mental illness he might consider this.
One in five adults in the U.S. had a mental illness in 2010, with people ages 18 to 25 having the highest rates, according to a national survey......
.....A new national report reveals that 45.9 million American adults aged 18 or older, or 20 percent of this age group, experienced mental illness in the past year. The rate of mental illness was more than twice as high among those aged 18 to 25 (29.9 percent) than among those aged 50 and older (14.3 percent). Adult women were also more likely than men to have experienced mental illness in the past year (23 percent versus 16.8 percent).
http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/201201191230
so according to the DSM, the psychiatric BIBLE.
That guy looks like he might be craze... I mean... between or close to 18 and 25.


And 2nd problem i mentioned is the way the word "religion" is used apposed to other types of "beliefs".
i can go into that more later but the guy in video mentioned religious people believing things that are not true or real or verifiable by his judgment.
Well there are a lot of people that fall into that category on various issues. Like if an atheist believes in aliens does that veer in the realm mental illness since authorities etc. don't confirm it? But more down to earth just briefly consider that many years ago scientist believed in the theory of "spontaneous generation" of life. That dr's BELIEVED that ulcers were cause by stress and medicated people for it based on that IMAGINED UNREAL belief. There are PLENTY of similar i can list from science, history, politics and various cultures. Were they all because of some kind of psychosis? Mental illness must be seriously considered in all those cases as well right? Or were the docs and scientist just working off the what they'd been taught in books. Going by trusted BELIEVED authority. And maybe using the best info they had to come to some conclusion that seemed reasonable?

I hope you see what i mean.

But all the above is not to say that there aren't some crazy "religious" people. No doubt there are, but to toss a crazy blanket of every religious person is pure BS and dangerous for society really.

[revelarts]

double post

[Augusto]

I trust you see your post cannot be taken seriously. No offense. I mean you show a strong motivation to prove yourself as being right beforehand, and you are ignoring the people who are talking are (with the exception of the first video) experts.

As far as I can see, you perceive mental illness as an insult. Perhaps you shouldn't. Let me use a quick analogy: nicotine addicts, people who smoke cigars can be considered "sick" of being addicts. However, most smokers are not abusive. They might smoke one or two cigars each day and work just fine in society. There are others who smoke 4 boxes each day and cannot even talk to anyone without having a cigar in their mouth. There we can see a disfunctional problem, and we can add to that that smoking causes cancer. What should be do? Try to set an arbitrary line between the number of cigars you need to smoke to be considered "sick" or attack the problem by the root? "smoking" is the issue, regardless of how much you smoke.

Such is the case with religion. If I were interested in offending people I would be a fool. Most of my family are religious people. Also, what's about calling people out for having a mental problem? This particular problem is given to us by our parents, by society in general, and feeds from our natural tendency to adapt to our enviroment. So, no. Don't feel as a freak, don't feel attacked.

I would like you to see this issue taking next generation children and societies in general in consideration. Forget about yourself. Don't you think it's important to find out the truth, specially in a case like this in which so many people are religious? Even if you are not willing or cannot change, is there a part of you who would say "Okay, if this is like that, religion should be banned from schools. They deserve better"...?

So far your argument is trying to discredit the institutions and the concept of mental illness in general. If we do that we would be ignoring those institutions save lifes every single day, and far from being religious they try to understand human mind and help fellow human beings.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Augusto speaks Spanish whereas Gnostic Bishop doesn't, hence they are not the same person. There are also other notable differences.

My prose has a certain Franglais style to it and is quite distinctive from hat have been told.

I like to say that I can screw up in 3 different languages. French, my mother tongue, Franglais and English.

My lack of formal education should also be quite apparent. It is a damn good thing that I was not born stupid.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

But all the above is not to say that there aren't some crazy "religious" people. No doubt there are, but to toss a crazy blanket of every religious person is pure BS and dangerous for society really.

Where would you draw the line of sane and insane?

Many draw it at the belief in the supernatural and miracles.

Being a literalist, I know that you believe in miracle and I do not mean to insult.

I am just saying where many draw the line at faith without facts.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

I trust you see your post cannot be taken seriously. No offense. I mean you show a strong motivation to prove yourself as being right beforehand, and you are ignoring the people who are talking are (with the exception of the first video) experts.

As far as I can see, you perceive mental illness as an insult. Perhaps you shouldn't. Let me use a quick analogy: nicotine addicts, people who smoke cigars can be considered "sick" of being addicts. However, most smokers are not abusive. They might smoke one or two cigars each day and work just fine in society. There are others who smoke 4 boxes each day and cannot even talk to anyone without having a cigar in their mouth. There we can see a disfunctional problem, and we can add to that that smoking causes cancer. What should be do? Try to set an arbitrary line between the number of cigars you need to smoke to be considered "sick" or attack the problem by the root? "smoking" is the issue, regardless of how much you smoke.

Such is the case with religion. If I were interested in offending people I would be a fool. Most of my family are religious people. Also, what's about calling people out for having a mental problem? This particular problem is given to us by our parents, by society in general, and feeds from our natural tendency to adapt to our enviroment. So, no. Don't feel as a freak, don't feel attacked.

I would like you to see this issue taking next generation children and societies in general in consideration. Forget about yourself. Don't you think it's important to find out the truth, specially in a case like this in which so many people are religious? Even if you are not willing or cannot change, is there a part of you who would say "Okay, if this is like that, religion should be banned from schools. They deserve better"...?

So far your argument is trying to discredit the institutions and the concept of mental illness in general. If we do that we would be ignoring those institutions save lifes every single day, and far from being religious they try to understand human mind and help fellow human beings.

I'll come back and reply more later
but I just want to be clear that i'm understanding what you're saying.
Are you saying that you're personally convinced by "the experts" that religion IS in fact a mental illness, maybe a general cultural mental illness that should be addressed?

[Augusto]

Pretty much.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Pretty much.

Would that include Buddhists, for instance, who do not have a real God but seek enlightenment only?

Are you referring more to idol worshipers like Christians and Muslims?

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Christians / Muslims / Jews = Jehovah worshippers.

Buddhism is more like a phylosphy.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Christians / Muslims / Jews = Jehovah worshippers.

Buddhism is more like a phylosphy.

I agree.

The Eastern religions, if they can be called that, seem to seek wisdom and knowledge as their top priority while Christians and Muslims are all into obedience, submission and not questioning their religion.

Regards
DL

[revelarts]

Pretty much.

Ahh,
So your not asking the question IF religion is a crazy. You assume that it is already, based on the theory of a few experts. And the opinion of fellow atheist.

So if a few other medical experts disagree does that count?
If a few other experts discount parts of psychology, as i pointed out before, does that play into you assement at all? or do you dismiss it as you did earlier as just a "personal" defense?

You reply to Gnostic that you only classify those those that believe in Jehovah as "religion" and therefore mentality Ill. But why do set aside THAT particular belief apart from concepts like karma that has no scientific base or some wiccans/pagans who believe in spirits or ghost, or Hindus that have 1000 gods, or scientist who believe in unseen universes, aliens, or unseen missing completely imagined links in evolution. Or those scientist that have come to believe that consciousness is separate from the brain. Or those atheist who irrationally act like morals are real even though they believe we are just animals ONLY working out survival instincts..
Seems like you have a gripe with "religion" not with irrational mentality ill thinking in general.

Is the reason because it seems unreasonable to you that so many believe it? Or are there facts that seem to you irrefutable that make "religion" unbelievable?. I think part of your issue might be that you may think Christianity, Judism and Islam have NO basis in evidence or facts. Is that sort of where you are?

[Augusto]

The groups I choose to talk are the groups I am familiar with. There are others, like scientologists, but I don't know enough about every single religious group on earth to talk about every single one of them.

I happen to work in a field related to human mind and behavior, and my conclusions are consistent with those in the videos, even when my area is a different one (psychology). This strongly suggest (to me) that they are right, since different people from different parts of the world, working on different areas, reached similar conclusions.

If you want to know exactly what parameter you can use to identify what I am talking about, you can just think of any religions with cases of people who choose to die before denying his faith or did something similarly abnormal, related to choose the invisible over the tangible world.

This is because all of this religions are formed by people who mistake brainwashing with faith. This is, theist don't actually believe in God, and this is easy to prove.

On a psychological level, my investigation points at a particular and abnormal behavior in the mental structures directly related with religiosity, but I'm not going to discuss it because my work is not published yet. I just mention it because I want you to know that I'm pretty serious about this and that it's not "hatred" or anything like that.

Notice that so far you have been simply playing the "everything is relative" card. Usual reaction from theists ("believers") implies denial whenever they are confronted that any argument that contradicts their dogma.

[revelarts]

The groups I choose to talk are the groups I am familiar with. There are others, like scientologists, but I don't know enough about every single religious group on earth to talk about every single one of them.

I happen to work in a field related to human mind and behavior, and my conclusions are consistent with those in the videos, even when my area is a different one (psychology). This strongly suggest (to me) that they are right, since different people from different parts of the world, working on different areas, reached similar conclusions.

If you want to know exactly what parameter you can use to identify what I am talking about, you can just think of any religions with cases of people who choose to die before denying his faith or did something similarly abnormal, related to choose the invisible over the tangible world.

This is because all of this religions are formed by people who mistake brainwashing with faith. This is, theist don't actually believe in God, and this is easy to prove.

On a psychological level, my investigation points at a particular and abnormal behavior in the mental structures directly related with religiosity, but I'm not going to discuss it because my work is not published yet. I just mention it because I want you to know that I'm pretty serious about this and that it's not "hatred" or anything like that.

Notice that so far you have been simply playing the "everything is relative" card. Usual reaction from theists ("believers") implies denial whenever they are confronted that any argument that contradicts their dogma.

OK, thanks very interesting.
I'll be back with a reply to the bulk of that but I have to ask you.
that last bit about " playing the "everything is relative" card.".
It's fine to use that as a refutation i guess. But you haven't proved me wrong you just say a lot of "religious" people say that. There are no facts or reasons in that rebuttal. It seems like you just make an assumption that it's false or irrelevant.... because religious people say it.

Do you have good reasons to dismiss my comments or is anything i say to be dismissed because you assume i'm a religious person ready to deny all to defend theism. and the fact i said it. Augusto you don't have to "hate" religious people or religion to be dismissive of us.

Simple question, If the definition of "metal illness" IS relative that's a factor that needs to addressed correct?

[Augusto]

Relatively correct.

One could argue that religion is not only a mental illness but also an institutional illness, something that can be seeing, for instance, in homophobia, tax evasion, child abuse, terrorism and so on.

True. A lot of people can be minimaly religious. They can have a vague notion and never go to church. That makes the relative case valid when talking about people. However, if one deviates a little from the person and pick "religion" as an entity, as a "substance", you can cut the relativity argument all together.

Poison is poison regardless of the ammount. Microscópical ammounts of poison could have no visible effect in the body, but that doesn't change the facts, from an objective point of view.

So, at the end of the day I'm not buying the relativity card.

[revelarts]

Relatively correct.

One could argue that religion is not only a mental illness but also an institutional illness, something that can be seeing, for instance, in homophobia, tax evasion, child abuse, terrorism and so on.

True. A lot of people can be minimaly religious. They can have a vague notion and never go to church. That makes the relative case valid when talking about people. However, if one deviates a little from the person and pick "religion" as an entity, as a "substance", you can cut the relativity argument all together.

Poison is poison regardless of the ammount. Microscópical ammounts of poison could have no visible effect in the body, but that doesn't change the facts, from an objective point of view.

So, at the end of the day I'm not buying the relativity card.

lol. Ok

But just to recap
I asked if MENTAL ILLNESS is relative.
and you answer with
HOW Mentality ill religious people are is relative.

LOL wow.

i'll be back later and toss a few more thoughts you way but it seems you've got your mind SET it's not theory for you, it's fact.
Especially if you think religious "homophobia" (love to see your definition for that) and tax evasion = "mental illness". Sounds like whatevers not PC = mental illness. If that's your definition then. Ok yes were all crazy.

So what's you solution? I'm teaching my kids the exact same things and more. (as well crazy things like try to love those the disagree with you because Jesus said so BTW.)
Do you propose the state take religious people's children... non-abusively... in an non-hateful way... for the greater good?

[Augusto]

Let me ask you a few questions. I answered your questions and there were many.

1. What is your religion?
2. Do you believe in things like: paradise, hell, judgement day, miracles and/or the soul...?
3. Have you read the Bible from the first page to the last?
4. Do you believe in the biblical Jesus and in the teachings of the New Testament?

Please, be as clear as possibly when answering this 4 questions.

[Drummond]

How about a real comparison that has meat on the bone----
as in--- Liberalism as a mental disorder!
A far greater case can be made for that!!!! --Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

You're stating the obvious there, Tyr ....:laugh:

[Drummond]

Augusto ... hasn't it occurred to you that proof of a God, therefore, proof of the validity of religion, is all around you ??

Decades of scientific study has finally concluded that the Universe began with a 'big bang'. That's to say, a form of explosive effect. Evidence has been collected from various sources for this, and some of the most convincing of this has been the discoveries made with the Hadron Collider, which has traced the existence of particles consistent with predictions made on the basis of this 'big bang'.

If the Universe was created, especially in that way, doesn't that suggest to you the existence of a God ? What ELSE could have created the Universe, from apparently ... NOTHING ?

This is far from the end of the story.

Have you ever seen an explosion, or ever heard of one, that CREATES matter, that CREATES physical laws, that CREATES order ... and for that matter, DESIGNED order ? Don't all explosions destroy, don't they blast matter apart ?

Existence is ordered, Augusto. Look around you right now. This minute. Everything you see that's not Man made ... doesn't it positively scream DESIGN to you ? From flowers -- sky -- earth -- cells in your body -- the very design of your body, of all animals -- how do they exist as they do, purely by random chance ? If you say 'evolution' ... well, evolution is a process of natural selection, following laws, following a pattern. Again - UNLESS by design, HOW has any of that come about ??

If you say, 'If there's a designing & / or motivating force other than a God responsible' ... then you're stuck with the question of how THAT came into being.

So, no. The existence of a God - I SAY - is a 'given'. To deny religion is to deny every scrap of evidence of existence there is.

Therefore, I suggest --- that DENIAL of religion is classifiable as mental illness !! With literally ALL OF EXISTENCE screaming 'I WAS DESIGNED' at you, to deny religion makes absolutely no sense whatever.

Since that's so .. I submit that denial of the obvious, denial of what EVERYTHING is telling you, is ITSELF evidence of mental illness.

Show me I'm wrong, if you can, Augusto.

[revelarts]

Let me ask you a few questions. I answered your questions and there were many.

1. What is your religion?
2. Do you believe in things like: paradise, hell, judgement day, miracles and/or the soul...?
3. Have you read the Bible from the first page to the last?
4. Do you believe in the biblical Jesus and in the teachings of the New Testament?

Please, be as clear as possibly when answering this 4 questions.

ok

1. What is your religion?
I'm a Christian (more or less Fundamentalist in the nice original sense. link (http://www.conservapedia.com/Fundamentalism))
I used to be an Agnostic. Basically an unbeliever that thought no one had definite provable answers or ever could have firm answer to ultimate questions of God, afterlife, origins, consciousness, and the like, i thought we , all humans, were far too ignorant. I thought both atheist and religionist were fanatical. Not mentally ill just fanatical.. in the nicest way. i didn't understand how they could go to either place and enjoyed conversations like this with anyone with definite opinions on those questions.

2. Do you believe in things like: paradise, hell, judgement day, miracles and/or the soul...?
yes, yes, yes, yes and/or yes

3. Have you read the Bible from the first page to the last?
yes, a few times.
Have you?

4. Do you believe in the biblical Jesus and in the teachings of the New Testament?
yes. I believe Jesus Christ lived in Israel, taught the Jews, was killed/crucified by the Romans and rose from the dead in 3 days HISTORICALLY so that YOU Augusto (if you had been there) could have put your hand in his side as proof of that miracle. And hopefully say to Jesus as the FORMALLY doubting Thomas did. "My Lord and my God."

.
.
So am i mentally ill doctor?
Is it terminal?

[Augusto]

Revelarts: Nice. Last set of questions:

1. When was the last time you attempted to perform a miracle, like a) walking above water b) turning water in wine or blood c) ressurrecting the dead?
2. How much time do you dedicate to preach the gospels each day?
3. Have you already given everything you have to the poor, like Jesus commanded?
4. Do you have any method to communicate with God that allow you to differenciate his messages/blessings from those of Satan?
5. What is your reasoning for being part of christianity instead of, let's say, Islamism, other than geographical reasons I mean?

As usual, I only ask you to be honest and unambiguous in your reply.

Drummond: Your post is interesting and it's a challenge I would gladdly accept, if wasn't because by doing so I would derail from the current focus. If you create a topic to debate about the existance of Jehovah I would totally participate, but not here.

[revelarts]

Revelarts: Nice. Last set of questions:

1. When was the last time you attempted to perform a miracle, like a) walking above water b) turning water in wine or blood c) ressurrecting the dead?
2. How much time do you dedicate to preach the gospels each day?
3. Have you already given everything you have to the poor, like Jesus commanded?
4. Do you have any method to communicate with God that allow you to differenciate his messages/blessings from those of Satan?
5. What is your reasoning for being part of christianity instead of, let's say, Islamism, other than geographical reasons I mean?

As usual, I only ask you to be honest and unambiguous in your reply.
.


"As usual, I only ask you to be honest and unambiguous in your reply."
look I'm not going to lie to you Augusto, at least not intentionally.
I hope when it comes time to answer some of my questions you're as strait forward and open as i hope to be.


"1. When was the last time you attempted to perform a miracle, like a) walking above water b) turning water in wine or blood c) ressurrecting the dead?"
Never tried those Augusto.
"blood"? Jesus never turn water or wine to blood.
But I've never had the faith to even try to raise the dead. And frankly I've never seen a miracle myself but i believe a few do happen today. But most Christians from the 1st century forward haven't seen many miracles. And there are only a few times periods in the history of the Bible where miracles are common.

"2. How much time do you dedicate to preach the gospels each day?"
Including this, probably not as much as i should.
But If you include talking to family and friends about Jesus. Encouraging, correcting or comforting others with his words and trying to do right by people because of Jesus. well all day i hope.

"3. Have you already given everything you have to the poor, like Jesus commanded?"
Um Augusto, that's not a universal command. Jesus met several rich people and only told 1 to sell all he had to give it to the poor and follow him.
Some other commands are universal like his command to love those that despitfully use you and say all manner of evil against you.

"4. Do you have any method to communicate with God that allow you to differenciate his messages/blessings from those of Satan?"
In general yes, it's called the word of God. There are several accounts in scripture that describe what to look for basically if "the communication" agrees with the word of God it's probably God. if it doesn't then it's not.

If a man says "the Lord told me to leave my wife for this 25 year old girl who loves me properly"
Well we all can be pretty sure it WASN'T God. And probably not be "SATAN!" . I think we can guess where that came from. If a woman says, "the LORD told me that ALL religions take you to heaven, JUST be a GOOD Person."
well that's not what Jesus said, or the Apostles or Moses or Prophets.
So we can be sure that woman is deceived, likely by her own self delusions or it's possible some lying spirit.

clear an unambiguous enough i hope.

5. What is your reasoning for being part of christianity instead of, let's say, Islamism, other than geographical reasons I mean?
...um... keeping this short. As I said i was an agnostic. i became a christian after some enlightening talks with some Christians that touched me on a level i had never been to. the only word for it is "spiritually" . 1st I knew I was separated from Jesus in a way that I could not honestly deny. Then as i opened up to Jesus I realized --again in a personal spiritual way-- the absolute reality of GOD himself and his love.
That was all heart and soul level activity but over the following years my head did question the "experience" and i compared it to others that i read about in other religious testimonies and also in some psychological books descriptions of epiphanies of various sorts. So I ended up studying the various faiths comparatively more deeply off on on for a few years and the more i studied the more i found that the other faiths lacked the evidenced based historical and philosophical foundations of Christianity. Basically the research said the other weren't based in reality.

Historically speaking it was like like comparing the stories of the Headless Horseman and those of Johnny Apple Seed. I'm not sure you're familiar with those American stories but as a kid both come across as folktales at 1st listen but Johnny Apple Seed was a real person. A real man that did most of the things described in the children's stories and more. The Headless Horseman story is made up but may be based on one item that was a real event in the revolutionary war.

Islam specifically has several problems in it's origin with Mohamed and it's RE-Interpretation of the old and new testaments that has no solid historical base. Other religions run into similar issues or worse. Secular and eastern philosophies and Atheism have horrible problems in being philosophically consistent. And Atheism is amazingly closed minded to ALL of the info available from human experience, history and just plain logic. So at this point in my journey, from a head perspective, I see nothing that really compares to the truth of Christianity I've received. There are questions that have no easy answers absolutely. But so far Christianity has BETTER answers than any other religion or philosophy. It aligns BETTER with reality and describes human nature far better than anything i know of so far.

[Drummond]

Drummond: Your post is interesting and it's a challenge I would gladdly accept, if wasn't because by doing so I would derail from the current focus. If you create a topic to debate about the existance of Jehovah I would totally participate, but not here.

Noted, and thanks. However, my point was wider than that, and spoke to the discussion topic.

Religion cannot possibly be a mental illness, if proof of God - regardless of how you define, or recognise that God - is all around you, as indeed it is. I assert that everything screams 'DESIGN', which means that there had to be a designer. And when you really think about it, only a God could possibly qualify, because only a God could be timeless, have no point of discernible or definable origin.

To me, it's a proven fact. For anyone caring to see it, it must also be. How do you, as yourself, a viable living entity, possibly exist as you do, healthily, biologically logical, UNLESS than through design ? How do any of us ?

[Augusto]

Well, I think we can start talking now.

First of all, you seem very miss informed regarding your own faith. Check this video, for example, and let me know if you have any problem with the verses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

As for trusting the Bible as something "real" maybe you would be interested in discussing that? If so, the best course of action would be to create a different topic.

---

You asked me if you were mentally ill.

Let me start by explaining you some basic stuff: the Bible presents itself as the ultimate manual for salvation. The word of God. As you might know, most people have never read the Bible. They get bored, yet they claim to believe.

Then I wonder, why this people get bored in front of a manual with only two possible outcomes for their souls and the souls of every single person they might care about? Eternal joy or eternal damnation are not something to take lightly. Yet, most people who claim to have faith don't even care about going to their church regularly. They don't act as if they knew something really important and definitive. They don't try to convert their family (sometimes they even marry someone with an entirely different religious position). They don't give more money to the poor than atheists, they don't seem to despise their lives, as should be expected from someone who believes is going to heaven, and... they don't try to walk above water.

So what is faith, really? I'll tell you what it is: it's brainwashing. It's a conditioning that in most cases starts during childhood. Faith is a brainwashing so strong that no matter how many arguments I offer you, you would never change your position. You would think you don't want, but what actually happens is that you can't. At least, that is what happens in 99% of the cases.

The most interesting part of the story is that your mind is divided in two. Part of you is conditioned and think "yeah, I believe in God and this man is a fool", while the other part of you, the one that keeps you from making something stupid says "yeah, God and all that is a total fantasy". This part of you is what makes "christians" to run away or answer agressively whenever they find an atheist. They know their beliefs are irrational and don't want them to be confronted, because such confrontation becomes painful to them.

In short, your attitude of trying to prove me wrong, unlike the attitude of most christians here who simply remain silent, shows you are pretty deluded. The part of you who knows religion is bullshit is weaker than normal = you have more "faith" than normal people.

While I'm positively convinced that you cannot be deconverted from your brainwashing (or faith, if you like), I think talking about religion with educated atheists, or reading, or watching videos of atheism could help your mental balance a lot.

My recommendation would be that you start with humor videos (easy and nice). You can approach them to "know your enemy" so you are better prepared. I mean, don't be afraid of it.

Here is a sample of what I think you SHOULD see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRh7W-Bsg5g

Also know you will likely feel angry toward me and assume I'm a bad person or something on those lines, simply because I'm confronting your conditioning.

[Perianne]

Well, I think we can start talking now.

First of all, you seem very miss informed regarding your own faith. Check this video, for example, and let me know if you have any problem with the verses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

As for trusting the Bible as something "real" maybe you would be interested in discussing that? If so, the best course of action would be to create a different topic.

---

You asked me if you were mentally ill.

Let me start by explaining you some basic stuff: the Bible presents itself as the ultimate manual for salvation. The word of God. As you might know, most people have never read the Bible. They get bored, yet they claim to believe.

Then I wonder, why this people get bored in front of a manual with only two possible outcomes for their souls and the souls of every single person they might care about? Eternal joy or eternal damnation are not something to take lightly. Yet, most people who claim to have faith don't even care about going to their church regularly. They don't act as if they knew something really important and definitive. They don't try to convert their family (sometimes they even marry someone with an entirely different religious position). They don't give more money to the poor than atheists, they don't seem to despise their lives, as should be expected from someone who believes is going to heaven, and... they don't try to walk above water.

So what is faith, really? I'll tell you what it is: it's brainwashing. It's a conditioning that in most cases starts during childhood. Faith is a brainwashing so strong that no matter how many arguments I offer you, you would never change your position. You would think you don't want, but what actually happens is that you can't. At least, that is what happens in 99% of the cases.

The most interesting part of the story is that your mind is divided in two. Part of you is conditioned and think "yeah, I believe in God and this man is a fool", while the other part of you, the one that keeps you from making something stupid says "yeah, God and all that is a total fantasy". This part of you is what makes "christians" to run away or answer agressively whenever they find an atheist. They know their beliefs are irrational and don't want them to be confronted, because such confrontation becomes painful to them.

In short, your attitude of trying to prove me wrong, unlike the attitude of most christians here who simply remain silent, shows you are pretty deluded. The part of you who knows religion is bullshit is weaker than normal = you have more "faith" than normal people.

While I'm positively convinced that you cannot be deconverted from your brainwashing (or faith, if you like), I think talking about religion with educated atheists, or reading, or watching videos of atheism could help your mental balance a lot.

My recommendation would be that you start with humor videos (easy and nice). You can approach them to "know your enemy" so you are better prepared. I mean, don't be afraid of it.

Here is a sample of what I think you SHOULD see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRh7W-Bsg5g

Also know you will likely feel angry toward me and assume I'm a bad person or something on those lines, simply because I'm confronting your conditioning.

So, Augusto, if only we understood things the way you understood them then we would feel the same as you?

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[Augusto]

Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2287-Drummond): I know there is a conexion to what we are talking here, but the medular subject here is discussing if religion is a mental illness, while your argument focuses in the existence of Jehovah. It's related but it's a very different kind of discussion.

I must insist that you create a different topic. If you win, I'll give you that religion cannot possibly be a mental illness.

Just know that you won't win.

[Augusto]

Perianne: I don't understand your question.

[revelarts]

Well, I think we can start talking now.

First of all, you seem very miss informed regarding your own faith. Check this video, for example, and let me know if you have any problem with the verses:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLOUWl-L-s

As for trusting the Bible as something "real" maybe you would be interested in discussing that? If so, the best course of action would be to create a different topic.

---

You asked me if you were mentally ill.

Let me start by explaining you some basic stuff: the Bible presents itself as the ultimate manual for salvation. The word of God. As you might know, most people have never read the Bible. They get bored, yet they claim to believe.

Then I wonder, why this people get bored in front of a manual with only two possible outcomes for their souls and the souls of every single person they might care about? Eternal joy or eternal damnation are not something to take lightly. Yet, most people who claim to have faith don't even care about going to their church regularly. They don't act as if they knew something really important and definitive. They don't try to convert their family (sometimes they even marry someone with an entirely different religious position). They don't give more money to the poor than atheists, they don't seem to despise their lives, as should be expected from someone who believes is going to heaven, and... they don't try to walk above water.

So what is faith, really? I'll tell you what it is: it's brainwashing. It's a conditioning that in most cases starts during childhood. Faith is a brainwashing so strong that no matter how many arguments I offer you, you would never change your position. You would think you don't want, but what actually happens is that you can't. At least, that is what happens in 99% of the cases.

The most interesting part of the story is that your mind is divided in two. Part of you is conditioned and think "yeah, I believe in God and this man is a fool", while the other part of you, the one that keeps you from making something stupid says "yeah, God and all that is a total fantasy". This part of you is what makes "christians" to run away or answer agressively whenever they find an atheist. They know their beliefs are irrational and don't want them to be confronted, because such confrontation becomes painful to them.

In short, your attitude of trying to prove me wrong, unlike the attitude of most christians here who simply remain silent, shows you are pretty deluded. The part of you who knows religion is bullshit is weaker than normal = you have more "faith" than normal people.

While I'm positively convinced that you cannot be deconverted from your brainwashing (or faith, if you like), I think talking about religion with educated atheists, or reading, or watching videos of atheism could help your mental balance a lot.

My recommendation would be that you start with humor videos (easy and nice). You can approach them to "know your enemy" so you are better prepared. I mean, don't be afraid of it.

Here is a sample of what I think you SHOULD see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRh7W-Bsg5g

Also know you will likely feel angry toward me and assume I'm a bad person or something on those lines, simply because I'm confronting your conditioning.

wow ok, well sorry, I 'm not mad a you at all Augusto. not even close.
And I watched the videos and um no, i'm pretty well informed on the faith and the Bible verses mentioned (mocked) in both. And sad to say some of what the "20th century Christian " said is how SOME christians act and think. But also some of the words of Jesus quoted have to be read in the context of ALL he said as well. Not cut and pasted, mixed and matched out of all context and put it in the worst light by "21th century atheist".

I am disappointed that after what i've told you that you'd shoe horn me into your small pop culture preconceived idea of what "christians are" and how they got that way. 99%? I'm not sure how anyone would come to that high level of certainty of others motives and belief formations but uh your the doctor i guess.

Questions for you though.
What compels you to want to convert or "help" me?
When i was an agnostic I could never figure out why atheist were so driven to "correct" people. And in my experience they were generally upset and frankly kind of arrogant. I've gotten an better idea over the years but people are individuals. I'll give you more credit than you give me and not assume i know your "real" motives or how you got to the place you are. How you managed to rise above and NOT be Influenced or conditioned by ANY culture, religious or secular -cough-. I've taken some time to answer your questions i hope you'll do the same.

1. Please tell me why would you'd waste your very short life on earth trying to convince anyone away from what you consider crazy ideas?
2. And please tell me how you came to your version of atheism.
3. Who do you think Jesus was/is?

BTW so far i've watched 4 videos from you so i expect you to return the honor for me as well Augusto.

[Max R.]

The usual false witness.

Check the start date and repent.

Oh, wait. One has to be a man to repent.
Nice. So if you aren't Augusto, do you know him/her from other forums or will you swear this is your first meeting?

[tailfins]

Nice. So if you aren't Augusto, do you know him/her from other forums or will you swear this is your first meeting?

Now THAT'S an intriguing question. However, I thought inviting friends and building the board membership roster was encouraged.

[Augusto]

This is only one topic regarding religion. I created several since I came here, all of them on different topics. It just happens that this one topic seems huge to you. That's all.

I actually like people. I'm an optimistic and caring human being. Talking against religion is a duty for me. A quick google search would easily show you how religion is easily the biggest (institutional) problem for humanity.

Here's an easy link I found in less than one minute: http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

If you think about it. I'm simply a guy who actually wants the world to be a better place. If you allow me to show you, I can really show you thousands of things regarding every single religion and its effects on individuals and societies. Religion is really a cancer, so there is nothing wrong with trying to influence a better world for our sons. I'm sure you can understand that.

As not being influenced, I was a christian for some time. I know what religion feels like.

Jesus, as far as I can see, was a guy with a strong and magnetic personality. I asume he was pretty much like Charles Mason.

You really are making many questions. I am a very open person and have no problem in answer with honesty anything you ask me. However, I would recommend you to narrow your list of subjects, so I can give you deeper answers. This is because I'm suspecting this questions would lead you to more questions.

Right now I'm very curious about you.

[revelarts]

This is only one topic regarding religion. I created several since I came here, all of them on different topics. It just happens that this one topic seems huge to you. That's all.

I actually like people. I'm an optimistic and caring human being. Talking against religion is a duty for me. A quick google search would easily show you how religion is easily the biggest (institutional) problem for humanity.

Here's an easy link I found in less than one minute: http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

If you think about it. I'm simply a guy who actually wants the world to be a better place. If you allow me to show you, I can really show you thousands of things regarding every single religion and its effects on individuals and societies. Religion is really a cancer, so there is nothing wrong with trying to influence a better world for our sons. I'm sure you can understand that.

As not being influenced, I was a christian for some time. I know what religion feels like.

Jesus, as far as I can see, was a guy with a strong and magnetic personality. I asume he was pretty much like Charles Mason.

You really are making many questions. I am a very open person and have no problem in answer with honesty anything you ask me. However, I would recommend you to narrow your list of subjects, so I can give you deeper answers. This is because I'm suspecting this questions would lead you to more questions.

Right now I'm very curious about you.


thanks for the reply.

I'll just ask one more here but i may not be back for a few days, work.
You say you were a Christian for some time.
Please define what you understand/understod to be "Christian".

But at this point it sounds like maybe you're a follower of Dawkins, Hitchens and Sam Harris and the like.
the way they sometimes write about religion being a base evil is much like the way the communist write against capitalism and bourgeoisie. It's hyperbolic and wrong headed in a blind overarching way.
harris however has made some honest strides at least recognizing the limits of Atheism in the moral realm. And making distinctions Positive verses Negative religions that Hitchens didn't want to acknowledge and Dawkins seems unwilling to consider.

[Augusto]

It's sort of boring for me to explain myself in this particular area. I don't see how this is relevant to the OP and I don't feel inclined to talk about me, much less after you just said you're leaving the discussion.

Your comment, when you start talking about atheism, does not make any sense. I could point out why but I rather leave the subject and wish you well.

[Drummond]

Drummond (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2287-Drummond): I know there is a conexion to what we are talking here, but the medular subject here is discussing if religion is a mental illness, while your argument focuses in the existence of Jehovah. It's related but it's a very different kind of discussion.

I must insist that you create a different topic. If you win, I'll give you that religion cannot possibly be a mental illness.

Just know that you won't win.

No - you're simply wrong. Until this moment, did I even mention Jehovah, or, limit the terms of my discussion to any one specific religion ? Surely, I spoke more generally, about the proof that's all around us that a God must've been responsible for Creation.

I get the impression that you're trying to disregard my argument not through direct means, but by trying to sidestep it entirely, attributing to it a context I didn't mention, and which cannot be reasonably, specifically, inferred. Now, whether or not you accept my argument is your business. I simply state that it stands as good evidence for the existence of a God, which in turn means that adherence to a religion which identifies WITH that God (.. or, tries to ..) is eminently sane.

It is surely more insane not to try ?

[revelarts]

It's sort of boring for me to explain myself in this particular area. I don't see how this is relevant to the OP and I don't feel inclined to talk about me, much less after you just said you're leaving the discussion.

Your comment, when you start talking about atheism, does not make any sense. I could point out why but I rather leave the subject and wish you well.

Well I took a bit of time explaining myself and my beliefs seems fair that you should do same.
saying you think your nice guy is fine but your claim religion is an illness and don't want to give an outline of you background and IN religion as you understood it.

And it may seem boring to you but not me at all.

Not sure what part of my atheism comment doesn't make sense to you.
I'll post a series of long times i've done elsewhere dealing with the morality bit though.

[Augusto]

Revelarts: Too much explanations for someone who said "I'm leaving" and already started an agressive campaign against atheism... mmm... I was an evangelic chrsitian. What exactly do you want to know from that period?

Drummond: So, you say there might be "a god"... right? Okay, since revelarts is leaving I think we can discuss that over here. What attributes do you think this unknown god would necesarily have? I mean, how would you define this deity?

Also, by talking about an unknown god I assume you already admited Jehovah did not, does not and cannot exist. Correct? Or you want this god to be Jehovah?

By the way, you should do well in listening that part of you that tells you "God is not real" instead of fighting me, as if by doing so you could erase the newly arising scientific theories that say religion is a mental illness.

Think about it. I just posted a couple of videos.

[Max R.]

Now THAT'S an intriguing question. However, I thought inviting friends and building the board membership roster was encouraged.It is, and should be, encouraged.

However, since Gnostic is a well known troll and since "dual accounts (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?3487-Debate-Policy-Rules)" are not allowed, it's a legitimate question.

[Augusto]

It's an off topic question and a lazy attempt to discredit me.

It's okay tho, I understand. You are a christian and you feel threatened.

Yes, I know they guy from a different forum. He recommended me this place and I'm enjoying it so far.

Is there anything on topic you want to discuss? Because that's what I'm here for. I like discussing psychology, phylosophy and religion. Basically anything human related. I'm not particularly interested in politics tho.

Also, I'm not exclusively an anti-religious poster, and you can approach to me to discuss any subject or for a debate (I really love debating).

:beer:

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

What compels you to want to convert or "help" me?

1. Please tell me why would you'd waste your very short life on earth trying to convince anyone away from what you consider crazy ideas?
3. Who do you think Jesus was/is?

Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Nice. So if you aren't Augusto, do you know him/her from other forums or will you swear this is your first meeting?

Augusto gave you your answer but you should try to remember ----

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt (http://www.debatepolicy.com/quotes/quotes/e/eleanorroo385439.html)

Regards
DL

[tailfins]

It's an off topic question and a lazy attempt to discredit me.

It's okay tho, I understand. You are a christian and you feel threatened.

Yes, I know they guy from a different forum. He recommended me this place and I'm enjoying it so far.

Is there anything on topic you want to discuss? Because that's what I'm here for. I like discussing psychology, phylosophy and religion. Basically anything human related. I'm not particularly interested in politics tho.

Also, I'm not exclusively an anti-religious poster, and you can approach to me to discuss any subject or for a debate (I really love debating).

:beer:

I love surviving. That's what I like to discuss. I'm basically ostracized from American society. I am however welcomed into Latino and Indian society, hence my fluency in Portuguese and decent knowledge of Spanish. My wife is from Brazil and my co-workers are from India. Even my landlord is from India. This generation of Americans have offered me NOTHING. I owe my family, my career, my livelihood to recent immigrants. While I'm grateful for what previous generations have made America, I despise this generation of Americans. My parents were raised during the Great Depression and taught excellent survival skills. I bet you have some awesome survival skills of your own.

[Augusto]

I'm just not the kind of guy you think I am. I am an intellectual person and a family guy. End of the story.

[tailfins]

I'm just not the kind of guy you think I am. I am an intellectual person and a family guy. End of the story.

You keep a roof over your head and food on the table without being a Maduro bootlicker: That's a survivor.

[Drummond]

No - you're simply wrong. Until this moment, did I even mention Jehovah, or, limit the terms of my discussion to any one specific religion ? Surely, I spoke more generally, about the proof that's all around us that a God must've been responsible for Creation.

I get the impression that you're trying to disregard my argument not through direct means, but by trying to sidestep it entirely, attributing to it a context I didn't mention, and which cannot be reasonably, specifically, inferred. Now, whether or not you accept my argument is your business. I simply state that it stands as good evidence for the existence of a God, which in turn means that adherence to a religion which identifies WITH that God (.. or, tries to ..) is eminently sane.

It is surely more insane not to try ?

Well, Augusto, do you have a reply to offer, or, would you prefer to continue to sidestep my argument ?

I'll naturally understand if you'd really not answer - after all, it's rather hard to escape the observation that all of existence follows design specifications, and to just infer from this that 'it's all a fluke, an accident, no form of intelligence could have been responsible' makes no actual sense. Indeed, is to make the 'fluke' inference actually a sane position ? Especially when you consider that the best scientific intelligences on this planet have struggled to cope with the task of unravelling our biochemical nature !!

How ELSE can all this be explained, if not from an understanding that a creating God must've been responsible --- in which case, religion is the logical, reasonable, way to go. To shun religion as 'mental illness' in the face of the sheer power of OBSERVABLE REALITY, is thoroughly illogical.

[Augusto]

Search for "God of the Holes" on google.

It basically means God used to explain the rain, rainbows and things like that. See the verses after the flood, God sets his bow on the sky. As men progress in their knowledge of factual truths, God is pushed behind, but theists insist in his existence simply because there is something that still don't have an explanation. It's a falacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Try to make yourself as clear as possible and limit the topic you want to discuss so we can understand eachother. I have every intention to answer any doubt or argument you want to throw at me.

I posted something related to your attempt to discuss "some God" rather than Jehovah. Please, search it and reply.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I love surviving. That's what I like to discuss. I'm basically ostracized from American society. I am however welcomed into Latino and Indian society, hence my fluency in Portuguese and decent knowledge of Spanish. My wife is from Brazil and my co-workers are from India. Even my landlord is from India. This generation of Americans have offered me NOTHING. I owe my family, my career, my livelihood to recent immigrants. While I'm grateful for what previous generations have made America, I despise this generation of Americans. My parents were raised during the Great Depression and taught excellent survival skills. I bet you have some awesome survival skills of your own.



This generation of Americans have offered me NOTHING.

This generation of Americans are the product of the previous generations. As such they have and do offer that which their forefathers fought and died for--thus your judgment of it being"nothing" is not only foolish but shows a huge inability to adequately measure the blessings of this nation and massive sacrifices so many gave so that you and the rest of us can sit back and make badly mistaken quotes -with such a gigantic lack of appreciation!
I have noticed that you bring your job into most discussions!
Do you not live your life for anything else other than work and money?
If not, then you miss out on true living amigo..-Tyr

[Drummond]

Search for "God of the Holes" on google.

It basically means God used to explain the rain, rainbows and things like that. See the verses after the flood, God sets his bow on the sky. As men progress in their knowledge of factual truths, God is pushed behind, but theists insist in his existence simply because there is something that still don't have an explanation. It's a falacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Try to make yourself as clear as possible and limit the topic you want to discuss so we can understand eachother. I have every intention to answer any doubt or argument you want to throw at me.

I posted something related to your attempt to discuss "some God" rather than Jehovah. Please, search it and reply.

Thank you for answering.

Well, first point .. YOU were the one who chose to link my comments to Jehovah. Nowhere in my postings, until that point, had I either mentioned Jehovah or Christianity at all.

You say that man pursues progress in knowledge of factual truths. You claim that God 'is pushed behind'. However .. science has done a good job of showing that the Universe had a definite beginning. In so doing, they are likewise at a loss to explain how that beginning could have ever come about.

This shows, surely, that science has its limits .. or, that we lack the intelligence to progress beyond a certain point. This speaks to our limits .. but, whatever DID create the Universe - logically - can't be subject to those limits. Therefore, at minimum, this strongly suggests that whatever was responsible TRANSCENDS those limits.

Since the limits I refer to involve limitations of intelligence ... doesn't it follow that the origin-point of the Universe is a product of an intelligence far in advance of our own ? Also ... since whatever created the Universe had to be OUTSIDE of its boundaries (of time and space, since these are properties OF our Universe) ... what else could possibly qualify, BUT a God ??

Consider: your 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' position could, as I've described it, support MY stance, not YOURS. We're ignorant of a full understanding of our origins BECAUSE a far higher intelligence, and power, transcends our ability to be any more than 'ignorant'.

QED ... in terms just of sheer process, our only way of relating to this in a meaningful way, in a way which is proper, not least because of our limitations, HAS to be via religion. How can it be otherwise ? Therefore, discounting religion as 'mental illness' is simply not reasonable.

[Augusto]

The mental illness issue has nothing to do with what you are talking about. It's about human behavior. Right now you are showing how desperate a theist can get to justify the unjustifiable.

Tell me, what do you believe, exactly? Are you a catholic, for example? If so, then tell me how is this trinity mistery: Being God, the Father, the Spirit and Jesus the same, why would Jesus pregnant his own mother to then drink her milk as a child, to then pray to himself, die as a human sacrifice to himself, to then ressurrect and become himself again?

The... UNJUSTIFIABLE.

---

Talking about a "god"... what does it have to do with your faith? Why would you sustain the idea of a god on top of any other serious hypothesis? Would you be happy if there were 50 gods? Maybe one mentally retarded god that farted the universe and died in the explosion? How about something more simple? Something you don't know?

Wanna explore the "any god" idea? Okay, define it. How would this "something" be? Intelligent? Conscient? Eternal? Loving? Omniscient? Please define your god so we can talk.

And if it's NOT the god of the bible, please admit your particular faith is false. I know you can't and won't give such admission, I'm just using you to show everyone what your reasons are and how you are conditioned to act like this.

See it yourself, try to post "Jehová is as real as Santa for children", you'll see you simply cannot, despite you are not even trying to prove Jehovah (because you know it's fake).

It's a pretty weird phenomena.

[Drummond]

The mental illness issue has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

Really ? I couldn't disagree more.

I'm trying to show you that it's unreasonable NOT to identify with a religion. To suppose that 'mental illness' can be involved defies all reason, since the sheer weight of evidence available to everyone, everywhere, that a designing force HAD to account for all of existence, speaks to the obvious conclusion that a God is responsible. To then dismiss the one means people have of relating to that God, is utterly unreasonable.


It's about human behavior. Right now you are showing how desperate a theist can get to justify the unjustifiable.

You have yet to show me that belief in a religion is unreasonable. You have also to offer any 'proof' in the non-existence of a God.


Tell me, what do you believe, exactly? Are you a catholic, for example? If so, then tell me how is this trinity mistery: Being God, the Father, the Spirit and Jesus the same, why would Jesus pregnant his own mother to then drink her milk as a child, to then pray to himself, die as a human sacrifice to himself, to then ressurrect and become himself again?

The... UNJUSTIFIABLE.

First, YOU mentioned Jehovah .. when I hadn't, previously. Now, you're trying to pin me down to theological specifics. BUT, the thread isn't about such specifics. It's about whether RELIGION is a mental illness ... no one religion is identified for the purpose, making your attempt to pin me down to one a diversion from the terms of the debating topic.


Talking about a "god"... what does it have to do with your faith?

Er'm ... everything ??


Why would you sustain the idea of a god on top of any other serious hypothesis? Would you be happy if there were 50 gods?

Logic points to creation as being the product of a power we can only define as a God. There's no reason at all to infer more than one. Logically ... how would you justify existence as having to be the product not of one, but of fifty of them ??


Maybe one mentally retarded god that farted the universe and died in the explosion? How about something more simple? Something you don't know?

Such as .. ? What is YOUR suggestion, then ?

Besides, since when did the design of the Universe suggest 'retardation' on the part of the Creator ? Do you regard yourself as the creation of an idiot ?

You assume much, without supporting evidence, or even supporting logic.


Wanna explore the "any god" idea? Okay, define it. How would this "something" be? Intelligent? Conscient? Eternal? Loving? Omniscient? Please define your god so we can talk.

More specifics required, I see. Still, this need to have me assign attributes to 'my God'. But ... WHY ? How does this relate to the thread subject ?

What if you could somehow 'successfully' find a way of rubbishing ONE religion ? There are many others ! While you're busily diverting yourself into consideration of the 'quality' of one religion, there are others that people will consider themselves sane to follow. For as long as you continue to ignore THOSE, you fail to address the wider issue of whether RELIGION is a mental illness !!


And if it's NOT the god of the bible, please admit your particular faith is false. I know you can't and won't give such admission, I'm just using you to show everyone what your reasons are and how you are conditioned to act like this.

Au contraire. I've already made a case to show which says that concluding dismissal of religion as sane, defies logic. Am I 'conditioned' to be logical ... OR, is it an act of sanity to veer away from illogic as my normal thinking process ?


See it yourself, try to post "Jehová is as real as Santa for children", you'll see you simply cannot, despite you are not even trying to prove Jehovah (because you know it's fake).

It's a pretty weird phenomena.

So is yours of pinning down the thread topic to just only the one religion, instead of all of them. Is your case really so very weak ? You cannot defeat Christianity as a credible, decent and justifiable religion .. a great many have tried before you, and failed utterly.

But even if you, alone out of everyone in the history of mankind, somehow COULD ? That STILL LEAVES THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S EVIDENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS TO BELIEVE IN ANY OF THE OTHERS.

I suggest that you get back on topic, if in fact you can, rather than trying, for all you're worth, to go off on a diversionary tangent.

[Augusto]

If you think I'm going to start a crazy discussion you're completely wrong.

I can see, just as everyone else, that you are desperate and desperation drives you to act dishonestly.

You are trying by all means to NOT define which god I am suppose to address and refuse to provide any definition. So this works like this:

"I think Blubly created the universe. I refuse to define Blubly so you cannot say anything = I wwwiiiiiiiiinnnn. Damm I'm smart!"

Well... not quite.

"One could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Let me repeat myself: there is no way in the universe you can win. You would make a better use of your time a) doing something else b) trying to learn about religion.

Confrontation with reason (me) won't pay off.

[Drummond]

If you think I'm going to start a crazy discussion you're completely wrong.

I can see, just as everyone else, that you are desperate and desperation drives you to act dishonestly.

Correction: YOU are the one trying to divert from the thread subject, in the forlorn hope of rubbishing one single religion ...


You are trying by all means to NOT define which god I am suppose to address and refuse to provide any definition.

Indeed I am. IT'S BESIDE THE POINT.


So this works like this:

"I think Blubly created the universe. I refuse to define Blubly so you cannot say anything = I wwwiiiiiiiiinnnn. Damm I'm smart!"

Well... not quite.

"One could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Let me repeat myself: there is no way in the universe you can win. You would make a better use of your time a) doing something else b) trying to learn about religion.

Dream on ! I'm already winning. It's YOU who needs to try and win by DIVERTING from the main subject !!

And your idea that something unverifiable is 'nonsensical' is just preposterous. What, in Copernicus's time, could he do to determine the exact nature of the Universe ? Was radio astronomy known to him ? Could he detect quasars ? Did he identify, or even postulate, the existence of Dark Matter ?? By his standards, from his ability to infer, much less verify, all of these truths about the Universe ... did the FACT of them, in his time, qualify as A NONSENSE ??

Regardless of Copernicus's severe limitations, the Universe he did not know about nevertheless EXISTED ... it was, and is, not NONSENSE.


Confrontation with reason (me) won't pay off.

You mean, applying reason isn't getting me anywhere ? Yes, I'm beginning to notice that .... :laugh:

Sorry, but I will 'confront' with reason on my side. It's just the way of things, evidently.

[Augusto]

Okay, let's play your game. Your argument falls appart because fleuxant. Since the existance of any god, no matter how you define it, it's impossible because of fleuxant. In fact, fleuxant automatically proves you are wrong, regardless of what you might say in the future.

Fleuxant also proves the actual origin of life and the origin of the universe, both things without an intelligent superbeing in the middle.

What can you say about fleuxant? Nothing actually... I know. The fleuxant argument is impossible to refute.

Damm, I'm smart...!!!:dance:

[Drummond]

Okay, let's play your game. Your argument falls appart because fleuxant. Since the existance of any god, no matter how you define it, it's impossible because of fleuxant. In fact, fleuxant automatically proves you are wrong, regardless of what you might say in the future.

Fleuxant also proves the actual origin of life and the origin of the universe, both things without an intelligent superbeing in the middle.

What can you say about fleuxant? Nothing actually... I know. The fleuxant argument is impossible to refute.

Damm, I'm smart...!!!:dance:

I've never heard of 'fleuxant'.

Since that's so, I've tried Googling it. Looks like Google hasn't heard of it, either ...

So, you're right. I can indeed say 'nothing' about it ... since I've yet to find that the word even exists.

Perhaps, if you've just created something out of nothing, you require us to see you as a God ? Should we create a religion in your honour ?

.. er'm. Possibly .. just a bit of a 'mentally ill' thing to do. Whoops .... :rolleyes:

[Augusto]

Your argument falls appart because of absolute proof. Since the existance of any god, no matter how you define it, it's impossible because of absolute proof. In fact, absolute proof automatically proves you are wrong, regardless of what you might say in the future.

Absolute proof also proves the actual origin of life and the origin of the universe, both things without an intelligent superbeing in the middle.

What can you say about absolute proof? Nothing actually... I know. The absolute proof is impossible to refute, and you can google it, even when nowhere on the internet you will be able to know what is this prove exactly, sort of like your god without a proper definition.

Damm, I'm smart...!!!:dance:

[AllieBaba]

Okay, let's play your game. Your argument falls appart because fleuxant. Since the existance of any god, no matter how you define it, it's impossible because of fleuxant. In fact, fleuxant automatically proves you are wrong, regardless of what you might say in the future.

Fleuxant also proves the actual origin of life and the origin of the universe, both things without an intelligent superbeing in the middle.

What can you say about fleuxant? Nothing actually... I know. The fleuxant argument is impossible to refute.

Damm, I'm smart...!!!:dance: Er...you may be smart, but you aren't making any sense at all.

[Augusto]

The user I was talking to wanted me to disprove the existance of a god with no name and no definition whatsoever. Basically a word with no meaning, so I created another meaningless word to defeat his meaningless god.

The only way for him to defeat my meaningless argument is to create a counter argument which is also meaningless. It's a silly game. If you want to read something serious, read previous pages. With Drummond everything is a joke.

:laugh:

[AllieBaba]

The user I was talking to wanted me to disprove the existance of a god with no name and no definition whatsoever. Basically a word with no meaning, so I created another meaningless word to defeat his meaningless god.

The only way for him to defeat my meaningless argument is to create a counter argument which is also meaningless. It's a silly game. If you want to read something serious, read previous pages. With Drummond everything is a joke.

:laugh:

Oh. Well debate doesn't work like that, but okay.

[Drummond]

The user I was talking to wanted me to disprove the existance of a god with no name and no definition whatsoever. Basically a word with no meaning, so I created another meaningless word to defeat his meaningless god.

The only way for him to defeat my meaningless argument is to create a counter argument which is also meaningless. It's a silly game. If you want to read something serious, read previous pages. With Drummond everything is a joke.

:laugh:

A little more to the point .. it BECAME a joke. When you started diverting away from the debate topic into an examination of just one religion (regardless of the fact that there are MANY covered by the topic ..) I knew that YOU knew that your position was a weak one.

The topic is - let me remind you ! - 'RELIGION IS A MENTAL ILLNESS'. To address that topic meaningfully, you have to be able to prove (if you're serious in what you'd want to assert) that religions THEMSELVES are the product of 'mental illness'.

That doesn't mean just the one, despite your increasingly desperate efforts to tie this into just the one !!! It means, simultaneously, ALL of them.

I suggest, if you've any interest in defending your corner, that you now argue according to the correct discussion topic, rather than sidestep into something which does nothing, of itself, to prove the contention. And while you're at it .. IF you can prove that existence is NOT the product of any God, then you could be a long way towards achieving victory in this debate.

Good luck with that attempt ... IF you want to make it. However, if you've no way of meeting that challenge - AND YOU HAVEN'T - then I'm afraid your argument is fatally compromised .. sorry !:rolleyes:

Have a nice day.

[Augusto]

Like I told you, I only need to examine the claims of holy books to prove theists are following ridiculous ideas. I also told you I am not the man who did the videos in the OP. You're not arguying with me, I simply posted some scientific information.

Also, you apparently don't understand that you are using an empty word, despite my efforts to show you this fact. "god" are three letters: G, O and D. What should I read in there? Zeus? Thor? Bruce Almighty? Some living force? Our notions of good and wrong? A superhero? An alien from a different dimention? a human from the future who created a paradoxe?

I already told you:


"One could not speak of God's existence, or even the probability of God's existence, since the concept itself was unverifiable and thus nonsensical".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

If you cannot understand this, then you have some serious mental problems. I don't know what else to tell you.

:lame2:

[Drummond]

If you cannot understand this, then you have some serious mental problems.

Ah, thank you. Now come the insults, eh ?:clap:

It's a sign of weakness to fall back on abuse in order to make your point try and stick. When debating opponents do this, I know that THEY know how weak their arguments are .. so, they cover for that by tactics such as this. You're not the first person, even on this board, who's had to go to such an extreme (one does it with discreditable regularity). I daresay you won't be the last ....


Like I told you, I only need to examine the claims of holy books to prove theists are following ridiculous ideas. I also told you I am not the man who did the videos in the OP. You're not arguying with me, I simply posted some scientific information.

'Holy books' were written by men, and for the most part, men living in a far more primitive age than is now true. Now, they may have been inspired men. But that doesn't make them infallible.

As important as that point is, there's an even more telling one. Regardless of the value any person places on any one religion, the fact is that there are MANY religions out there, and not all of them can be right !! So, some will contain teachings that are just plain WRONG.



But to say that adherence to one religion is wrong, is a far cry from concluding that they're ALL wrong (.. so why try to pin me down to a debate on just the one ??), and that to try to is evidence of 'mental illness'.


Also, you apparently don't understand that you are using an empty word, despite my efforts to show you this fact. "god" are three letters: G, O and D. What should I read in there? Zeus? Thor? Bruce Almighty? Some living force? Our notions of good and wrong? A superhero? An alien from a different dimention? a human from the future who created a paradoxe?

This is an attempt to ridicule the concept by rubbishing it with ridiculous ideas. For example .. that last one. How on earth could a human from the future create a paradox which accounts for the existence of all Creation ??

It's just another diversion tactic. You seem to need a lot of them, apparently.

Consider something that makes more sense. As in ....

The Universe came into being. With it, laws of space and time were a part of its existence. We conceive of everything according to the laws of existence which the Universe dictates to be true of existence within it.

Now ... the Universe had a beginning. That's to say, that something created it. Whatever that 'something' was, had to have been outside of the limitations of our Universe in the first place. That's to say, something not bound by the laws of existence that are true of every power, every object, every existing thing, that we know of.

Design a machine. Build it. In building it, you have to be OUTSIDE of that machine, not bound by its limitations ... since, after all, you precede the machine, you're outside of it, you design the means by which that machine will function.

So it is with the Universe.

But consider that ALL OF MATERIAL EXISTENCE IS WITHIN OUR UNIVERSE.

So, what does that leave you with ? It leaves you with a designer outside of all laws of existence we know of and experience.

Now tell me, in consideration of what the Universe is, that's to say, the totality of existence in time and space .. WHAT ELSE BUT A GOD COULD POSSIBLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ?

If you can define for me the being responsible, and prove it NOT to be God, then do so. If you can't, then you have to admit the possibility of an existing God. If you do this, then religions as our only way of relating to such an otherwise incomprehensible power, becomes the EMINENTLY sane course to follow.

I suggest that to do [I]otherwise is better evidence for mental illness .. since you're denying the only reality we are capable of coping with, or understanding.

[Augusto]

You are SO STUPID that finally got under my skin!

Congratulations for busting my balls! However, I'm not talking to you anymore, you're a bloody freak, you know that, right?

I just got pranked by a motherfucking retarded...!

:clap:

[Drummond]

You are SO STUPID that finally got under my skin!

Congratulations for busting my balls! However, I'm not talking to you anymore, you're a bloody freak, you know that, right?

I just got pranked by a motherfucking retarded...!

:clap::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Better an insult or 2, than an intelligent conversation that you happen to be badly losing !!:laugh:

Oh, well. Not to worry. I won't stoop to that. After all, I have no need to. My arguments are clearly doing the job I intend for them.

[Augusto]

Your stupidity explained by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

So not only a mental illness but also a way to separate smart people from dumb people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDGFt2pSpJE&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSa2zV--xw

Have a good life.

[AllieBaba]

Your stupidity explained by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

So not only a mental illness but also a way to separate smart people from dumb people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDGFt2pSpJE&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSa2zV--xw

Have a good life.Lol. I don't think you know what science is. And even if you did, you obviously don't know how to interpret things. Might hearken back to your tendency to believe any nonsense that's fed to you by someone you view as "government" or "authority".

[Augusto]

I don't have any idea of what you were actually trying to say. Did you got a panic attack or something?

Please, show me the right interpretation for those conclusions.

[DragonStryk72]

You are SO STUPID that finally got under my skin!

Congratulations for busting my balls! However, I'm not talking to you anymore, you're a bloody freak, you know that, right?

I just got pranked by a motherfucking retarded...!

:clap:

Not really. What's really sad about your arguments. Is I could've debated back against Drummond. As soon as Drummond got you on the ropes for even a moment, though, you ran away from the debate with a yelled, childish insult.

Seriously, you're basically one step shy of calling him a doodyhead.

[Augusto]

Your stupidity explained by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

So not only a mental illness but also a way to separate smart people from dumb people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDGFt2pSpJE&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSa2zV--xw

Have a good life.

I don't like wasting my time.

[AllieBaba]

I don't like wasting my time.WHO are you talking to? Seriously!

[Voted4Reagan]

Your stupidity explained by science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr-personality/201312/why-are-religious-people-generally-less-intelligent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/religious-people-are-less-intelligent-than-atheists-according-to-analysis-of-scores-of-scientific-studies-stretching-back-over-decades-8758046.html

So not only a mental illness but also a way to separate smart people from dumb people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDGFt2pSpJE&spfreload=10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHSa2zV--xw

Have a good life.

Wikipedia and Youtube.... the two weakest sources to use when trying to bolster your argument in a debate.

you really need to do better than that Augusto... especially against Drummond and Dragonstryk.

[AllieBaba]

Wikipedia and Youtube.... the two weakest sources to use when trying to bolster your argument in a debate.

you really need to do better than that Augusto... especially against Drummond and Dragonstryk.And there's a blog thing in there too, lol. *Science* at it's finest.

[Drummond]

I don't like wasting my time.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

This is hilarious !! Your only argument against me is a handful of sites, each alleging that, statistically, religious people may be more stupid than atheists ???

Augusto ... why did you do this ? Is it because you cannot take my arguments on, fairly and squarely, point for point, so you had to indulge in a mixture of implied insults (and not always so 'implied', either ..) and outright deviation from my arguments ?

CAN you debate any of the points I've raised, or CAN'T you ? YES or NO ?

If 'NO' ... then why not concede, with some measure of creditable honesty ?

[.. I expect your only response, if you bother to respond, will just be another insult or 2 ? This is pretty sad stuff !:laugh:]

[Augusto]

The irony. Christians used to address homosexuals as unnatural, sick people. Now science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people, but also that theists are dumb and mentally ill.

It doesn't matter what theists think about this. By definition a theist cannot escape from delusion.

You can tell all the lies you want to yourself, and feel like you are a winner, but the fact of the matter is that science have found you defective and religion is destined to be erradicated from the planet.

This studies and scientific conclusions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Too bad that you cannot see the evident.

[Drummond]

The irony. Christians used to address homosexuals as unnatural, sick people. Now science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people, but also that theists are dumb and mentally ill.

You've a grudge against Christianity, then ? Is this an additional reason why you tried to pin me down to a debate about Christianity, even though examination of one religion didn't address the thread subject ??

And besides .. it seems to me that you're guilty of the very same form of mindset that you so resent, you say, against Christians. Your objection to them would be, what ? Bigotry ? Grandiose, sweeping judgmentality against a particular group, or 'class', of people ?

Well, aren't you being JUST as sweeping and judgmental against Christians, as YOU say they are against homosexuals ??

A little honourably CONSISTENCY is in order, I think. Don't you ?


It doesn't matter what theists think about this. By definition a theist cannot escape from delusion.

... and, it seems, you cannot escape the urge to insult, when things don't always go your way. Yes ?


You can tell all the lies you want to yourself, and feel like you are a winner, but the fact of the matter is that science have found you defective and religion is destined to be erradicated from the planet.

Tut decidedly tut. More judgmentality, even downright prejudice. Culminating in a judgment of our extinction ?

Augusto. Quit the insults, and illustrated double standards ! CAN you answer my previous debating points, OR NOT ? If NO .. then let's just have an admission of it, OK ?

If YES, then give it your best shot. TRY.


This studies and scientific conclusions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Oh, you've more insults waiting in the wings, masquerading as objectivity ? Oh, goody .... :laugh:


Too bad that you cannot see the evident.

Actually, I do. THAT, Augusto, is the POINT.:rolleyes:

[Voted4Reagan]

The irony. Christians used to address homosexuals as unnatural, sick people. Now science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people, but also that theists are dumb and mentally ill.

It doesn't matter what theists think about this. By definition a theist cannot escape from delusion.

You can tell all the lies you want to yourself, and feel like you are a winner, but the fact of the matter is that science have found you defective and religion is destined to be erradicated from the planet.

This studies and scientific conclusions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Too bad that you cannot see the evident.

I am a Theist (Irish Catholic) and I can say one thing...

I don't jump and paint entire groups with broad assuming brush strokes.

Makes me smarter than someone that does...

Now look in the Mirror... You just painted all Muslims, Christians and Jews with a single brush....

How many atheists are their in the world??

Yeah... weak argument on your part... YOU ARE THE MINORITY.... and you dont like it....

Too Bad.... Suck it up and learn intelligent debate.

[Augusto]

Well, well, well...

It seems some people have been working in defining religion as a mental illness from different angles. There are several arguments in youtube. This one is focused on observation and simple logic; check it out:

<iframe width="640" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ra9owgTI41U?fs=1&start=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(240, 244, 247);"></iframe>

Apparently, this is view on religion is spreading really fast. I wouldn't be surprised that no matter what or who, religion will end up being qualified as a mental illness.

OK this one is good, now it's a biologist investigator from Oxford saying the same thing:

<iframe width="640" height="385" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a73xAaxyCNk?fs=1&start=" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(231, 234, 239);"></iframe>

You know this is the kind of scenario that might lead to a social revolution, right?

When more and more people start talking about it, including experts, well... I just can't wait. I'm trying to figure out the attitude of the Pope (for instance) when this thing end up blowing in his face.

Suck it up!

:coffee:

[Drummond]

Suck it up!

:coffee:

Suck WHAT up ?? Both clips relay mere points of view. I wonder: what are the full backgrounds of those coming up with these viewpoints ? Are any Left wing ? Are any affiliated, undeclared of course, with organisations that are agenda-driven, who are furthering those agendas themselves ?

One mentioned 'programming' of beliefs from an early age. Well, I wonder .. in your society, Augusto, could the very same be said for you ?

Augusto, you're continuing to divert away from my previous debating points. Evidently you want to just give therm a wide berth.

Considering your position, I'm really not surprised. I mean, what else can you do ? I've encouraged you to reply directly to me. You won't.

More precisely -- YOU CAN'T. Isn't that so ?

[Augusto]

You're trying to play chezz with imaginary pieces and refuse to tell me where you are putting them. Since you think you are winning and you don't seem to understand the problem, I can only assume:

a) You're too stupid.

b) You're trolling me.

c) You're in denial.

I don't have time for any of that. If a) there is nothing I can do. If b) I abandon the conversation. If c) I'll let you think whatever you like.

You can go back and read my attempts at explaining you the problem of not defining the word god. If you can work it out and want to offer me something to work with, I can resume the discussion.

[Composer]

I am a Theist (Irish Catholic) and I can say one thing...
Can you first try explaining (with proofs) the difference between an ' Irish Catholic ' and the other types of Catholic?

e.g. Do the Irish Catholics have a different ' Statement of Faith / Religious Philosophy ' to other Catholics?

Cheers!

:popcorn:

[Drummond]

You're trying to play chezz with imaginary pieces and refuse to tell me where you are putting them.

.... eh ? What on earth are you talking about ??


Since you think you are winning and you don't seem to understand the problem

I understand the problem very well. I put some debating points to you. You, for your part, are going to great lengths to avoid answering me.


I can only assume:

a) You're too stupid.

Gee, thanks for the needless insult. Any ridiculous accusations, while you're at it ?


b) You're trolling me.

... yep ! :rolleyes:


c) You're in denial.

-- Ahem. Which of us is going to crazy lengths to avoid straight debate ??


I don't have time for any of that. If a) there is nothing I can do. If b) I abandon the conversation. If c) I'll let you think whatever you like.

This is your attempt to attain a 'moral high ground' in all of this, whereas the truth is, you're doing your level best to avoid any and all debating points which you're finding way too tough to address. Evasion. Redirection. Insults. Whatever it takes, to avoid actually ANSWERING what I ask you.


You can go back and read my attempts at explaining you the problem of not defining the word god. If you can work it out and want to offer me something to work with, I can resume the discussion.

Correction: you tried to chain me to a discussion about the merits, or otherwise, of ONE SINGLE RELIGION. But that's not what this thread is about. As I've pointed out ... such a discussion would ignore all other religions, therefore, would evade dealing with the issue of whether or not RELIGION ITSELF can possibly be a mental illness.

Here's a link to my post. Read it. TRY to answer it, DIRECTLY, point-for-point.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50797-Religion-as-a-mental-illness&p=751837#post751837

-- Or, 'cop out' again, as you've been continually doing, ever since I posted it !! .....

[Voted4Reagan]

Can you first try explaining (with proofs) the difference between an ' Irish Catholic ' and the other types of Catholic?

e.g. Do the Irish Catholics have a different ' Statement of Faith / Religious Philosophy ' to other Catholics?

Cheers!

:popcorn:

As a newbie you may wish to check your attitude ... your first post on a new board is to come after someone and try to pigeonhole them?

Check yourself kid.... you wont make many friends with that attitude...

Or are you a Sock Puppet of someone else already on here?

Yeah.... I'll go with that.... Sock Puppet

[Augusto]

You're lucky I'm bored.

Okay, apparently you don't want to define God because you think that by defining it you would exclude some religions. Right? Well, I get your point. However, I want you to imagine the word "god" as an empty glass. There is nothing I can do unless you put some liquid in it.

Try offering a definition of things that this god we are going to discuss has in common with all religions.

1. Is it a living "something" or not?
2. Is it intelligent or automatic?
3. What things are / were done directly by him/her?
4. Is it currently alive?
5. Is it eternal, with no beginning whatsoever?
6. Is it omnipotent, omniscient, omnisomething?
7. Is it completely alone or in a different dimention?

Remember I simply cannot talk about an empty glass. Even if I wanted, I cannot. Nobody can.

[LongTermGuy]

Can you first try explaining (with proofs) the difference between an ' Irish Catholic ' and the other types of Catholic?

e.g. Do the Irish Catholics have a different ' Statement of Faith / Religious Philosophy ' to other Catholics?

Cheers!

:popcorn:


who the hell are you?....Welcome to the site....we do have an introduction section.:laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The irony. Christians used to address homosexuals as unnatural, sick people. Now science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people, but also that theists are dumb and mentally ill




science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people

So false that it is laughable. Nothing natural or normal about two guys engaging with each other in anal sex or oral.
Never seen any science prove that to be normal. Perhaps you confuse liberal politics and lies with -science! -Tyr

[DragonStryk72]

The irony. Christians used to address homosexuals as unnatural, sick people. Now science is not only showing that homosexuals are normal people, but also that theists are dumb and mentally ill.

It doesn't matter what theists think about this. By definition a theist cannot escape from delusion.

You can tell all the lies you want to yourself, and feel like you are a winner, but the fact of the matter is that science have found you defective and religion is destined to be erradicated from the planet.

This studies and scientific conclusions are just the tip of the iceberg.

Too bad that you cannot see the evident.

So let's break down this little thesis to its actual meaning: You've got nothing. You had no capability for an actual debate, and thought you could just get away with a random drive-by post for a feeling of superiority. Yourr "sources" are youtube and wiki links which is filled with a bunch of pseudo-science forged by biased foundation.

And because you've got nothing, you have to fall back on insults, invoking homosexuality. What's next, the Hitler comparisons? I mean, really, it's the only strawman you haven't gone to.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, well, well...

It seems some people have been working in defining religion as a mental illness from different angles. There are several arguments in youtube. This one is focused on observation and simple logic; check it out:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ra9owgTI41U?fs=1&start=" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(240, 244, 247);" frameborder="0" height="385" width="640"></iframe>

Apparently, this is view on religion is spreading really fast. I wouldn't be surprised that no matter what or who, religion will end up being qualified as a mental illness.

OK this one is good, now it's a biologist investigator from Oxford saying the same thing:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a73xAaxyCNk?fs=1&start=" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(231, 234, 239);" frameborder="0" height="385" width="640"></iframe>

You know this is the kind of scenario that might lead to a social revolution, right?

When more and more people start talking about it, including experts, well... I just can't wait. I'm trying to figure out the attitude of the Pope (for instance) when this thing end up blowing in his face.

Well, if it were actual science, I might be worried about that as well, but it isn't. Because the posit is the theory-proof, no true science can be gleaned from these findings, regardless of how many angles they approach from. This is inherent flaw of all studies into things such as "proving" that video games make people violent, or rock n roll makes people violent. It doesn't matter how many angles I come at the landing gear from, if I don't touch the stick, I can't steer the plane properly.

Even something that seemed scientific, that standing too close to TV as a child hurts yours eyes. It is in fact reversed, in that poor eyesight in children leads them to stand as close as possible to the screen in order to see. Improper foundation based on subjective evidence, however, proves nothing, and often lead research down bad corridors. Worse, is when it is compounded by multiple poorly-formed studies based on such evidence, because such false information, repeated from enough directions, becomes seen as "true" in the eyes of people.

For an example of this point, we have no further to look than Paul Revere. Washington Irving's The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere is a great work of historical literature, an attempt by the author to help galvanize a United States that was falling apart as the Civil War rushed closer. This piece of literature has been repeated in many different forms, multiple media, to the point that it has created a mass belief in a historical inaccuracy: Paul Revere did not ride to Philadelphia from Boston. Now, he did ride out, but he rode from Boston to Cambridge, not to Philadelphia. Someone, however, did make the full ride, a Jewish postal worker by the name of Israel Bissell. Bissell, however, didn't work well when put into a poetic verse, and thus, Revere was chosen for the sake of flow. The important part, however, is that because of repeated inaccacuracy, most Americans think a history happened that didn't.

This is what is so dangerous, and frightening about badly founded research like this, and those that push such psuedo-science forward.

[DragonStryk72]

You're lucky I'm bored.

Okay, apparently you don't want to define God because you think that by defining it you would exclude some religions. Right? Well, I get your point. However, I want you to imagine the word "god" as an empty glass. There is nothing I can do unless you put some liquid in it.

Try offering a definition of things that this god we are going to discuss has in common with all religions.

1. Is it a living "something" or not?
2. Is it intelligent or automatic?
3. What things are / were done directly by him/her?
4. Is it currently alive?
5. Is it eternal, with no beginning whatsoever?
6. Is it omnipotent, omniscient, omnisomething?
7. Is it completely alone or in a different dimention?

Remember I simply cannot talk about an empty glass. Even if I wanted, I cannot. Nobody can.

This is rampant logical fallacy: Glass can be melted, and reblown into another shape. It can be decorative in and of it self (See every cathedral), and scientifically, there is no such thing as an empty glass. If there were to be the case, then there would be a momentary vacuum as the air filled in the empty space. A complete vacuum within the glass would cause an implosion, and there would be neither a glass, nor a vacuum. The particulate makeup of the air within the glass is likely to be unique to it's environment, as the air on top of Mt. Everest is certainly different than the air in Brooklyn. Even a black hole is not empty, scientifically speaking, because it is constantly pulling matter, and even light into it.

Now, of course, we then have to discuss the base problems of your foundational questions. For most, the answer would be "I don't Know", which is proof neither for nor against. There are certainly things we have lacked understanding on, like "are the stars just pin holes in the curtain of night" (Yes, I'm a highlander fan), or how we used to believe that maggots came from bad meat, as opposed to simply being where flies laid eggs for the maggots to have food. Unless you are prepared to argue that the universe exists only subjectively, which would invalidate your entire stance up to this point in the debate (because then there definitely is a God as a majority of the world believes in one), then none of your questions are relevant to a conversation whether there is, or is not a God, and even less so about a debate over whether religion is a mental illness or not.

[Augusto]

Did your brain just pop...?

Is a rampant logical falacy to ask him to explain what he wants me to discuss? Okay, the empty glass are three letters, let's reshape them: "g", "o", "d" = "dog" nice, now I do have something to work with. I don't need to ask for information because a dog is something actually real.

As for your questioning the OP, you seem pretty happy dismissing the conclusions of a biologist investigator from Oxford. I guess you are a better expert from a better university, right? No? What's that? Just a forum dude who doesn't know how to manage new information? Okay, I see. It doesn't change the facts tho.

So, a bunch of deluded, mentally ill and brainwashed forum members decided I need to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life and disprove a generic god in order for them to accept being sick? Wow, just wow...!

I don't need to do such thing. I will talk about the religions I know: those based in Jehovah. Let's check Genesis!

I gotta say, Capter 1 of Genesis have a weird contradiction by creating the day and the night before creating the sun, not to mention creating the light before the stars and also by depicting the universe like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kzGeUu8SdV8/TjB2mGbLbkI/AAAAAAAADEI/LU8lie-GNlY/s1600/World%2Baccording%2Bthe%2BBible.JPG

Notice science disagree in the way things happened over here... for example, in the second day God creates "the firmament" (which is actually "the universe") which already exists... well, did anyone noticed God created grass, herbs and trees before creating the sun?

Now... everythin from Gen 1.1 until 2.3 was included like 500 years after, around the times of King Solomon, that's why you see in Genesis 2.4 a new introduction to the creation.

Genesis 2.16-17:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Okay...

- Adam did not die after eating the fruit.
- God was a troll by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil at the reach of people who didn't know the difference between good and evil.
- In his omniscense, God is guilty of planning everything in advance, because as we know (from Genesis 1) he was checking everything he was doing and he said:

Genesis 1.31:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

So far, God is depicted at least as a big...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P21CZjKphYY/UI6g4KeP_pI/AAAAAAAAAxI/yOt8aY1sQro/s1600/167833076b541054e2bd3a5ceabfe1ab4dd77026.jpeg

In Genesis 3 we see how the snake tells the truth "you shall not die, your eyes will be open and you'll know good and bad" and God expells Adam and Eve from the garden, so they wont eat from the tree of life and become inmortal...

After I saw the flamming sword he used to avoid Adam and Eve to return I couldn't avoid asking myself: "Why didn't he use that sword to protect those trees in the first place?" or "Why didn't he use that sword to avoid the snake to enter into Eden and ruin everything?".

It is interesting tho... to try to imagine the love of God on that scene... let's just remind he is omniscent, so...
- He was watching the snake approaching and knew all the suffering that was about to be unleashed.
- He saw how the snake convinced Eve and knew Adam was next.. both of his sons, who didn't knew the difference between good from evil were about to be doomed forever because of his incredibly unforgiving and malevolent rules.
- He saw Adam eating the fruit and feeling ashamed of his own body...

Why did he wait? Why didn't rush and turn into flesh to cry along with Adam and Eve because of all the suffering that was already unleashed, in which even his own son, Jesus was going to taste torment... this is what he did, instead:

Genesis 3.7-13:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

So, we see the lord choose to walk and play games with them before cursing them both and their descendants forever... what a nice message of love from our heavenly father. From that point on, the reader must understand he is DIRTY of the sins of Adam and Eve, because they eat the fruit even when they didn't knew the difference between good or wrong before doing it.

I would say: "Nice trap God, you royaly f**k them nicely"... Jesus, by the other hand would have said, from heaven: "Why oh Father didn't you just put that tree somewhere else? Now I'll have to die because of YOU".

This is a nice story to share with children... you know, to cause a violent impact on them, then we can confuse them even more by asking if dinosaurs were around by that time and if Adam and Eve had umbilicus or not... http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/Smileys/IGI%20Smileys/think.gif

http://mormonthink.com/img/adam-eve-dinosaurs.jpg

In Genesis 4 God witneses the murder of his first grandson (and son at the same time) without doing anything, and as usual start playing games and making silly questions (4.9-10) before sending some random curse (4.11-15), which is also as unefective and idiotic as the "curses" he sent to Adam, Eve and the talking snake).

Perhaps someone can explain me where did Cain knew a woman?, how he builded a city by himself, where did he got the knowledge to do so and how many people were meant to live on that city? (4.17)

Gross...! Adam got his "sister" Eve pregnant for a thirth time...!!! (4.25)

Genesis 5: It's all about a dumb genealogy... anyone here knows why people live so much in this "genealogy"?

First, let's see this wiki-craziness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis

And now the answer: Because during Solomon's kindom, schribes modified Genesis in order to make it more "competent" with its times, including even more myths and filling the obvious problem of having a too short genealogy since the origins of the universe by dramatically increasing the ages of existing genealogies.

http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dumb-and-dumberer-script-almost-done__oPt.jpg



Genesis 6-8: Does anyone here think the mith of Noah holds any truth? Do I need to bust it...?

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dagadu/dagadu1103/dagadu110300021/9145763-noah-ark.jpg

Okaaay... it never happened. http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/Smileys/IGI%20Smileys/popcorn.gif

Genesis 9

9.1"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

Very sexist... God just IGNORED the wives of them all (Gen 6.18), like they were animals from the Arc!!! What an inmoral message we find right here...

9.2:"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

He probably means animals (and women) from the Arc right? Because he drowned all animals from earth... so basically Noah and his sons can slaughter the surviving animals and eat them, then pick up rotten vegetables from the mud, and then use their wives all they want to "multiply".

Well, this is absurd, sexist, unethical and NOT A BLESSING... They would probably do the same even without God telling them to... so why did God said that stupid nonsense? I guess he was very talkative back in those days, now he is mute, which is probably better.

9.3"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Is God mocking of Noah? He just destroyed all fields of cultive and whatever... now he talks like he is giving an awesome present after ruining the whole earth.

9.4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

So I guess chicken eggs were forbidden... also what should they be expected to do if, for example, they are fishing and get a female fish and once they kill her, her belly is full of eggs? I guess they should throw away the eggs to the mud... that way should be totally ok. Also, why does God talks like that? It's annoying... almost like He were a douchebag.

9.6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

So we are suposed to believe this when he just killed everyone with their children in the flow? Actually NO because pretty much everyone in the old testament were murderers and one cannot really see any signal of God's word being fulfilled... on the contrary, in the OT he was the God of War who ended up sort of betraying his own people in order to avoid looking like a mediocre leader.

9.7:"And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

Once more he is talking to men, telling them what to do with their wives.

9.8-10:And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

Once more, it becomes evident all women that came from the Arc are ignored in such a way that their only place for her in God's speech is amongst the animals, I would say the beasts of the earth.

9.11-15:"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

So, in short... it's the rainbow! An absurd story of sexism and genocide, to explain the rainbow.

9.16-17:"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

Why is He repeating the same thing, maybe He thinks it's important? I don't.

Questions:
1. Wasn't there rainbows before the flow on earth?
2. Why did God killed all those bad persons, babies, animals and plants, just because they were evil?
3. Since evil is still here, what was the porpouse of murdering just once?
4. How is it moral to destroy animals and plants (6.17) on the charge of being evil, knowing they only have instinct for the most part?
5. Since God failed miserably, what does a rainbow really stand for, as the symbol of God's unjustified murderous failure?
6. Since Noah and his sons (plus animals and women) were meant to populate earth again, why didn't he give them some laws or something useful to build societies... other than sexual discrimination?

9.18-27:"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

This is a complete different myth... this one is about how a group of people is ridiculed and insulted in the fictionary person of Ham, who is doomed to slavery. Let's say... since all humanity were supposed to start again from Noah, there should be some justification to wars and even the practice of slavery in the bible. Would it be okay to wave war and enslave your own family? The bible says YES right in this passage, because all enemies come from a disgraced branch of the family tree.

Actually... this ridiculous story is meant to offend A LOT of cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

I guess God inspired a lot of HATE to the person(s) who wrote this stuff. I would say he moved the right strings to ensure Noah's descendants would kill eachother forever so he wouldn't need to drown us with water again in order to satisfy his lust for bloodshed... or maybe he doesn't exist.

http://wp.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2010/01/evilgod_flood.jpg




Everyone can read the bible and get their own conclusions. You might say God is a piece of motherf**ker because he f**ked his own mother in order to be born as Jesus. You might say God is a twisted monster because he knows gay people before they are born, yet he let them be so he can see them having gay sex thanks to his omniscience before sending them to hell thanks to his arbitrary rule system... created to torture his own sons and daughters... or you might just laft at the absurdity of this ridiculous genesis story, and later cry a little bit for all the suffering this book have given to humanity.

---

So, how is all this relevant? Easy answer: This is the base of Judaism, Christianism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and Islamism. Also, since every theist in here is a christian, I don't need to go any further.

I only need to ask: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS ARE KIDS STORIES? DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR RELIGION IS NOTHING BUT LIES?

If forum members refute to admit this, their refutal should be read as evidence that they're indeed mentally damaged and brainwashed.

It seems I didn't need to become a physicist and find an explanation to the origin of the universe after all.

[Voted4Reagan]

Augie reminds me of a combination of CONHOG and Robert A. Whit.

[Max R.]

Now now. No denigrating me without actually showing what you mean. Christian.


IS religion a mental illness.

Being crazy or sane is a large spread. Le's see if we can get closer to some standard or base line.

Is believing in 72 virgins waiting for someone in heaven a sign of a stable mentality or a delusional one.

I would say that believing that is close to the insane side than the sane side. Do you agree?

Regards
DLProof the "Christian" in your username is a lie.

Like your friend/alter ego Augusto, you seek to deny the existence of God by pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible. Your inability to see the difference between parable and reality says more about you than it does religion in general.

[Voted4Reagan]

It astounds me on a constant basis how much of a "RELIGION" Atheism and Agnosticism have become... They are modern day "CRUSADERS" of Non-belief attacking the "HOLY-LAND" to drive out the believers... regardless of faith. Jew, Christian or Muslim... Bhuddist, Pagan or any belief system they don't like....

If you don't want to believe in a supreme being... if you don't have faith in a particular creed.. fine, so be it.

But preaching "NON-BELIEF" and trying to convert those that do believe is what you claim all other religions are doing. Pushing their beliefs on you.

Be a non-believer all you like... but dont preach non-belief.... That would be hypocritical.

[Max R.]

It astounds me on a constant basis how much of a "RELIGION" Atheism and Agnosticism have become... They are modern day "CRUSADERS" of Non-belief attacking the "HOLY-LAND" to drive out the believers... regardless of faith. Jew, Christian or Muslim... Bhuddist, Pagan or any belief system they don't like....

If you don't want to believe in a supreme being... if you don't have faith in a particular creed.. fine, so be it.

But preaching "NON-BELIEF" and trying to convert those that do believe is what you claim all other religions are doing. Pushing their beliefs on you.

Be a non-believer all you like... but dont preach non-belief.... That would be hypocritical.
Like many believers, most non-believers are content to keep their beliefs to themselves. In the case of Gnostic and Augusto, I think we're looking at mental illness. Not joking here. I really think they're both "off" by a wide margin.

[NightTrain]

It would seem that Augusto has a bit of a problem with boosting stuff that may or may not be his :

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?topic=52753.0

Anyone else see some striking similarities?

Odd, is it not, that this is the exact same weaksauce that Gnostic engages in?

You guys are arguing with a copy/paster.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[Max R.]

It would seem that Augusto has a bit of a problem with boosting stuff that may or may not be his :

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?topic=52753.0

Anyone else see some striking similarities?

Odd, is it not, that this is the exact same weaksauce that Gnostic engages in?

You guys are arguing with a copy/paster.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

He's a drive-by flamebaiter aka troll. As you've astutely noticed, both will construct a long, flamebaiting post then cross-post across several forums seeking reactions.

It's one reason why I think both either know each other or they are one and the same nutjob.

[Voted4Reagan]

What a couple of frauds.... I bet he stole the original article as well.

[Max R.]

What a couple of frauds.... I bet he stole the original article as well.
Always a possibility.

[LongTermGuy]

He's a drive-by flamebaiter aka troll. As you've astutely noticed, both will construct a long, flamebaiting post then cross-post across several forums seeking reactions.

It's one reason why I think both either know each other or they are one and the same nutjob.


:clap::clap::clap:

[Augusto]

First members who opted for apersonal attacks instead of recognizing his religion is a lie.

Diagnosis = heavily brainwashed, strong reality disociation.

I am dead serious. Is there any christian forum member CAPABLE of admiting the obvious?

We're doing a nice experiment here for everyone to see. Better than any article or video. Forum members are showing what religion really is.

[Voted4Reagan]

First members who opted for apersonal attacks instead of recognizing his religion is a lie.

Diagnosis = heavily brainwashed, strong reality disociation.

I am dead serious. Is there any christian forum member CAPABLE of admiting the obvious?

We're doing a nice experiment here for everyone to see. Better than any article or video. Forum members are showing what religion really is.

The only thing you are showing is you are capable of nothing more than copy/pasting something from the IGI Forum from 2 years ago.

You're a fraud....

[tailfins]

It would seem that Augusto has a bit of a problem with boosting stuff that may or may not be his :

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?topic=52753.0

Anyone else see some striking similarities?

Odd, is it not, that this is the exact same weaksauce that Gnostic engages in?

You guys are arguing with a copy/paster.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

There's nothing wrong with copy/paste as long as you give credit to the original source. I copy/paste so readers can read the source if it's protected by a paywall (a la WSJ).

[Kathianne]

Related:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/sarah-stites/2015/07/27/journalist-laments-we-wont-be-forcing-faithful-straightjackets


Journalist Laments: We ‘Won’t Be Forcing the Faithful into Straightjackets Any Time Soon’<article id="node-91516" class="node node-blog clearfix" about="/blogs/culture/sarah-stites/2015/07/27/journalist-laments-we-wont-be-forcing-faithful-straightjackets" typeof="sioc:Item foaf:Document" style="font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px; background-color: rgb(248, 248, 248);"><header style="margin-bottom: 30px;">By Sarah Stites (http://newsbusters.org/author/sarah-stites) | July 27, 2015 | 3:56 PM EDT
</header></article>The Atlantic writer Jeffrey Tayler is annoyed at the “educated elite” in our country. Why have they not risen to the occasion and labeled passionate religious belief a mental illness?

The writer’s disappointment followed the release of an article on The News Nerd entitled “American Psychological Association to Classify Belief in God as a Mental Illness.” In the story, Psychologist Dr. Lillian Andrews had stated: “The time for evolving into a modern society and classifying these archaic beliefs as a mental disorder has been long overdue.”

Yet the article, it turned out, was a hoax.

...

[Augusto]

The only thing you are showing is you are capable of nothing more than copy/pasting something from the IGI Forum from 2 years ago.

You're a fraud....

No, no no. You are a fraud = alleged christian who doesn't even understand what he claims to believe and doesn't actually believe but is actually sick, and refuse to accept it like an addict.

Think of this as an intervention.

As for using IGI material, how is that making me a fraud? Should I open my bible to do a biblical study I already did? IF you notice, I am the same user, or you want me to go there and post "I am the same user" so you can shut up and stop desperately deviating the subject?

Admit your religion is a fraud formed by child molesters, or at the very least recognize you have been damaged by your religion and you cannot detach from it. I won't laugh if you do. I would respect you AND be amazed, because I actually don't think such thing is possible in most people = that's why I am talking in terms of mental illness, you just wont get cure by logic after so many years embracing the absurd.

[NightTrain]

No, no no. You are a fraud = alleged christian who doesn't even understand what he claims to believe and doesn't actually believe but is actually sick, and refuse to accept it like an addict.

Think of this as an intervention.

As for using IGI material, how is that making me a fraud? Should I open my bible to do a biblical study I already did? IF you notice, I am the same user, or you want me to go there and post "I am the same user" so you can shut up and stop desperately deviating the subject?

Admit your religion is a fraud formed by child molesters, or at the very least recognize you have been damaged by your religion and you cannot detach from it. I won't laugh if you do. I would respect you AND be amazed, because I actually don't think such thing is possible in most people = that's why I am talking in terms of mental illness, you just wont get cure by logic after so many years embracing the absurd.

Where did you copy/paste it from prior to IGI?

[Drummond]

You're lucky I'm bored.

Okay, apparently you don't want to define God because you think that by defining it you would exclude some religions. Right? Well, I get your point. However, I want you to imagine the word "god" as an empty glass. There is nothing I can do unless you put some liquid in it.

Try offering a definition of things that this god we are going to discuss has in common with all religions.

1. Is it a living "something" or not?
2. Is it intelligent or automatic?
3. What things are / were done directly by him/her?
4. Is it currently alive?
5. Is it eternal, with no beginning whatsoever?
6. Is it omnipotent, omniscient, omnisomething?
7. Is it completely alone or in a different dimention?

Remember I simply cannot talk about an empty glass. Even if I wanted, I cannot. Nobody can.

Quite a pity that you're STILL ignoring my post#77 ... and after I went to the trouble of providing you with a link to it, too ...

Also quite a pity that you're taking from others' material and passing it off as something original to you.

All of this seems to point (amongst other things) at a marked inability to hold your own in this discussion ? Which is understandable, given the weakness of your position. Perhaps you're also not up to the job anyway.

However, even though you can't take on my arguments as I present them, I'll have my own crack at yours. Oh, and by the way ... WHY are you so hung-up on Christianity ? The thread title concerns ALL religions, surely ...

In order ...


1. Is it a living "something" or not?

Probably in no sense that we are equipped to understand.

Bear in mind that 'life' as we know it conforms to the laws of the known Universe (see again my post #77, unless you're still trying to run away from it ???). God, that's to say, the Universe's Creator, cannot, surely, HELP but be outside those laws. We live according to the passage of time. We live according to the laws of the space around us. These are PROPERTIES OF OUR UNIVERSE ... and by sheer commonsense, it makes NO sense to suppose that God is bound by them. Therefore, I say ... that if God is 'alive', then it's by a means beyond our knowledge.

But then, how could this NOT be true of the Universe's Creator ? THINK ABOUT IT ...


2. Is it intelligent or automatic?

I'm having problems understanding this. God has to be the Creator of our Universe. How would this action be an 'automatic' one ?

The scientists you so revere have problems - insoluble ones - in understanding how the Big Bang ever got started in the first place. That's at the other end of the spectrum to concluding that it came from anything 'automatic'.

Besides, if God is 'automatic', then that suggests that something designed God to be automatic !! Therefore, God Himself would fail to be the Supreme Being ...

.. which is a nonsense ...


3. What things are / were done directly by him/her?

.. eh ?

Answer: anything you know of. EVERYTHING you know of. And, everything you don't know of. All of existence can be attributed to God, since God is the Universe's Creator.


4. Is it currently alive?

'It' is beyond the limitations of 'life' as we know them ... see my answer to #1. Commonsense decrees this .. .since life as we DO know it is defined by the parameters of our Universe's laws. God cannot be other than outside of these. So .. the answer COULD be that God is alive in a sense that's beyond our comprehension .. possibly the most 'alive' Being of them all ....


5. Is it eternal, with no beginning whatsoever?

For the reasons I've already explained, this comes close to being a meaningless question. 'Eternal' describes a concept of passage of time. Time is a limit, a parameter, of our Universe's functioning ! Since God is outside of such mere limitations, the answer is, surely, simultaneously 'YES' and 'NO'.

As for 'no being whatsoever', try defining 'being' that exists beyond all laws we know of. However ... it takes quite an order of 'being' to create a whole Universe !! So a 'NO' answer seems to me to be improbable !!


6. Is it omnipotent, omniscient, omnisomething?

Covered. I can't answer this without repeating myself.


7. Is it completely alone or in a different dimention?

How equipped are we to define what's beyond the knowable ?

'Dimension', in any case, refers to a limitation of being definable according to Universal laws. Since God must be beyond them, your question is rendered meaningless.

[Voted4Reagan]

No, no no. You are a fraud = alleged christian who doesn't even understand what he claims to believe and doesn't actually believe but is actually sick, and refuse to accept it like an addict.

Think of this as an intervention.

As for using IGI material, how is that making me a fraud? Should I open my bible to do a biblical study I already did? IF you notice, I am the same user, or you want me to go there and post "I am the same user" so you can shut up and stop desperately deviating the subject?

Admit your religion is a fraud formed by child molesters, or at the very least recognize you have been damaged by your religion and you cannot detach from it. I won't laugh if you do. I would respect you AND be amazed, because I actually don't think such thing is possible in most people = that's why I am talking in terms of mental illness, you just wont get cure by logic after so many years embracing the absurd.

you preach non-belief.... that makes you part of a belief based system...

you are a hypocrite.

also... you have been posting the same piece for years.... find some new material....

in other words.... you're a one trick pony... and it isnt even a good trick

[tailfins]

No, no no. You are a fraud = alleged christian who doesn't even understand what he claims to believe and doesn't actually believe but is actually sick, and refuse to accept it like an addict.

Think of this as an intervention.

As for using IGI material, how is that making me a fraud? Should I open my bible to do a biblical study I already did? IF you notice, I am the same user, or you want me to go there and post "I am the same user" so you can shut up and stop desperately deviating the subject?

Admit your religion is a fraud formed by child molesters, or at the very least recognize you have been damaged by your religion and you cannot detach from it. I won't laugh if you do. I would respect you AND be amazed, because I actually don't think such thing is possible in most people = that's why I am talking in terms of mental illness, you just wont get cure by logic after so many years embracing the absurd.

He's NOT a Christian: He's a nominal Catholic who is involved in the occult and paganism. Get this (irony of ironies): He is always on my butt for being religiously intolerant!



you preach non-belief.... that makes you part of a belief based system...

you are a hypocrite.

also... you have been posting the same piece for years.... find some new material....

in other words.... you're a one trick pony... and it isnt even a good trick

That looks verbatim what you say about Gnostic Bishop. Your social skills are inferior to mine. At least I admit being a social moron. The truth will set you free.

[Augusto]

I created it for Is God Imaginary. A very awesome community, by the way.

I have tons of great threads in there, you should search and learn!

:cool:

By the way, since you took the time to investigate me like FBI, I assume you are a christian as well. So, the question goes for you too: are you capable of admiting christianity is a bunch of ridiculous stories?

Pretty easy to figure out: Jesus, the one who walked on top of water, cited Genesis and the original sin. So he was (probably) a deluded (mentally ill) guy who contributed into the delusion of his contemporaries, which by the way were dishonest enough to steal the book of Revelation from jewish people:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12712-revelation-book-of

So we are talking about thievery and forgery, unlike me, who took my own material from a different forum (still mine, to do whatever I want with it), christians actually stealed and faked the book of revelation. No problem tho, because jewish people are confirmed thieves as well. They stole the story of Noah, and others, from different sources to build their mythology.

I ask again: Is it too much to recognize you are unable to admit the obvious? That your religion is fake? If you recognize this you would have hopes of being actually free from it.

Stop seeing me as an enemy. I haven't done anything wrong to you. Religion did.

[Voted4Reagan]

He's NOT a Christian: He's a nominal Catholic who is involved in the occult. Get this (irony of ironies): He always on my butt for being religiously intolerant!

you are the most intolerant person here..... you hate women and anyone that doesnt subscribe to your particular belief system and when you insult WiccanLiberal you make it personal....

yeah... you're intolerant... you define it on this board

[tailfins]

I created it for Is God Imaginary. A very awesome community, by the way.

I have tons of great threads in there, you should search and learn!

:cool:

By the way, since you took the time to investigate me like FBI, I assume you are a christian as well. So, the question goes for you too: are you capable of admiting christianity is a bunch of ridiculous stories?

Pretty easy to figure out: Jesus, the one who walked on top of water, cited Genesis and the original sin. So he was (probably) a deluded (mentally ill) guy who contributed into the delusion of his contemporaries, which by the way were dishonest enough to steal the book of Revelation from jewish people:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12712-revelation-book-of

So we are talking about thievery and forgery, unlike me, who took my own material from a different forum (still mine, to do whatever I want with it), christians actually stealed and faked the book of revelation. No problem tho, because jewish people are confirmed thieves as well. They stole the story of Noah, and others, from different sources to build their mythology.

I ask again: Is it too much to recognize you are unable to admit the obvious? That your religion is fake? If you recognize this you would have hopes of being actually free from it.

Stop seeing me as an enemy. I haven't done anything wrong to you. Religion did.

I don't see you as an enemy. I will pray for you. You're too nice of a guy to spend eternity in hell. The Gospel is simple. I encourage you to read this booklet:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0005/0005_01.asp

http://media.chick.com/tractimages67491/Page23/enGeneral.gif

[NightTrain]

By the way, since you took the time to investigate me like FBI, I assume you are a christian as well.

It took exactly 3 clicks of my mouse to find your copy/pasting. I think the FBI is a bit more intensive.

I'm not interested in debating this with you, Drummond and Dragon are more than capable of tearing down your copy/paste.

I do notice, however, when the conversation veers from your copy/paste, you seem to get very frustrated and your overall posting IQ goes down about 30 points and conversely your usage of insults/profanity increase by 600%.

The same pattern mirrors Gnostic - he's dead in the water when the conversation veers off-script.

[Voted4Reagan]

It took exactly 3 clicks of my mouse to find your copy/pasting. I think the FBI is a bit more intensive.

I'm not interested in debating this with you, Drummond and Dragon are more than capable of tearing down your copy/paste.

I do notice, however, when the conversation veers from your copy/paste, you seem to get very frustrated and your overall posting IQ goes down about 30 points and conversely your usage of insults/profanity increase by 600%.

The same pattern mirrors Gnostic - he's dead in the water when the conversation veers off-script.

Bingo.... NightTrain nails it and sticks the dismount.

[Augusto]

Well, I think I'm done with this thread.

It is pretty clear that nobody will admit anything, as predicted. It is obvious that a few people went angry and attacked me illogically, as prediced, and I really don't see how keeping this discussion going would serve any porpouse.

But it was fun while it lasted.

As a conclusion, I would like forum members to think of their children. If you have children, if you love them, maybe you should not take them to your religious meetings anymore, so he/she will stand the chance you were deprived of.

There is plenty of atheist material for you to educate yourself. Don't worry, you can read it a billion atheist books and you wont lose your faith. The best you can hope for is to be mentally more functional = closer to tangible reality.

Again, I meant well toward the community. Even when you see me as an enemy, I'm not.

Never trust your emotions.

[Voted4Reagan]

He's NOT a Christian: He's a nominal Catholic who is involved in the occult and paganism. Get this (irony of ironies): He is always on my butt for being religiously intolerant!




That looks verbatim what you say about Gnostic Bishop. Your social skills are inferior to mine. At least I admit being a social moron. The truth will set you free.

Also... if reputation is a measure of respect here..... Mine averages 791 per post, WiccanLiberal over 850 per post.

You average 207 points per post.

Your words are not taken seriously.... you suck up to the agitators and the provocateurs in an effort to gain legitimacy for your warped beliefs of superiority.

Do I agree with Gabby, DMP, NightTrain and Revelarts all the time? No...

But I respect them....

You dont care about anyone here but yourself....

[tailfins]

It took exactly 3 clicks of my mouse to find your copy/pasting. I think the FBI is a bit more intensive.

I'm not interested in debating this with you, Drummond and Dragon are more than capable of tearing down your copy/paste.

I do notice, however, when the conversation veers from your copy/paste, you seem to get very frustrated and your overall posting IQ goes down about 30 points and conversely your usage of insults/profanity increase by 600%.

The same pattern mirrors Gnostic - he's dead in the water when the conversation veers off-script.

That's what corporate culture refers to as an "opportunity for improvement". Since you are not interested in helping him leverage that opportunity, that makes you a liability.

[tailfins]

Also... if reputation is a measure of respect here..... Mine averages 791 per post, WiccanLiberal over 850 per post.

You average 207 points per post.

Your words are not taken seriously.... you suck up to the agitators and the provocateurs in an effort to gain legitimacy for your warped beliefs of superiority.

Do I agree with Gabby, DMP, NightTrain and Revelarts all the time? No...

But I respect them....

You dont care about anyone here but yourself....

The emotion of caring is unnecessary to be useful. It's better to be uncaring and useful than to be caring and useless.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It would seem that Augusto has a bit of a problem with boosting stuff that may or may not be his :

http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php?topic=52753.0

Anyone else see some striking similarities?

Odd, is it not, that this is the exact same weaksauce that Gnostic engages in?

You guys are arguing with a copy/paster.

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Dude acts like Conhog and the recently departed John V. Both so full of it that their eyes are dark brown.-Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

He's NOT a Christian: He's a nominal Catholic who is involved in the occult and paganism. Get this (irony of ironies): He is always on my butt for being religiously intolerant!






You are wrong.....

http://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=87



35 Largest Christian Denominations in the United States

#1 on the list is Catholicism

[Voted4Reagan]

Dude acts like Conhog and the recently departed John V. Both so full of it that their eyes are dark brown.-Tyr

Got some ARBO thrown in as well......

[tailfins]

You are wrong.....

http://undergod.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=87



35 Largest Christian Denominations in the United States

#1 on the list is Catholicism





Papism is NOT Christianity. Why should it bother you? Based on your posts, you're more loyal to paganism than Catholicism.


As an aside ..... I draw your attention to the original topic of this thread. Facilitating a pissing match will illustrate the premise of the OP. See the big picture.

[Voted4Reagan]

Papism is NOT Christianity. Why should it bother you? Based on your posts, you're more loyal to paganism than Catholicism.


As an aside ..... I draw your attention to the original topic of this thread. Facilitating a pissing match will illustrate the premise of the OP. See the big picture.

Yes it is.... It is the original Christian faith.

You just don't like to admit it....

[tailfins]

Yes it is.... It is the original Christian faith.

You just don't like to admit it....

In the interest of not giving the original topic more ammunition: I will let you have the last word.

[Voted4Reagan]

In the interest of not giving the original topic more ammunition: I will let you have the last word.

And when the reconciliation of the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church Occurs (It is heading that way) it will make the number almost 2 Billion people world wide.

See... here is the last word,

Catholicism started back in the time of Christ, It split in the Great Schism of the 11th Century into the eastern and western churches. It then split again under Henry VIII in the 16th Century as well as under Martin Luther, John Calvin and others in the Protestant reformation. so 16 centuries after Christ we have the Birth of the Protestant Church and all its denomination.

Hell... Even Islam is older than The Protestant Faith and THAT faith borrowed from our Bible and the Jewish Torah for it's teachings....

Just because you constantly say that Catholics aren't Christians, doesn't make it a truth.

It is a Lie that you repeat constantly hoping others will back you up...

Thankfully... almost everyone here discards what you have to say about religion.... because your views are so skewed as to be considered absurd and comical in how you present them.

And yes... I live with a Pagan. I respect and understand her beliefs and I care about her. She is my equal and my partner in all respects.. You insult her beliefs... you insult me and I have NEVER backed down from that with you..... You are the least "CHRISTIAN" person that I know.

And almost all here agree with me....

[Augusto]

Lol you're begging for him to answer so you can call him off for saying he was going to let you have the last word. You do like confrontation, don't you? I have a nice thread waiting for you in the Steel Cage, if you dare!

:coffee:

[Voted4Reagan]

Lol you're begging for him to answer so you can call him off for saying he was going to let you have the last word. You do like confrontation, don't you? I have a nice thread waiting for you in the Steel Cage, if you dare!

:coffee:

Why? Why should I waste my time on someone that uses a scripted reply in every forum he is on??

You have a playbook... we get it.... you post the same things on multiple forums looking for people to take your bait.

Know what?? We're smarter than that here... Left or Right side of the Aisle we know a troll when we see one...

And we dont like to feed em....

[Augusto]

Is that so? Ha...!

I think you find me too intimidating and choose to HIDE behind a poor excuse (my use of my own material in ONE post). That's a coward action. Come to the cage, I'm waiting for you and your friends.

I'm not going to rape you, I promise. Just pray to God that give you strenght and come to the cage. I have a soap I want you to pick for me, that's all.

[DragonStryk72]

Did your brain just pop...?

Is a rampant logical falacy to ask him to explain what he wants me to discuss? Okay, the empty glass are three letters, let's reshape them: "g", "o", "d" = "dog" nice, now I do have something to work with. I don't need to ask for information because a dog is something actually real.

Ah, good. You not only went back to insults that are self-destructive to your own attempts to marshall an argument, but you left me with a giant text wall to



As for your questioning the OP, you seem pretty happy dismissing the conclusions of a biologist investigator from Oxford. I guess you are a better expert from a better university, right? No? What's that? Just a forum dude who doesn't know how to manage new information? Okay, I see. It doesn't change the facts tho.

Well, as per my post, it never came to a point of actually using the scientific method. The biologist would first have to prove that believing in a religion is incorrect. This would require disproving not only the Catholic God, but taking the time to disprove every single religion's God, otherwise, there is no foundation for religion being a mental illness, anymore than it is a mental illness to believe in tachyon particles, which exist, but we are as yet unable to perceive.

You are not a professional pitcher, correct? And yet, you would definitely be able to tell a bad pitch from a good pitch by simply understanding the basics of how a ball is thrown. The same is also true of knowing the basics of scientific research. No degree is needed, although I have studied science.



So, a bunch of deluded, mentally ill and brainwashed forum members decided I need to explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life and disprove a generic god in order for them to accept being sick? Wow, just wow...!

I did not. I responded to your posts, and since the unscientific research you grabbed does not actually prove anything, being in itself destroyed by the severe biases of the author, you have not even proven your initial thesis.

You seem attached, however, to insulting people, repeatedly and at length, rather than engage in legitimate debate, which does not say good things about the veracity of your opinions.



I don't need to do such thing. I will talk about the religions I know: those based in Jehovah. Let's check Genesis!

Even if you ended up being correct, which I doubt given the prior history of this debate, this does not have any chance of disproving any other religion, and thus, would still be incapable of proving that religion is a mental illness.



I gotta say, Capter 1 of Genesis have a weird contradiction by creating the day and the night before creating the sun, not to mention creating the light before the stars and also by depicting the universe like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kzGeUu8SdV8/TjB2mGbLbkI/AAAAAAAADEI/LU8lie-GNlY/s1600/World%2Baccording%2Bthe%2BBible.JPG

Notice science disagree in the way things happened over here... for example, in the second day God creates "the firmament" (which is actually "the universe") which already exists... well, did anyone noticed God created grass, herbs and trees before creating the sun?

Now... everythin from Gen 1.1 until 2.3 was included like 500 years after, around the times of King Solomon, that's why you see in Genesis 2.4 a new introduction to the creation.

Actually, that is incorrect. "Let There Be Light" were the first words of the universe, but until day 6, there is no planet, and thus, no day/night cycle. This is a very simple, scientific process, where in the sun is occluded by the Earth's rotation, in our case, to roughly half the planet, constantly. Whichever side is currently in night, however, it would still require a planet to exist before the day and night can exist.

In this instance, it's a matter of the word "day", which does actually have more than the single connotation of the day/night cycle. The third "day" of the week, Tuesday, will still have night time, despite it being referred to as a "day", and thus becomes a rough estimate of time, as opposed to a specific discussion of day and night cycles.




Genesis 2.16-17:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Okay...

- Adam did not die after eating the fruit.
- God was a troll by putting the tree of knowledge of good and evil at the reach of people who didn't know the difference between good and evil.
- In his omniscense, God is guilty of planning everything in advance, because as we know (from Genesis 1) he was checking everything he was doing and he said:

Genesis 1.31:

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

So far, God is depicted at least as a big...

Or, he was stating what was essentially a death sentence for eating the fruit. It may have also been a direct point of combination, that if they ate one fruit, they would certainly eat both. Further, since we are never given God's reason for the commandment or punishment, He simply set it up as a first test, to see if when we would eventually, of our own accord, come to want knowledge or immortality.

However, we had an interloper, and that, in the end, changed the outcome.




In Genesis 3 we see how the snake tells the truth "you shall not die, your eyes will be open and you'll know good and bad" and God expells Adam and Eve from the garden, so they wont eat from the tree of life and become inmortal...

After I saw the flamming sword he used to avoid Adam and Eve to return I couldn't avoid asking myself: "Why didn't he use that sword to protect those trees in the first place?" or "Why didn't he use that sword to avoid the snake to enter into Eden and ruin everything?".

Because he hadn't needed it? Pretty simple, really. I mean, what, the two naked people with no weapons were going to assault him? Do you have guards standing around with guns to guard your bag of chips from your roommates? No, you tell them not to eat them, and maybe mark your name on them.

To the second point, again, the serpent up to that point had caused no issue, and thus, what was it gonna do. It clearly didn't go near the fruit, knowing better. Every snake owner knows, knows, that at a certain point, they are going to be bitten by their snake. It's not personal, it's just the way snakes are.

However, this still puts forth any proof of a lack of God, nor of any form of mental illness



It is interesting tho... to try to imagine the love of God on that scene... let's just remind he is omniscent, so...
- He was watching the snake approaching and knew all the suffering that was about to be unleashed.
- He saw how the snake convinced Eve and knew Adam was next.. both of his sons, who didn't knew the difference between good from evil were about to be doomed forever because of his incredibly unforgiving and malevolent rules.
- He saw Adam eating the fruit and feeling ashamed of his own body...

Why did he wait? Why didn't rush and turn into flesh to cry along with Adam and Eve because of all the suffering that was already unleashed, in which even his own son, Jesus was going to taste torment... this is what he did, instead:

Genesis 3.7-13:

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

So, we see the lord choose to walk and play games with them before cursing them both and their descendants forever... what a nice message of love from our heavenly father. From that point on, the reader must understand he is DIRTY of the sins of Adam and Eve, because they eat the fruit even when they didn't knew the difference between good or wrong before doing it.

I would say: "Nice trap God, you royaly f**k them nicely"... Jesus, by the other hand would have said, from heaven: "Why oh Father didn't you just put that tree somewhere else? Now I'll have to die because of YOU".

This is a nice story to share with children... you know, to cause a violent impact on them, then we can confuse them

Adam and Eve were given direct knowledge that the fruit was wrong, and let's be clear, the Serpent never contradicts that point, just saying that they won't die from it, and stating that they'll have knowledge. Whether the Serpent played them or not is irrelevant, as they clearly had choice.

God pulled the same routine my parents have pulled at times, knowing I've done something wrong, but asking around it to see if I'll confess to it, or try and get out of trouble. Heck, even my brother, who is by no means religious, has pulled this on his kids. We committed a wrong we knew we were commanded not to do, and could have asked about before proceeding, but chose not to.

So, again, we haven't really seen anything disproved, only your particular view on the chapter of Genesis. Hm, perhaps soon we'll come to something



In Genesis 4 God witneses the murder of his first grandson (and son at the same time) without doing anything, and as usual start playing games and making silly questions (4.9-10) before sending some random curse (4.11-15), which is also as unefective and idiotic as the "curses" he sent to Adam, Eve and the talking snake).

Perhaps someone can explain me where did Cain knew a woman?, how he builded a city by himself, where did he got the knowledge to do so and how many people were meant to live on that city? (4.17)

Gross...! Adam got his "sister" Eve pregnant for a thirth time...!!! (4.25)

Okay, so taking this in order, Cain was cursed, thus doing something, which means he didn't do nothing. Whether you see a problem with the curse is immaterial to the point of it being done as a curse. I know I would see watching every single person I come to love dying around me, essentially eternally alone, would be a pretty significant curse.

well, had you paid attention to Genesis, you would know of the Lands of Nod. God never states that Adam and Eve are the only two humans. They are the only two in the Garden of Eden, but as God never states them as being alone in the world, this is basically an assumption made by humans thousands of years later.

Seeing as how technologically, we are already to the point of genetic manipulation, science itself can assume that even using Adam's rib to create Eve, that the genetics could be altered enough to make them genetically diverse enough to avoid it being incest. Now, as noted, this is an assumption, just as you have assumed that God didn't do that, and thus, there is no way to confirm either point.



Genesis 5: It's all about a dumb genealogy... anyone here knows why people live so much in this "genealogy"?

First, let's see this wiki-craziness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis

And now the answer: Because during Solomon's kindom, schribes modified Genesis in order to make it more "competent" with its times, including even more myths and filling the obvious problem of having a too short genealogy since the origins of the universe by dramatically increasing the ages of existing genealogies.

Again with the wiki links? I believe we've gone over that wiki is not considered a proper source, already. Again, however, genealogies have nothing to do with the existence or lack of existence of God, they're just there for bookkeeping, and given the writing medium of the time, there were likely to be inaccuracies, lost sections, and so on in the genealogies. Seeing that God flat out tells us that we are imperfect, and make mistakes, this is not hard to figure.

This however, doesn't particularly prove anything, and isn't really relevant to the discussion being had.




Genesis 6-8: Does anyone here think the mith of Noah holds any truth? Do I need to bust it...?


Okaaay... it never happened.

Again, we have an issue of connotation. Nowadays, when we think of the World, we think of Earth itself, but honestly... this has only really been true the last couple of centuries, really. Prior to that, the Western Hemisphere was referred to as The New World, and Europe as The Old World.

This difference in the accepted definition of world is part of the issue of using modern nomenclature to interpret ancient writings. Now, there were some highly significant floods in the regions of the Biblical lands around these times, certainly large enough that it would seem as if the whole world had become ocean. Gathering the local animals in twos, again, not a stretch, but because we see "every" and "world", we make mistakes, as humans, based on current meanings of the words. A rainbow appearing at the end of a big storm, again, not a huge stretch (Actually got to see an amazing double-rainbow in Ireland one time over the ocean).

So, literally true? Almost certainly not, but the truth of the overall story can still, easily, be truth.



Genesis 9

9.1"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."

Very sexist... God just IGNORED the wives of them all (Gen 6.18), like they were animals from the Arc!!! What an inmoral message we find right here...

Um, why would he go to everyone individually? I mean, seriously, when you come down to it, why waste the time? Drop the message, and move on. There is no necessity to tell the wives, because it is assumed that they are, still, married.



9.2:"And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

He probably means animals (and women) from the Arc right? Because he drowned all animals from earth... so basically Noah and his sons can slaughter the surviving animals and eat them, then pick up rotten vegetables from the mud, and then use their wives all they want to "multiply".

Well, this is absurd, sexist, unethical and NOT A BLESSING... They would probably do the same even without God telling them to... so why did God said that stupid nonsense? I guess he was very talkative back in those days, now he is mute, which is probably better.

Well, seeing as how childbirth still works exactly the same, I'm pretty sure yes, having children still involved their wives. The bigger problem is that this is still attached to your earlier assumptions about the nomenclature, and thus leads into greater improper foundations upon which you read going forward.

Also, why do you assume all sex is rape? Cause that's where you seem to be heading here. I'm unfamiliar on the Bible verse where women were rendered incapable of choice.



9.3"Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."

Is God mocking of Noah? He just destroyed all fields of cultive and whatever... now he talks like he is giving an awesome present after ruining the whole earth.

Unless the person who successfully designed a ship capable of holding a huge menagerie is a complete idiot, we can generally figure that he packed these things called seeds, as well as other food. Otherwise he was just trusting the animals not to eat each other, but again, we are still trapped in your assumptions of the previous writing, so unfortunately, you're heading even further down a bad road of logic.



9.4 "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

So I guess chicken eggs were forbidden... also what should they be expected to do if, for example, they are fishing and get a female fish and once they kill her, her belly is full of eggs? I guess they should throw away the eggs to the mud... that way should be totally ok. Also, why does God talks like that? It's annoying... almost like He were a douchebag.

This is the nomenclature of the time, and while to us, it's only vaguely comprehensible, the main takeaway from it was that animals were to be killed cleanly, and with as little suffering as possible, the beginning of kosher meals. This was significant, because it is essentially a prohibition against animal cruelty in food creation.




9.6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

So we are suposed to believe this when he just killed everyone with their children in the flow? Actually NO because pretty much everyone in the old testament were murderers and one cannot really see any signal of God's word being fulfilled... on the contrary, in the OT he was the God of War who ended up sort of betraying his own people in order to avoid looking like a mediocre leader.

Well, a few points: God left more than enough warning that disaster was coming, and Noah even said it flat out, in an attempt to save people. Again, World had a different meaning in the times of the Bible, so it's entirely possible for there to still be people and other things in the world.




9.7:"And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

Once more he is talking to men, telling them what to do with their wives.

Here, he is simply speaking, and thus, it is a general statement, not directed. And yes, he said to them "Go be with your wives, and make a family." Seeing as that was the main point of marriage at the time, I'm not seeing your precise issue with it.




9.8-10:And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.

Once more, it becomes evident all women that came from the Arc are ignored in such a way that their only place for her in God's speech is amongst the animals, I would say the beasts of the earth.

Now, are you really unfamiliar with the concept of delegation, or are you simply being obtuse to try and force a misunderstanding that doesn't exist? Why speak to every single person, and not just the person who's clearly in charge of the group? I mean, seriously, what is with this absurd thing where God should be going to each individual person and giving them the exact same instruction? There is no rationality to doing things that way.




9.11-15:"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

So, in short... it's the rainbow! An absurd story of sexism and genocide, to explain the rainbow.

There wasn't any sexism, as point out at all prior points of your lack of ability to understand just talking to the person leading a group. I mean, I can only assume you've never been in charge of anyone, ever, because I can't think of another scenario where you wouldn't know how to delegate.

I've also given the logical basis of the story, given the nomenclature of the time, as well as providing more than enough point that there was an attempt to give people a chance at life. Unfortunately, storms are, by their nature, violent affairs, and loss of life inevitable.




9.16-17:"And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

Why is He repeating the same thing, maybe He thinks it's important? I don't.

It's a speech, for one, just like I Have a Dream, uses the word Dream more than once.




Questions:
1. Wasn't there rainbows before the flow on earth?

Unknown for the region and time, as we are not made aware of what sort of biome we are working with. In many desert and savannah regions along them, people would not often, if ever, see rainbows, and thus, may not have seen one previously to this point.




2. Why did God killed all those bad persons, babies, animals and plants, just because they were evil?

Again, we are given only Noah's perspective on the matter, limiting our field of vision. It is quite likely, such as with the affair in Soddom and Gomorrah, that measure were taken at various points to rectify things, and the people were just intractable.



3. Since evil is still here, what was the porpouse of murdering just once?

The point was not getting rid of evil, but to keep it from being the majority sharehold of society, so the question is actually irrelevant to the actual point.




4. How is it moral to destroy animals and plants (6.17) on the charge of being evil, knowing they only have instinct for the most part?

Plants were not all necessarily destroyed, and as dicussed, seeds from plants were gathered unless you're about to argue we stopped being omnivores for the proceedings. It is also quite likely that some of the animals made it out, certainly the birds, but as well animals such as cats and such that can sense storms coming. Again, though, our perspective is limited to Noah's, and we are thus unable to see any other works going on at the time.




5. Since God failed miserably, what does a rainbow really stand for, as the symbol of God's unjustified murderous failure?

We are still here, and society continues to improve (with some issues, but getting better on the whole over time), so he didn't fail.



6. Since Noah and his sons (plus animals and women) were meant to populate earth again, why didn't he give them some laws or something useful to build societies... other than sexual discrimination?

He did, and it wasn't about sexual discrimination, unless you're still going with your "Talking to the person in charge is evidence of discrimination" point, to which I say: Do you speak to each and every crew member making your food at fast food places? because otherwise, by your own ruling here, you're discriminating against them, which means you're not only racist, but sexist as well, seeing as they're likely to have both sexes, as well as multiple races working.




9.18-27:"And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."

This is a complete different myth... this one is about how a group of people is ridiculed and insulted in the fictionary person of Ham, who is doomed to slavery. Let's say... since all humanity were supposed to start again from Noah, there should be some justification to wars and even the practice of slavery in the bible. Would it be okay to wave war and enslave your own family? The bible says YES right in this passage, because all enemies come from a disgraced branch of the family tree.

Okay, so Ham walks in on his dad drunken and naked, does nothing, except run and tell his brothers about it. His brothers, on the other hand, take care to cover their father while preserving his dignity. Gee, wonder why dad was pissed with Ham. Oh, and being put to service, is basically the equivalence of being forced to mow the lawn in punishment, or any other number of chores assigned due to being, rather a bit of a douche.

Servant is not slave, and believe it or not, there's actually a certain in being a servant. Now, whether Ham takes it in that vein is entirely sidenote to the fact that we are, once again, we are dealing with your assumptions of how things work based on modern interpretation, as opposed to the way of the times and culture being observed.




Actually... this ridiculous story is meant to offend A LOT of cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan

I guess God inspired a lot of HATE to the person(s) who wrote this stuff. I would say he moved the right strings to ensure Noah's descendants would kill eachother forever so he wouldn't need to drown us with water again in order to satisfy his lust for bloodshed... or maybe he doesn't exist.







Everyone can read the bible and get their own conclusions. You might say God is a piece of motherf**ker because he f**ked his own mother in order to be born as Jesus. You might say God is a twisted monster because he knows gay people before they are born, yet he let them be so he can see them having gay sex thanks to his omniscience before sending them to hell thanks to his arbitrary rule system... created to torture his own sons and daughters... or you might just laft at the absurdity of this ridiculous genesis story, and later cry a little bit for all the suffering this book have given to humanity.

Well, yes, the entire point of the bible is to be able to glean more than a single form of wisdom from it. It was never intended to be a literal document, even though it got taken as such further down the line. As well, since he never laid with Mary (evident in the point that she was still a Virgin), he didn't fuck anyone. Plenty of women today have had children without sex, referred to as artificial insemination. So, yeah, a way around your point already exists, without even going to the whole God thing.

Wait... are you actually trying to say we couldn't be assholes without the Bible? I mean, come on, really? I've known Buddhists who are dicks. The capacity to be an asshole is proof of nothing.

As to gays going to hell, God never said they would go to hell. He says don't do it, sure, but Christ never sees a reason to comment on it, and the only place where it prescribes any sort of punishment for it was in Leviticus, which Christ came to strike down. Christ knew his part in things, and chose to continue forth with it, clearly having a choice in the matter, otherwise, how could Satan possibly tempt him in the desert?

And for clarification, in general, any sex other than heterosexual sex with your wife, for the sole purpose of producing offspring is wrong, pre the Bible. Christ clarified, however, that we're simply not going to get everything right, we're going to mess up, again and again, because that's a part of who we are as humans.




So, how is all this relevant? Easy answer: This is the base of Judaism, Christianism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and Islamism. Also, since every theist in here is a christian, I don't need to go any further.

I only need to ask: DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS ARE KIDS STORIES? DO YOU RECOGNIZE YOUR RELIGION IS NOTHING BUT LIES?

If forum members refute to admit this, their refutal should be read as evidence that they're indeed mentally damaged and brainwashed.

It seems I didn't need to become a physicist and find an explanation to the origin of the universe after all.

Unfortunately, due to the wild assumptions, and cultural insensitivity... even a distinct lack of common sense in certain sections, you've really proven nothing of the sort, and I am still waiting for such proof. Thus far however, you've only further damaged your own standing in the debate going forward.

[Voted4Reagan]

Is that so? Ha...!

I think you find me too intimidating and choose to HIDE behind a poor excuse (my use of my own material in ONE post). That's a coward action. Come to the cage, I'm waiting for you and your friends.

I'm not going to rape you, I promise. Just pray to God that give you strenght and come to the cage. I have a soap I want you to pick for me, that's all.

No... I just learned to walk away from those looking for a fight for no good reason a long time before you were born kid...

As for me and my friends.... YOU came to us.... we dont have to accept you...

now go away Troll... I can't be goaded with cries of "CHICKEN".

Yours is a childish game..... I refuse to play.

I encourage others to do likewise and ostracize you... you bring nothing to the table here...

[Augusto]

You're too late. I am already satisfied with the result. I just want to let you know that I cannot possibly prove anything to a theist, because theists, defined as brainwashed and mentally ill, simply will see everything distorted.

However, atheists pretty much unanimously see you as deluded, brainwashed folks. Don't believe me? google "religion illness" and it will pop "religion mental illness" as a suggestion. Search for pictures and serve yourself. See what non brainwashed fellows think of you.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7528&stc=1

Internet is LOADED with the same conclusion, too bad you automatically dismiss it (part of the very illness). Because of this, it is impossible that we understand eachother, so I decided to drop this particular subject.

We are talking on a different language. We cannot reach an agreement under any circumstance. Got it?

If you want to discuss something religious with me, tho, please create a different thread, with a different topic, bible, whatever, and I'll post.

But this particular topic must stop.

[Augusto]

No... I just learned to walk away from those looking for a fight for no good reason a long time before you were born kid...

As for me and my friends.... YOU came to us.... we dont have to accept you...

now go away Troll... I can't be goaded with cries of "CHICKEN".

Yours is a childish game..... I refuse to play.

I encourage others to do likewise and ostracize you... you bring nothing to the table here...

No, you learned nothing. You were bullying a fellow atheist when I came here, and I just got you bullying tailfins, not to mention you have been trolling on this page along with your "friends". You're a teenager highschool gang member, at least mentally, so don't come to me with that flat out lie.

As every bully, you just found someone you cannot beat, so you're simply afraid. It's natural, tho. You've always been afraid. You just didn't notice it because you like to be surrounded by others who help you out.

Get this: You're incredibly LAME, and I'm enjoying to expose you as you have no idea. You're making my day...!

[Voted4Reagan]

No, you learned nothing. You were bullying a fellow atheist when I came here, and I just got you bullying tailfins, not to mention you have been trolling on this page along with your "friends". You're a teenager highschool gang member, at least mentally, so don't come to me with that flat out lie.

As every bully, you just found someone you cannot beat, so you're simply afraid. It's natural, tho. You've always been afraid. You just didn't notice it because you like to be surrounded by others who help you out.

Get this: You're incredibly LAME, and I'm enjoying to expose you as you have no idea. You're making my day...!

more name calling? Shows you have no ability for competent debate.....

[Augusto]

Uggh... you win. I got tired of you pretty quickly.

Gonna find something more productive to do with my time, like scratching my balls.

[jimnyc]

Can you first try explaining (with proofs) the difference between an ' Irish Catholic ' and the other types of Catholic?

e.g. Do the Irish Catholics have a different ' Statement of Faith / Religious Philosophy ' to other Catholics?

Cheers!

:popcorn:


As a newbie you may wish to check your attitude ... your first post on a new board is to come after someone and try to pigeonhole them?

Check yourself kid.... you wont make many friends with that attitude...

Or are you a Sock Puppet of someone else already on here?

Yeah.... I'll go with that.... Sock Puppet

A friend of Augusto. That's cool, hopefully he'll stick around and post more. But I agree with the coming in as such. Try and welcome ones self first and get a feel. :)

[Augusto]

Yes, he's a friend of mine.

The man is an expert on the bible.

[jimnyc]

I have to be honest. As many know, I have bipolar, which is classified as a mental illness. If someone sees it as a "disability", I think the board can testify to my debate skills and intelligence and various other things. It's simply something I need to tend to, as an illness of sorts, and take medication. At any rate, there are others with some sort of mental illnesses, real life problems. I don't think it's cool to classify religion as such, or vice versa. They obviously have nothing to do with one another, and it's insulting in both directions.

[Drummond]

Dude acts like Conhog and the recently departed John V. Both so full of it that their eyes are dark brown.-Tyr:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::dance:

[Augusto]

There are many things classified as a mental illness. You can search the definition of that by yourself. Religion definitely fits the profile and it's not just me saying it. If it was me, I would be simply insulting people. I'm actually arguying other people are saying it. Scientists are saying it, so there isn't much I can do about it.

Problem is you accept being bipolar, and if it were something you could chose or spread, like a sexual disease or something, you wouldn't want your loved ones to get it. Religion, by the other hand, is spreaded as if it were virtuous, hence the importance of talking about it. Not to humilliate, but to rise awareness of the problem.

Look, you can explain Jehovah Witnesses their foundator was a false prophet and a mason who believed in pyramidology and they would simply ignore you and keep offering their magazines. The same thing with muslims. It doesn't help telling them that it's impossible that Mohammed went to the moon on a flying horse. They might simply kill you for blasphemous. If you think of christianism, it's exactly the same. This means, unfortunately, that theists do not have a saying in being religious or not. They're mentally captive, and this is problematic in many levels, such as homophobia, which is mainly promoted by religious people because being gay is labeled as a sin in the bible.

Less religious people and non religious people are generally cool with gays. Do your maths.

Seriously, I just attempted to generate awareness on an important issue. Children of a few forum members could benefict from this stuff I posted, if parents decide to stop the social indoctrination process that got them captive in the first place.

[AllieBaba]

There are many things classified as a mental illness. You can search the definition of that by yourself. Religion definitely fits the profile and it's not just me saying it. If it was me, I would be simply insulting people. I'm actually arguying other people are saying it. Scientists are saying it, so there isn't much I can do about it.

Problem is you accept being bipopar, and if it were something you could chose or spread, like a sexual disease or something, you wouldn't want your loved ones to get it. Religion, by the other hand, is spreaded as if it were virtuous, hence the importance of talking about it. Not to humilliate, but to rise awareness of the problem.

Look, you can explain Jehovah Witnesses their foundator was a false prophet and a mason who believed in pyramidology and they would simply ignore you and keep offering their magazines. The same thing with muslims. It doesn't help telling them that it's impossible that Mohammed went to the moon on a flying horse. They might simply kill you for blasphemous. If you think of christianism, it's exactly the same. This means, unfortunately, that theists does not have a saying in being religious or not. They're mentally captive, and this is problematic in many levels, such as homophobia, which is mainly promoted by religious people because being gay is labeled as a sin in the bible.

Less religious people and non religious people are generally cool with gays. Do your maths.

Seriously, I just attempted to generate awareness on an important issue. Children of a few forum members could benefict from this stuff I posted, if parents decide to stop the social indoctrination process that got them captive in the first place.
Then it's a good thing that religion isn't mental illness.Two separate things.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

So false that it is laughable. Nothing natural or normal about two guys engaging with each other in anal sex or oral.
Never seen any science prove that to be normal. Perhaps you confuse liberal politics and lies with -science! -Tyr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMsrE-9CLFg


Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Then it's a good thing that religion isn't mental illness.Two separate things.

What? You're reading from your own imagination or... I don't know what to think of this post... you just... what?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Proof the "Christian" in your username is a lie.

Like your friend/alter ego Augusto, you seek to deny the existence of God by pointing out inconsistencies in the Bible. Your inability to see the difference between parable and reality says more about you than it does religion in general.

Senseless. As usual.
You are partially and accidentally correct that the word Christian is a lie.

Christianity, to try to distance itself from it's Jewish and Gnostic Christian roots, changed the original Chrestian to Christian.

Being functionally illiterate in your own religion, you of course would not know this.

Regards
DL

[Max R.]

What? You're reading from your own imagination or... I don't know what to think of this post... you just... what?

"First members who opted for apersonal attacks instead of recognizing" they are hypocritical trolls pushing their own beliefs on others. :laugh2:


First members who opted for apersonal attacks instead of recognizing his religion is a lie.

Diagnosis = heavily brainwashed, strong reality disociation.

I am dead serious. Is there any christian forum member CAPABLE of admiting the obvious?

We're doing a nice experiment here for everyone to see. Better than any article or video. Forum members are showing what religion really is.

[Max R.]

If there is any mental illness going on here, it's anyone who believes they've furnished definitive proof that there is or isn't an existence beyond the mortal and/or the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It astounds me on a constant basis how much of a "RELIGION" Atheism and Agnosticism have become... They are modern day "CRUSADERS" of Non-belief attacking the "HOLY-LAND" to drive out the believers... regardless of faith. Jew, Christian or Muslim... Bhuddist, Pagan or any belief system they don't like....

If you don't want to believe in a supreme being... if you don't have faith in a particular creed.. fine, so be it.

But preaching "NON-BELIEF" and trying to convert those that do believe is what you claim all other religions are doing. Pushing their beliefs on you.

Be a non-believer all you like... but dont preach non-belief.... That would be hypocritical.

The question is why do you want or need to believe in a supernatural entity so much that you would discard your good moral sense, logic and reason?

Do you believe the lie of your condemnation that much?

What did you do to deserve condemnation?

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Dude, how do you mix Jesus with guns?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7530&stc=1

[Drummond]

Well, I think I'm done with this thread.

It is pretty clear that nobody will admit anything, as predicted. It is obvious that a few people went angry and attacked me illogically, as prediced, and I really don't see how keeping this discussion going would serve any porpouse.

But it was fun while it lasted.

As a conclusion, I would like forum members to think of their children. If you have children, if you love them, maybe you should not take them to your religious meetings anymore, so he/she will stand the chance you were deprived of.

There is plenty of atheist material for you to educate yourself. Don't worry, you can read it a billion atheist books and you wont lose your faith. The best you can hope for is to be mentally more functional = closer to tangible reality.

Again, I meant well toward the community. Even when you see me as an enemy, I'm not.

Never trust your emotions.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

So, you've done it again. My repeated requests for you to directly answer my post at post#77 amounted to nothing at all ... you didn't touch it as a basis for debate at all.

A few hours ago, I directly answered your seven questions. AGAIN, no comeback showing the smallest willingness to debate, point-on-point, or even more generally.

Augusto ... YOU are the one who's running away. You've done it twice, now, with my posts. I do understand ... you have your belief system, you cannot depart from it, you cannot be open-minded enough to so much as approach the POSSIBILITY of doing so. And you cannot summon any coherent countering-points to justify yourself ... of course.

... ah .. but, you CAN hurl abuse at people, eh ?

What you accuse others of .. and I say again, WHY the preoccupation with Christianity ? .. YOU ARE GUILTY OF, YOURSELF. You have your beliefs, which you cling to, you've no way of logically justifying them, and you'll not admit to any of that being true for you.

It seems evident - unless, you're one of the most blinkered individuals I've ever had dealings with ? - that, in fact, you are trolling us here.

I'll leave you with this thought.

You have your atheism. With it, you - apparently - have a great faith in science. OK, that's up to you, all well and good, as far as that goes.

But, where has that led you ?

Science has now established that the Universe had a definite beginning-point. What it hasn't done, BECAUSE IT CAN'T, is to advance further, and scientifically quantify where that beginning-point comes from. They can say nothing at all about it. Maybe they can theorise, but they've no way of proving anything which, by its very nature, is outside of any observation or test they could ever devise.

Mankind has one answer ... and it's a logical one, and for the reasons I've given previously. A power not of this Universe, not bound by any of its limitations, cannot HELP but be of a form of supernatural being. How could the Universe have been created by anything else BUT this, for that reason ?

So -- I say that, logically, even PROVABLY, there MUST be a God. How ELSE can you describe a power so mighty, and so very intelligent, as to create an entire Universe, and design it throughout to work as it does ??

Humanity is limited. Of course we are. But a God capable of creating a Universe cannot be bound by limits. So ... if we're to relate to such a Being in any possible way, how ELSE can this be done, EXCEPT THAN THROUGH RELIGION ?

Think of religion as a translating-conduit, through which any and all human relationships with God must be made.

Now -- tell me, Augusto (.. or rather, DUCK this, AGAIN ..) ... how on earth can it EVER be an act of 'mental illness' to relate to one's Creator in the only way that's possible ??

A comparison: on the one hand, someone who won't advance beyond science's limits, and so blinkers himself to anything beyond its reach .. and insults all who don't blindly follow his example.

On the other hand, people who commune with their Creator by acknowledging His Existence, taking that leap into faith which the stunted, blinkered individual just cannot do, and WILL NOT do, as an act of will and fossilised stubbornness.

Who's the more likely to be mentally ill, Augusto ... eh ??

Do tell us.

While you're at it, explain, once and for all, why you've tried so hard to tie this into JUST Christianity. That, considering the subject matter intended for this thread, makes absolutely no sense.

OR, DUCK EVERYTHING, AND START AGAIN WITH THE PATHETIC ABUSE.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

.

also... you have been posting the same piece for years.... find some new material....

in other words.... you're a one trick pony... and it isnt even a good trick

How long have you been reading and quoting the same 2,000 year old bull shit filled bible and it's immoral tenets?

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It took exactly 3 clicks of my mouse to find your copy/pasting. I think the FBI is a bit more intensive.

I'm not interested in debating this with you, Drummond and Dragon are more than capable of tearing down your copy/paste.

I do notice, however, when the conversation veers from your copy/paste, you seem to get very frustrated and your overall posting IQ goes down about 30 points and conversely your usage of insults/profanity increase by 600%.

The same pattern mirrors Gnostic - he's dead in the water when the conversation veers off-script.

That is because I will not lower my standards and get dragged into your foolish discussions on the reality of your invisible absentee God when my focus, that you guys always try to deflect from, --- is his immoral tents.

I will not argue in your idiotic supernatural playground and prefer to discuss morals and reality.

Regards
DL

[Voted4Reagan]

How long have you been reading and quoting the same 2,000 year old bull shit filled bible and it's immoral tenets?

Regards
DL

Ahhh.... the other intellectual giant that resorts to profanity and shock language to try and argue a point....

go away Gnostic... maybe you and Augie can have a nice Atheist tea party with each other...

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Yes it is.... It is the original Christian faith.

You just don't like to admit it....

This is a Catholic fabrication. Chrestians and Jews were the root of Catholicism. Or at least that is where the evidence seem to be pointing.

The then Orthodox Church, the child, became a traitor to it's roots when Constantine bought them and sent them out to kill all opposition along with burning their scriptures.

Constantine wanted dumbed down sheeple and not enlightened Gnostic Christians and Jews who were calling themselves Chrestians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rAt-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Drummond, I must have missed your reply... I'll search for it later and see what I can do with whatever you posted.

However, you should notice that I attacked your belief system directly, and fellow members helped me prove my case without discussing an ambiguous deity. In other words, I already discussed and debunked the core of all christian belief system, so I don't need to discuss your hypothetical god.

Like I said, I will give your post a look and see what I can say about it, but I'm done with the main topic. "Faith" is not related to an hypothetical god. It depends from religion directly. I rest my case.

When I feel in the mood, I'll seek to discuss this "origin of the universe" issue you're bringing. Okay?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Dude, how do you mix Jesus with guns?

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7530&stc=1


Do not forget that these guys likely believe in the return of Jesus.

They likely pray for the rapture nightly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFx7WFVP1FI

Regards
DL

[Augusto]

Wow that's the funniest video I've seen in a lot of time...! Thanks for sharing!

[Drummond]

Drummond, I must have missed your reply... I'll search for it later and see what I can do with whatever you posted.

However, you should notice that I attacked your belief system directly, and fellow members helped me prove my case without discussing an ambiguous deity. In other words, I already discussed and debunked the core of all christian belief system, so I don't need to discuss your hypothetical god.

Like I said, I will give your post a look and see what I can say about it, but I'm done with the main topic. "Faith" is not related to an hypothetical god. It depends from religion directly. I rest my case.

When I feel in the mood, I'll seek to discuss this "origin of the universe" issue you're bringing. Okay?

Well, you've yet to reply to either of my two detailed posts, and you've already had days to do it. In the meantime, you prefer meaningless and abusive sparring matches with others on this board.

Yes, you DID 'attack my belief system'. But ... WHY ?? 'RELIGION AS A MENTAL ILLNESS' is what this debate is supposed to be about. Instead, you wandered off into an apparent obsession about Christianity specifically. The point of this thread is to debate whether RELIGION constitutes a mental illness. There are MANY religions out there. To win this debate, whatever you discuss here has to be pertinent to all of them.

Since you've made no attempt at that .. all you've really done is to try and disparage ONE religion, and hurl insults around otherwise ... why should I think you're serious about debating ? I agree with others here, your posts amount to troll activity.

So, you have your own belief system. It's one that dismisses religion absolutely, but seemingly without a coherent argument to back it up. I've yet to see any evidence that you can support your viewpoint, beyond substituting abusiveness for reasoned exchanges.

Summarising my argument against you: we know the Universe had a beginning-point. We know from its immensely complicated, yet VIABLE, nature .. that anything other than purposeful design being involved must be a nonsense. Therefore, we also know that intelligence OUTSIDE of any limits of our Universe must be responsible .. because there is no logic involved in concluding otherwise. So ... what ELSE but a GOD could be responsible ?

If there's a God, then the existence of religion is totally reasonable, logically speaking. WHICH DISPROVES, IN LOGICAL TERMS, YOUR ENTIRE PREMISE.

[Augusto]

Yeah, truth is I didn't want to respond. There, I admited it...!

But, I guess after so much insistency, I owe you an answer. Okay, but I want to make clear that you're almost 100% not going to be satisfied with my reply, simply because of your particular situation. So, you will not accept my argument and you will want the discussion to keep going. I will not. I did not like how the whole forum reacted and I want this thread to die.

Okay...?

Well, here I go:

Let me start with a useful link with arguments against the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Now, the fundamental argument is that there is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence, and if we investigate the origin of faith we only find idiotic fables. So, there is absolutely no legitimazy behind the idea. It's like discussing the possibility that Zeus, Horus or Thor exist.

Yes, it is pretty hard to dismiss something you cannot see, like: "Can you prove me there is not an intelligent organism living in the sun?" My argument is that this specie is microscopic. Too tiny to be seen by the most advanced microscope, and because the sun is also too hot, there is not a chance that you could go there to conduct any kind of experiment.

So, in the case of God, or any random god, we simply see the origin of religion, the many different religions that existed through history and the absurdity of them all to conclude God is nothing but an enhanced reflexion of man, ruling everything. To me, this is a strong evidence that there is no god.

The next evidence (or lack of) lies in the supernatural. All gods have in common the ability to do magic stuff or to control nature. Since we don't see anything like what is described in the Bible and other religious books, and since we already know why it rains, and we understand the mechanics behind the day and the night, volcans, seasons and son on, there is no need to think there is something human-like somewhere in the universe.

The last argument is simplicity. Long ago we were struggling to understand natural phenomena such as rain, seasons, volcanic activities, the "firmament", and so on. We didn't know anything. As we came to understand many things we found no direct evidence of a deity at work. Thigs were happening "by their own". Even earth came to exist by itself. Even our galaxy and every single planet and star came to exist by itself, by chance, without any divine intervention.

As we progress in our understanding, we find out everything started in an explosion. A very simple thing from which the universe came to exist... so, of course we are shocked. It's weird and we are entitled to be curious: What was before that? What caused the explosion?

Nevertheless, it is RIDICULOUS to assume you have the answer, simply because you are brainwashed by religion. Evidence points at reality becomming increasingly simple as we go back in the history of existence. Just one explosion, the Big Bang. That's the only thing responsible for everything. Yet, theist want us to assume this last stuff was created by a super intelligent being who wated us to exist.

The idea of a god is simply ridiculous. It doesn't really solve anything. It claims that a simple explosion came from a complex being science cannot study, and it also claim this complex, human-like being is eternal, as saying: "Stop searching, and start worshipping", well that's incredibly dumb. I trust you now know why science doesn't pay attention to religious people. The idea of a god goes against evidence. Evidence points at an incredibly simple first cause, a simple scenario, not a complex and eternal deity for you guys to worship.

Also one cannot avoid asking many questions to this "theory" of an undefined god, like: what was he doing during eternity before creating existence and what is he doing now? Imagine yourself, as a god, in an eternal nothing... wow, that sounds dumb. Now imagine yourself after creating existence, only that you must asume you also don't move a finger to do shit. Wow! That's pretty lame, almost like if this being were a hedious excuse of mentally ill people to justify their worship in what we still don't know.

Here are two more links for you:
http://www.nairaland.com/1150005/library-best-40-atheist-arguments
http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

I didn't read those articles but I think they should be good to answer all your questions. However, I'd like to encourage you to keep investigating and to keep an eye on the REAL issue, which is in the OP.

[Gunny]

Well, well, well...

It seems some people have been working in defining religion as a mental illness from different angles. There are several arguments in youtube. This one is focused on observation and simple logic; check it out:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ra9owgTI41U?fs=1&start=" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(240, 244, 247);" frameborder="0" height="385" width="640"></iframe>

Apparently, this is view on religion is spreading really fast. I wouldn't be surprised that no matter what or who, religion will end up being qualified as a mental illness.

OK this one is good, now it's a biologist investigator from Oxford saying the same thing:

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/a73xAaxyCNk?fs=1&start=" allowfullscreen="" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12.4799995422363px; line-height: 17.4720001220703px; background-color: rgb(231, 234, 239);" frameborder="0" height="385" width="640"></iframe>

You know this is the kind of scenario that might lead to a social revolution, right?

When more and more people start talking about it, including experts, well... I just can't wait. I'm trying to figure out the attitude of the Pope (for instance) when this thing end up blowing in his face.

So how's that religion of non-belief going? Best I can tell, all you that believe in non-belief do nothing but spread hatred. And don't let the facts get in your way when you respond.

[Augusto]

List of facts:

1. Since the ancient times religion have been causing killings and wars.
2. Religious people still hate homosexuals, other religious groups, atheists, any idea different than what's in their book, sex in general, and so on.
3. Forum members already proved to be nearly impossible to talk peacifully with them: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?50844-Peace-and-understanding
4. The hatred you think we are spreading is the result of religious people suffering when confronted by reality. It hurts because they're mentally ill and because they're unable to recognize this fact.
5. Sorry to tell you, but your book is a manual of hatred, and it would be applied with or without atheists.
6. Atheism is not a religion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8fjFKAC5k

[tailfins]

List of facts:


5. Sorry to tell you, but your book is a manual of hatred, and it would be applied with or without atheists.
6. Atheism is not a religion.



5. Yes., Hatred of sin.
6. Legally, Atheism is indeed a religion. You will find numerous court cases declaring such.

[Augusto]

Sin is a word made up by religion to define a transgression or disobedience against its god's laws.

Many Christians point out that the word's exact translation means 'miss the mark', which wouldn't make any sense because the bible also says that the price of sin is death. Why would a creator torture and kill its creations just for missing the mark?

Sin is not inherently evil. It's just the inadvertent breaking of one or more of a particular deity's rules.

Religious people believe that the force that created us is an individual who has human-like feelings that can be hurt by the things we say, do or even think while we're in this physical world. They don't realize that only egos can be offended. Obviously the Christian god has an ego and an enormous one at that.

Believers believe that early man managed to somehow figure out exactly what this deity's likes, dislikes and will are through some visions, dreams and disembodied voices, and they believe that if we don't do exactly what he wants then he waits until we're dead and then he severely punishes us for putting a dent in his precious plans to gain some extra love and companionship for himself. It seems that this god is rather selfish as well as egotistical.

Why does a wonderful and omnipotent creator need extra love and companionship all of a sudden after being happy for eons and eons? Why if he has so much time on his hands did he feel he had to whip up the world in just six days? Why not instead make it all develop naturally and at its own pace? What was the big hurry? Because all of his angels abandoned him maybe?

That would be no surprise.

A deity who can only get people to love him by making them really dumb (putting them into human form) cannot be a wonderful deity in anyone's language, and a deity who can only forgive people by having his only son brutally mutilated and murdered, not to mention making billions of ordinary humans suffer and die over thousands of years, can only be described as profoundly psychotic and deranged.

And Christians are so indoctrinated that they believe that this is love just because the bible says it is. Anyone who can still think clearly can plainly see that Christianity is totally insane and that the Christian god strawman is himself the very definition of sin.

Humans are not sinners. Humans break divine laws for the same reason they break state laws. They are stressed - they're in a hurry - they don't think that the law applies to them. In the case of divine laws they usually do it out of stupidity, ignorance or adventurousness. This is human nature. Why should humans be prosecuted just for being human? We are a young race and we are young at heart. That's the way we were created. We learn through our mistakes but if we're constantly threatened with punishment then all we learn is how to be good slaves.

Sin is one of the things that will get a Christian/Muslim into hell. Getting into hell requires little effort other than doing something different to what your religion/deity has told you to do.

There are basically two things that will get you into hell.


1.- Choosing to believe or do other than what your church/bible/koran has told you to believe or do (in other words thinking for yourself)
2.- Not accepting your God's son as your saviour (Christianity)
Any decent, well intentioned, intelligent, free thinking, independent and self responsible individual can easily end up in hell without any problem.

Going to heaven is easy too but in a different way. You don't have to do much to go to heaven, only three things.


1.- Accept Jesus as your savior (Christianity)
2.- Be very obedient
3.- Believe everything you're told by your church/bible
It requires little intelligent thought. Basically you just have to train yourself to be as obedient as a trained dog. It doesn't require very many specific acts of good will either.

According to religious leaders the most valuable human qualities considered by God are total faith and belief, unquestioning obedience, and fear of authority and the unseen. Most other human qualities are apparently relatively useless to God. It's a funny coincidence that those were the very same qualities that were also much liked by those who used and traded slaves in the Middle East around 2000 years ago when the scriptures were written.

We are told that God gives us total unconditional love and yet he continues to place huge conditions on us and our future. It doesn't sound much like unconditional love at all. It sounds more like a former middle eastern dictator.

At least 'you know who' didn't make you burn and suffer for eternity.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_18.htm

[Gunny]

Sin is a word made up by religion to define a transgression or disobedience against its god's laws.

Many Christians point out that the word's exact translation means 'miss the mark', which wouldn't make any sense because the bible also says that the price of sin is death. Why would a creator torture and kill its creations just for missing the mark?

Sin is not inherently evil. It's just the inadvertent breaking of one or more of a particular deity's rules.

Religious people believe that the force that created us is an individual who has human-like feelings that can be hurt by the things we say, do or even think while we're in this physical world. They don't realize that only egos can be offended. Obviously the Christian god has an ego and an enormous one at that.

Believers believe that early man managed to somehow figure out exactly what this deity's likes, dislikes and will are through some visions, dreams and disembodied voices, and they believe that if we don't do exactly what he wants then he waits until we're dead and then he severely punishes us for putting a dent in his precious plans to gain some extra love and companionship for himself. It seems that this god is rather selfish as well as egotistical.

Why does a wonderful and omnipotent creator need extra love and companionship all of a sudden after being happy for eons and eons? Why if he has so much time on his hands did he feel he had to whip up the world in just six days? Why not instead make it all develop naturally and at its own pace? What was the big hurry? Because all of his angels abandoned him maybe?

That would be no surprise.

A deity who can only get people to love him by making them really dumb (putting them into human form) cannot be a wonderful deity in anyone's language, and a deity who can only forgive people by having his only son brutally mutilated and murdered, not to mention making billions of ordinary humans suffer and die over thousands of years, can only be described as profoundly psychotic and deranged.

And Christians are so indoctrinated that they believe that this is love just because the bible says it is. Anyone who can still think clearly can plainly see that Christianity is totally insane and that the Christian god strawman is himself the very definition of sin.

Humans are not sinners. Humans break divine laws for the same reason they break state laws. They are stressed - they're in a hurry - they don't think that the law applies to them. In the case of divine laws they usually do it out of stupidity, ignorance or adventurousness. This is human nature. Why should humans be prosecuted just for being human? We are a young race and we are young at heart. That's the way we were created. We learn through our mistakes but if we're constantly threatened with punishment then all we learn is how to be good slaves.

Sin is one of the things that will get a Christian/Muslim into hell. Getting into hell requires little effort other than doing something different to what your religion/deity has told you to do.

There are basically two things that will get you into hell.

1.- Choosing to believe or do other than what your church/bible/koran has told you to believe or do (in other words thinking for yourself)
2.- Not accepting your God's son as your saviour (Christianity)


Any decent, well intentioned, intelligent, free thinking, independent and self responsible individual can easily end up in hell without any problem.

Going to heaven is easy too but in a different way. You don't have to do much to go to heaven, only three things.

1.- Accept Jesus as your savior (Christianity)
2.- Be very obedient
3.- Believe everything you're told by your church/bible


It requires little intelligent thought. Basically you just have to train yourself to be as obedient as a trained dog. It doesn't require very many specific acts of good will either.

According to religious leaders the most valuable human qualities considered by God are total faith and belief, unquestioning obedience, and fear of authority and the unseen. Most other human qualities are apparently relatively useless to God. It's a funny coincidence that those were the very same qualities that were also much liked by those who used and traded slaves in the Middle East around 2000 years ago when the scriptures were written.

We are told that God gives us total unconditional love and yet he continues to place huge conditions on us and our future. It doesn't sound much like unconditional love at all. It sounds more like a former middle eastern dictator.

At least 'you know who' didn't make you burn and suffer for eternity.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_18.htm

If you're waiting on me to read a wall of words that aren't even yours, don't hold your breath. Cut n paste jobbers are wimps who don't believe in anything.

[red state]

Like many believers, most non-believers are content to keep their beliefs to themselves. In the case of Gnostic and Augusto, I think we're looking at mental illness. Not joking here. I really think they're both "off" by a wide margin.


Both abnoxious Christian & Aurgustive are wrong, ignorant of fact and extremely poor debaters (if you call what they do "debating". I believe I've seen enough to click the IGNORE button on ALL KNOWING AUGUSTO

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yeah, truth is I didn't want to respond. There, I admited it...!

But, I guess after so much insistency, I owe you an answer. Okay, but I want to make clear that you're almost 100% not going to be satisfied with my reply, simply because of your particular situation. So, you will not accept my argument and you will want the discussion to keep going. I will not. I did not like how the whole forum reacted and I want this thread to die.

Okay...?

Well, here I go:

Let me start with a useful link with arguments against the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Now, the fundamental argument is that there is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence, and if we investigate the origin of faith we only find idiotic fables. So, there is absolutely no legitimazy behind the idea. It's like discussing the possibility that Zeus, Horus or Thor exist.


Here are two more links for you:
http://www.nairaland.com/1150005/library-best-40-atheist-arguments
http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

I didn't read those articles but I think they should be good to answer all your questions. However, I'd like to encourage you to keep investigating and to keep an eye on the REAL issue, which is in the OP.


Leave Thor out of this. I fought Thor ages before mankind was ever born. He defeated me (Tyr) with his mighty hammer.
Thus condemning me to this mortal life. I tried to bribe Loki to steal that hammer but forgot even Loki can not pick it up.
Don't mess with Thor or else you will get hammered. :laugh:-Tyr

[Gunny]

Leave Thor out of this. I fought Thor ages before mankind was ever born. He defeated me (Tyr) with his mighty hammer.
Thus condemning me to this mortal life. I tried to bribe Loki to steal that hammer but forgot even Loki can not pick it up.
Don't mess with Thor or else you will get hammered. :laugh:-Tyr

Mjolner. His hammer's name is mjolner.

[Augusto]

I do like the nordic version of heaven (lots of alcohol, food and women) from which the islamic version created a weaker one (14 virgins or something for each man to enjoy).

[Gunny]

I do like the nordic version of heaven (lots of alcohol, food and women) from which the islamic version created a weaker one (14 virgins or something for each man to enjoy).

We aren't going to get along, are we? So let me guess, you're some wannabe without the bloodline, right? Probably saw the Avengers and thought it was great.

"I like the Nordic version of Heaven". Yet you got a Roman bust as an avatar and a perversion of the Augustus Caesar for a name.

[Voted4Reagan]

I do like the nordic version of heaven (lots of alcohol, food and women) from which the islamic version created a weaker one (14 virgins or something for each man to enjoy).

So you acknowledge Heaven in the Nordic Pagan Religion?

So you're not an Atheist after all... a true atheist doesn't admire the Afterlife of a Religion.

You're just a drive-by flame-baiter.... as many have already said...

You as an Atheist will never see Valhalla...

Or do you really believe and just play an Atheist to incite people?

I am now guessing you just play at it....

[Augusto]

I am actually Satan tempting you to get your soul. I need the souls of christians from this forum to build an army and start a new war against the armies of Jehovah, which recently allied with the souls of Mormons and Budish (both were true religions in the eyes of Jehovah).

Quick, time is running out. Join me and together we will ruin everything that is good, and we will twist people's mind into madness so they hate the only and supreme King of Kings who was, is and will be...!

Stupid fuck, you're stupid, you know it and you're not even ashamed of it.

[Voted4Reagan]

I am actually Satan tempting you to get your soul. I need the souls of christians from this forum to build an army and start a new war against the armies of Jehovah, which recently allied with the souls of Mormons and Budish (both were true religions in the eyes of Jehovah).

Quick, time is running out. Join me and together we will ruin everything that is good, and we will twist people's mind into madness so they hate the only and supreme King of Kings who was, is and will be...!

Stupid fuck, you're stupid, you know it and you're not even ashamed of it.

Please note everyone how the Pseudo-Intellectual/ and Pseudo-Atheist resorts to name calling and profanity when he is caught falling out of his script.

hardly the intellectual science based position of a higher reasoning Atheist.

now run away Augie.... you're done here....

Odin himself just had Thor drop Mjolner on you... And we'll RAGNAROK the house in your defeat!!

[Gunny]

So you acknowledge Heaven in the Nordic Pagan Religion?

So you're not an Atheist after all... a true atheist doesn't admire the Afterlife of a Religion.

You're just a drive-by flame-baiter.... as many have already said...

You as an Atheist will never see Valhalla...

Or do you really believe and just play an Atheist to incite people?

I am now guessing you just play at it....

You could ask Mr Deep Thought this:

Isn't atheism a belief? THIS is where playing semantics with ME doesn't work. Atheism is a belief in not believing in a Supreme Being. Call Him what you want.

In the end, belief = religion and your religion is no better than mine. And I'm not the one trying to prove mine.

[Voted4Reagan]

You could ask Mr Deep Thought this:

Isn't atheism a belief? THIS is where playing semantics with ME doesn't work. Atheism is a belief in not believing in a Supreme Being. Call Him what you want.

In the end, belief = religion and your religion is no better than mine. And I'm not the one trying to prove mine.

Seeing he acknowledges the existence of Valhalla... It is safe to assume he is not an atheist...

Just anther Troll

[Augusto]

It's funny how religion is such of a damaging doctrine that could easily repeat history if we let it to. This kind of irrational bullying reminds me the trial on Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science, conducted by the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic church.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7532&stc=1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

It's pretty much the same thing that happened to Jesus in the Gospels: He discussed religion and a lot of people hated him for that.

Fortunately enough, this is just a forum, so I'm not afraid of being imprisoned for life or crucified by irrational non-christian, deluded bullies.

[Gunny]

It's funny how religion is such of a damaging doctrine that could easily repeat history if we let it to. This kind of irrational bullying reminds me the trial on Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science, conducted by the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic church.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7532&stc=1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

It's pretty much the same thing that happened to Jesus in the Gospels: He discussed religion and a lot of people hated him for that.

Fortunately enough, this is just a forum, so I'm not afraid of being imprisoned for life or crucified by irrational non-christian, deluded bullies.

You and your mental illness are still here, huh?

But you nailed it. You aren't afraid because "this is just a forum". Why do you think you need some imaginary "irrational non-christian , deluded bullies?" And please DO reconcile one with the other: "this is just a forum" yet somehow there are bullies .....

You came here telling us. Nobody sought you out to tell you what to think.

[Max R.]

Do not forget that these guys likely believe in the return of Jesus.

They likely pray for the rapture nightly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFx7WFVP1FI

Regards
DL
Again, like most of your posts, you are only guessing since most posts here have been more about the fallacies and errors in your posts, like I'm doing now, and not about their personal beliefs.

You, OTOH, have clearly posted you believe in nothing yet won't flatly state you are an atheist. Why the lie? Why not come clean and tell the truth?

[Augusto]

Actually, you're wrong. I've been visited many times by two of your newest christian branches: Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.

And by the way, this thread started with me offering some information I found and continued with forum members asking questions and offering their view on my posts. So even if your brain hurts and you feel like crying, this is still a forum for debating and offering different points of views.

I understand that you don't actually have a point of view, and that you and other foks started a non-christian trashy attitude, which does nothing but destroying the little dignity you might have had, further proving my point, since I predicted this outburst and was expecting it eitherway.

I do not have any problem with that. I can play whatever game you want me to play, but it would be wise that you shout your mouth and go hide instead of further embaracing yourself with DUMB posts and ridiculous attempts of intimidation.

Maybe you should ask the administration to bann me, since you seem so desperate to deny reality. If I go away, somehow you must be right. It doesn't make sense but that's exactly what you want and... fuck common sense! You just want this thread to dissapear, since you don't even have any will power to stop reading.

:laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

So how's that religion of non-belief going? Best I can tell, all you that believe in non-belief do nothing but spread hatred. And don't let the facts get in your way when you respond.

Hey, now, you're treading on Noir with that one, and he's been consistently civil with everyone on the boards for as long as he's been here.

[DragonStryk72]

Actually, you're wrong. I've been visited many times by two of your newest christian branches: Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.

And by the way, this thread started with me offering some information I found and continued with forum members asking questions and offering their view on my posts. So even if your brain hurts and you feel like crying, this is still a forum for debating and offering different points of views.

I understand that you don't actually have a point of view, and that you and other foks started a non-christian trashy attitude, which does nothing but destroying the little dignity you might have had, further proving my point, since I predicted this outburst and was expecting it eitherway.

I do not have any problem with that. I can play whatever game you want me to play, but it would be wise that you shout your mouth and go hide instead of further embaracing yourself with DUMB posts and ridiculous attempts of intimidation.

Maybe you should ask the administration to bann me, since you seem so desperate to deny reality. If I go away, somehow you must be right. It doesn't make sense but that's exactly what you want and... fuck common sense! You just want this thread to dissapear, since you don't even have any will power to stop reading.

:laugh:

13 pages, and you are still incapable of debate. All that I have seen is that you either lob insults, or runaway from the debate, only to repeat your early point as though no one has said anything. You have only wiki to assemble your straw shield that you hide behind, and anytime you are given a chance to respond in a manner of your own opinion, you just find a way to copy/paste or duck it.

From all appearances, you, like Gnostic, are an intellectual coward, incapable of true, reasoned debate. You've given no response to my own points,either, which did a point by point rebuttal of your post. It was just that post that you said you quite, that we win, and then just did a rehash of your op, with no proof of it, once again .

[DragonStryk72]

It's funny how religion is such of a damaging doctrine that could easily repeat history if we let it to. This kind of irrational bullying reminds me the trial on Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science, conducted by the Holy Inquisition of the Catholic church.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7532&stc=1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

It's pretty much the same thing that happened to Jesus in the Gospels: He discussed religion and a lot of people hated him for that.

Fortunately enough, this is just a forum, so I'm not afraid of being imprisoned for life or crucified by irrational non-christian, deluded bullies.

Well, it is sort of, in the point that Galileo was being a rather braying ass. The pope at the time had been his friend, and would've let Galileo off with no more than a stern finger shake, but Galileo just could not stop being a giant dick on the most public stage of the day. He basically out and out demanded the pope accept his finding on the face of it, and there was no two ways about. Even then, the pope would've let him off with an apology, but again, Galileo just dug in, and refused to budge even an inch. He was certainly a genius, but he was a stubborn arrogant a-hole

While he was in the hands of the Inquisition, he was under house arrest, on his palatial estate to await trial.

The Inquisitors that were the real terrors of the time belonged to the Spanish Inquisition. The reason for specifying Spanish was because the church wanted to be sure they were separate of the actual church policy. At the time, there had just been the breakaway of the Church of England, and the church was afraid of the Spanish creating a church of Spain.

Really, there are a lot of misconceptions about the Inquisition periods.

[Augusto]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7535&stc=1

[Augusto]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7536&stc=1

Blasphemous, lying arrogant bastard, we are not arguying with you...!

WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE ARE RIGHT...!!!

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

5. Yes., Hatred of sin.



Brave.:cheers2:

Romans 9:13 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9:13&version=KJV)
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Do you not fear what the lord will think of what is implied about him by your statement?



Regards
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Again, like most of your posts, you are only guessing since most posts here have been more about the fallacies and errors in your posts, like I'm doing now, and not about their personal beliefs.

You, OTOH, have clearly posted you believe in nothing yet won't flatly state you are an atheist. Why the lie? Why not come clean and tell the truth?

I admit to doing some guessing because most here just bitch and never really speak of their beliefs.

Just like here. You did not correct or informed but just bitched.

A to your last, I have stated that am a Gnostic Christian exactly as the name implies.

Regard
DL

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Actually, you're wrong. I've been visited many times by two of your newest christian branches: Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8kOHPnqXG0


Regards
DL

[Gunny]

Again, like most of your posts, you are only guessing since most posts here have been more about the fallacies and errors in your posts, like I'm doing now, and not about their personal beliefs.

You, OTOH, have clearly posted you believe in nothing yet won't flatly state you are an atheist. Why the lie? Why not come clean and tell the truth?

That would be taking a stand.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That would be taking a stand.

Try to keep up.

Rea post 196.

Or just look at my name.:laugh:

Regards
DL

[Gunny]

Try to keep up.

Rea post 196.

Or just look at my name.:laugh:

Regards
DL

Well. Just for YOUR precious little ass I'll try to not have an allergic reaction because Lord knows it's all about you. I get ahead of your ass the second you open your piehole without having to say a word. THEN you get dunked. I've been ahead of you since your first moronic thought.

[DragonStryk72]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7535&stc=1 Translation: "I have no argument, so I'll post a meme."


http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7536&stc=1

Blasphemous, lying arrogant bastard, we are not arguying with you...!

WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE ARE RIGHT...!!!

Translation: "I have no argument, so I'll post a meme"

[Drummond]

Yeah, truth is I didn't want to respond. There, I admited it...!

An inability to, as a point-by-point refutation ? Or, because you primarily wanted to go on a troll-fest ?


But, I guess after so much insistency, I owe you an answer.

Whether you tackle what I post, or run away from it, is your choice to make. But I have a right to comment when I DO see you running away.


Okay, but I want to make clear that you're almost 100% not going to be satisfied with my reply, simply because of your particular situation. So, you will not accept my argument and you will want the discussion to keep going. I will not. I did not like how the whole forum reacted and I want this thread to die.

You're a poor loser ? Your problem, not mine. You got greater and far more coherent replies than you expected. Naturally you'd be unhappy, and want to stop playing a game which you're losing.


Okay...?

Well, here I go:

.. Congratulations !!


Let me start with a useful link with arguments against the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God


You rely on others' work a whole lot, eh ? Anyway, I skimmed that lot, and just basically found points of view. So, what value are they ?


Now, the fundamental argument is that there is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence, and if we investigate the origin of faith we only find idiotic fables. So, there is absolutely no legitimazy behind the idea.
I think I've already countered that ?

Rehashing ...

Science has determined that the Universe had a beginning-point.

Everything we know about it, can test, observe, deduce, positively screams 'DESIGN'. Therefore, an intelligence in creating it and shaping its outcome was involved.

Whatever DID create the Universe has to be outside of it .. as a builder of any machine must be outside of his/her original design, and outside of its own specific passage through time. Indeed, the very passage of time IS a function of the Universe, therefore, anything outside of it is outside of time. And of the other parameters which define the Universe's functionality.

Summarising the properties that must be true of the 'designer' ...

1. Outside of time.

2. Outside of space.

3. Immensely powerful, more so than the creation created !

4. Immensely intelligent, to have managed such a design.

A power, not bound by physical laws, immensely powerful and intelligent. WHAT ELSE CAN THIS DESCRIBE BUT A SUPERNATURAL BEING SO POWERFUL AS TO BE A ... GOD ? WHAT OTHER WORD COULD EVER SERVE ?


Yes, it is pretty hard to dismiss something you cannot see, like: "Can you prove me there is not an intelligent organism living in the sun?" My argument is that this specie is microscopic. Too tiny to be seen by the most advanced microscope, and because the sun is also too hot, there is not a chance that you could go there to conduct any kind of experiment.

All of this argument concerns a grounding in the known physical Universe. But the creator of the Universe must be beyond all of that. Your argument is non-applicable.


So, in the case of God, or any random god, we simply see the origin of religion, the many different religions that existed through history and the absurdity of them all to conclude God is nothing but an enhanced reflexion of man, ruling everything. To me, this is a strong evidence that there is no god.

.. OR .. simply that God made Man in His own image. And/or .. that Man has a racial memory, or some other inbuilt instinct, planted there by God. How can you show me that any of this is untrue ? If you cannot, your argument goes nowhere.


The next evidence (or lack of) lies in the supernatural. All gods have in common the ability to do magic stuff or to control nature. Since we don't see anything like what is described in the Bible and other religious books, and since we already know why it rains, and we understand the mechanics behind the day and the night, volcans, seasons and son on, there is no need to think there is something human-like somewhere in the universe.

The one does not disprove the other, and since that's so, your argument, again, goes nowhere. But again, you're making the fundamental mistake of grounding everything in the known physical Universe, and the Universe's Creator must be outside of it.

It's a little like trying to define the existence or otherwise of fire, by discussing water. Both DO exist, but neither is like the other, and neither has the properties of the other.


The last argument is simplicity. Long ago we were struggling to understand natural phenomena such as rain, seasons, volcanic activities, the "firmament", and so on. We didn't know anything. As we came to understand many things we found no direct evidence of a deity at work. Thigs were happening "by their own". Even earth came to exist by itself. Even our galaxy and every single planet and star came to exist by itself, by chance, without any divine intervention.

Utterly ridiculous, but more importantly, KNOWN to be untrue !! The process of planet formation is well understood. The process of galaxy formation is now reasonably well understood, since in the Universe, all its stages are observable depending on where you look. These things don't happen 'on their own', but as caused by other phenomena.

But not all is known. 'Dark matter' isn't understood. What brought the Universe into being, isn't understood. What came 'before the beginning' is something solvable ONLY by abandoning what's known about the Universe's physical laws, since they only exist AS a product OF the Universe. Before the Universe, THEY DID NOT EXIST.

What ELSE but a God could be responsible for the creation of A Beginning ?


As we progress in our understanding, we find out everything started in an explosion. A very simple thing from which the universe came to exist... so, of course we are shocked. It's weird and we are entitled to be curious: What was before that? What caused the explosion?

EXACTLY ...


Nevertheless, it is RIDICULOUS to assume you have the answer, simply because you are brainwashed by religion. Evidence points at reality becomming increasingly simple as we go back in the history of existence. Just one explosion, the Big Bang. That's the only thing responsible for everything. Yet, theist want us to assume this last stuff was created by a super intelligent being who wated us to exist.

BEFORE the Big Bang, the Universe, and ALL we understand of existence ITSELF, did NOT exist. Yet, SOMETHING CREATED EXISTENCE. What else but a God could have possibly managed that ?? YOU tell ME.


The idea of a god is simply ridiculous. It doesn't really solve anything. It claims that a simple explosion came from a complex being science cannot study, and it also claim this complex, human-like being is eternal, as saying: "Stop searching, and start worshipping", well that's incredibly dumb.

No, it's the only truly reasonable course available.

And no 'claims' are made, as such. It's simply eminently logical, to the point where nothing else is possible, for reasons I keep on repeating to you. Besides, you're wrong. Any 'simple explosion' just destroys matter. The Big Bang did exactly the opposite. And that 'complex being' was complex enough to design the Universe, then to create it. Hardly a 'simple' task .. ?


I trust you now know why science doesn't pay attention to religious people.

Of course I do.

They're embarrassed. They cannot address religion. They can devise no test to prove or disprove it. It is, in fact, beyond their highly limited capacities to touch the subject meaningfully, to give any 'verdict' on it. It's totally beyond their competencies to try.


The idea of a god goes against evidence. Evidence points at an incredibly simple first cause, a simple scenario, not a complex and eternal deity for you guys to worship.

Rubbish. The Universe had an origin-point: science has at least managed to determine THAT much. What came BEFORE that origin-point, before time even existed ? SOMETHING must have, because the Universe WAS CREATED. But it couldn't have been 'material', since everything 'material' is WITHIN the Universe ! Cue a supernatural Being ... as the ONLY answer there IS.


Also one cannot avoid asking many questions to this "theory" of an undefined god, like: what was he doing during eternity before creating existence and what is he doing now? Imagine yourself, as a god, in an eternal nothing... wow, that sounds dumb. Now imagine yourself after creating existence, only that you must assume you also don't move a finger to do shit. Wow! That's pretty lame, almost like if this being were a hedious excuse of mentally ill people to justify their worship in what we still don't know.

You're just not grasping this, are you ?

Time is a function within, a property of, THE UNIVERSE. God is beyond such limitations, and is not at all subject to them .. that must follow, for reasons I'm getting tired of explaining !! So every and all arguments you want to advance suggesting, even hinting at, the passage of time FOR God are a nonsense ... unless you want to claim that God is subject TO the Universe's limitations and parameters ?

But no Creator of the Universe possibly could be .. YET .. the UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.


Here are two more links for you:

http://www.nairaland.com/1150005/library-best-40-atheist-arguments
http://backyardskeptics.com/wordpress/arguments-against-gods-existence/

I didn't read those articles but I think they should be good to answer all your questions. However, I'd like to encourage you to keep investigating and to keep an eye on the REAL issue, which is in the OP.


Immaterial (.. as indeed, God is ..).

The real issue certainly is in the OP. Identification with a supernatural Being which must exist, must always have existed, which always will exist, because time doesn't define His beginning or end. A supernatural Being of the most immense power possible, intelligence ditto, mightier than its Creation, yet utterly beyond science's capacity to define, quantify, prove or disprove, address ... AT ALL.

Question: what ELSE but religion can be available to Mankind, to address and identify with such a Being ?

Therefore ... religion is the greatest act of sanity known to Mankind.

[Max R.]

I admit to doing some guessing because most here just bitch and never really speak of their beliefs.

Just like here. You did not correct or informed but just bitched.

A to your last, I have stated that am a Gnostic Christian exactly as the name implies.

Regard
DL
The only person here you are fooling is yourself with those claims.

Secondly, claiming to be a Gnostic Christian is like claiming to be Christian; it covers a lot of territory as to specific beliefs.

Lastly, claiming to be a Bishop goes well with a person suffering grandiose delusions and, possibly Bipolar Disorder.

http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/bipolar-symptoms/grandiosity.htm
GrandiosityWhat is grandiosity?
Grandiosity occurs when a person has an inflated self-esteem, believe they have special powers, spiritual connections, or religious relationships.38 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
When grandiosity is severe, the person may be delusional about his or her capabilities.20 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
What does it feel like to be grandiose?
A grandiose individual feels unrealistically powerful, important, and invincible. These beliefs are frequently accompanied by feelings of euphoria and intense pleasure. Nothing seems impossible and every problem has a solution.
The person may feel an urgent need to initiate projects or activities.
How can I recognize this symptom?
To others, the person's behavior seems pompous, boastful, and exaggerated. Observers may perceive the grandiose individual to be conceited and condescending.
The person's speedy pursuit of dreams, goals, and projects may seem impulsive.
Set goals and initiated plans may be unrealistic.29 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
How does grandiosity impact life?
Bipolar disorder symptoms affect all aspects of life. A grandiose person may appear to be rude and boastful. Naturally, this makes it difficult to make new friends and current relationships are strained.
When a person is grandiose at work, they may find it difficult to be productive. Grandiosity is frequently accompanied by decreased judgment.
For example, a person may believe they have special insight that their employer does not have. The person may feel obliged to share their break-through knowledge with their employer and disagree with management decisions. The felt passion and urgency lead to inappropriate arguments.
The fallout of grandiose behavior, especially when compounded with other symptoms of bipolar disorder, can be devastating. The high risk behavior, inflated self-esteem, and delusions may lead to job loss, expulsion from school, and terminated relationships.
Sometimes, the pursuit of unrealistic ideas involves financial investment. The person may suffer significant financial losses.8 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)

[jimnyc]

possibly Bipolar Disorder.

http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/bipolar-symptoms/grandiosity.htm
Grandiosity

What is grandiosity?
Grandiosity occurs when a person has an inflated self-esteem, believe they have special powers, spiritual connections, or religious relationships.38 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
When grandiosity is severe, the person may be delusional about his or her capabilities.20 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
What does it feel like to be grandiose?
A grandiose individual feels unrealistically powerful, important, and invincible. These beliefs are frequently accompanied by feelings of euphoria and intense pleasure. Nothing seems impossible and every problem has a solution.
The person may feel an urgent need to initiate projects or activities.
How can I recognize this symptom?
To others, the person's behavior seems pompous, boastful, and exaggerated. Observers may perceive the grandiose individual to be conceited and condescending.
The person's speedy pursuit of dreams, goals, and projects may seem impulsive.
Set goals and initiated plans may be unrealistic.29 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)
How does grandiosity impact life?
Bipolar disorder symptoms affect all aspects of life. A grandiose person may appear to be rude and boastful. Naturally, this makes it difficult to make new friends and current relationships are strained.
When a person is grandiose at work, they may find it difficult to be productive. Grandiosity is frequently accompanied by decreased judgment.
For example, a person may believe they have special insight that their employer does not have. The person may feel obliged to share their break-through knowledge with their employer and disagree with management decisions. The felt passion and urgency lead to inappropriate arguments.
The fallout of grandiose behavior, especially when compounded with other symptoms of bipolar disorder, can be devastating. The high risk behavior, inflated self-esteem, and delusions may lead to job loss, expulsion from school, and terminated relationships.
Sometimes, the pursuit of unrealistic ideas involves financial investment. The person may suffer significant financial losses.8 (http://www.bipolardisordersymptoms.info/references.htm)

I have bipolar, and luckily for me the bold is about all that falls in my direction from this list. But I know quite a few others that have almost all of these symptoms. Sometimes I feel the euphoria and will work on things all day long, believing that I can fix crap that I can't. :) Then again, I may have inappropriate arguments at times too. And I'm very impulsive.

But I'm not a bishop or pope. Nor a movie star, or a mythical god. Not a leader and not anything great. Just a slightly perverted guy from NJ is all. :)

[Max R.]

I have bipolar, and luckily for me the bold is about all that falls in my direction from this list. But I know quite a few others that have almost all of these symptoms. Sometimes I feel the euphoria and will work on things all day long, believing that I can fix crap that I can't. :) Then again, I may have inappropriate arguments at times too. And I'm very impulsive.

But I'm not a bishop or pope. Nor a movie star, or a mythical god. Not a leader and not anything great. Just a slightly perverted guy from NJ is all. :)
My BIL is paranoid schizophrenic and medicated. He's doing as well as can be expected. My oldest sister (I'm overall oldest) is an untreated bipolar living in the streets. She blew through a $500K divorce settlement in less than five years and now occasionally calls relatives asking for money. I've been able to convince all to not enable her, which giving her cash would do. Donate to a shelter, which they have, but no direct money. She has a standing offer to live at the house where my wife and I have my BIL in a room, with only a promise to not call the police with bullshit claims as the only requirement for her to stay.

People get sick. Bipolarism isn't a weakness anymore than having cancer is a weakness. Like cancer, it's foolish not to seek treatment. A difference being that most people with cancer do seek treatment while those who are mentally ill may not think they are sick at all. My sister is one of those.

[jimnyc]

^^ Agreed. It's not wise to simply use the recommended medicines the doctors dispense. I don't like medications more than the next guy, but it is what it is. Beats the alternative. I would be here thinking I'm a new Bishop! :)

[gabosaurus]

But I'm not a bishop or pope. Nor a movie star, or a mythical god. Not a leader and not anything great. Just a slightly perverted guy from NJ is all. :)

Jeff says you are all of the above. But he removes the word "slightly." :p

[Kathianne]

Has anyone noted that Augusto said, "Goodbye"?

[gabosaurus]

Has anyone noted that Augusto said, "Goodbye"?

One would have to actually read his posts to determine that. Which rules me out.

[Voted4Reagan]

Has anyone noted that Augusto said, "Goodbye"?

yes... the level of anti religious rhetoric has dropped 90%

[Drummond]

Has anyone noted that Augusto said, "Goodbye"?

Yes.

I honestly can't say I'm sorry he's gone (if, indeed, he has). Augusto has has beliefs, and evidently came on here to 'educate' and 'enlighten' us 'deluded' people. He was only interested in debate to the extent that he pushed his beliefs on everyone here, and was completely intolerant to anything or anyone who countered them. When he was in a position of debating weakness, rather than honestly give ground, or concede in any way, he just lashed out with insults.

I was growing tired of his running away from my own posts. Though he did stand his ground finally, in answer to one, he nonetheless ran away before I answered that particular post.

He probably thinks his leaving makes all us 'deluded' people much the poorer for that 'loss'. Personally, I'm inclined to take the opposite view ....

[Max R.]

Has anyone noted that Augusto said, "Goodbye"?
No, I hadn't, but thanks for pointing it out.

Unsurprising behavior on his part; trolls often leave in a huff when they don't get the reaction they were looking for.