Christians hate atheists for their freedom?

It makes sense if you think about it.  Christians have this all-powerful authoritarian figure telling them how to live out their lives.  Not only do you get punished horribly for stepping out of line, but this authoritarian is omni-present and will always catch you.  There is literally no freedom to do anything.  The most amazing thing is they don't realize this, or don't admit it.  This God does a better job than Big Brother could ever possibly dream.  But deep down in their hearts, they know they are being watched and controlled and it makes them angry to see those of us who are free.  Thus, they lash out at us.  Please do no fault them for it though, imagine how quickly you would become like that if you knew there was someone watching and condeming you every time you masturbate.

I think we should help our christian brethren escape this oppressive fascist called God.

>>120

Huh?

>>118
humanity is not compatible with YUO
Fixed

>>121
If there is going to be a "purge" then Xel should go first. Unchristian I know, but a lot of us still don't have this turn the other cheek stuff down pat. It looks like the last time you boys started "purging" would have taught you something.

>>123 I'm talking about christianism, which is a mental virus. If you think that incrementally pushing that out of human culture is the same as purging christians then I am the least of your problems.

>>123


Oh, ok, thought you were talking about me. Listen; christians are pretty bad, but sitting here and pressing the issue when it comes to who believes in what makes you just as bad as the Christians, I don't care if you're coming in the name of science or not.

Science > Jesus ok, that is why Jesus is dead but science is still alive.

Year 0 A.D. Jesus tried to do a 4pool zergling rush against Science, but Science stacked its SCV's and defended successfully. Jesus was behind economically, and Science still had more scvs and  built marines and medics going SK terran.

Jesus tried to build lurkers but Science had scan and moved around crushing all the expansions Jesus tried to make while irradiating all the lurkers, then overran Jesus' main.

Jesus typed "gg" and bowed out. He tried to hax0r by reviving in 3 days for a rematch, but he lost when Science bunker rushed him with marines and SCV's and he was gone for good.

GGNORE NEWB CHRISTIANS

I forgot to add KEKEKEKEKE btw

>>124
  Do you really think that you can have any effect on a belief system that has shaped every aspect of Western culture for two thousand years? Go get em, tiger.
 

^--- Damn, you're right.

Now that I think about it, we shouldn't even have bothered to prove that the Earth revolved around the sun either. I mean, did that retard Galileo <i>really</i> think that he could have any effect on the belief that the Earth was the center of the Universe, a belief system that had shaped every aspect of Western Culture for 2000 years? Go get 'em, tiger.

  Who's faith was shaken by this marvelous discovery? He had an effect on the authority of the church, it did not change any one's faith in God.

>>130 Which is exactly what I prefer. Faith is one thing - believing the bible/church and their many retarded lies, litanies and subpar prose is another thing.

>>124
You sound an awful lot like those kids from Jesus Camp, on the authoritarian scale at least.

>>131 Despite our human failings, faith continues.

>>133 I have nothing against faith, because it is obviously useful for some and I probably have faith even though I can not precise its subject or define it. But faith has no intrinsic value, and faith in wrong and/or irrational and irrelevant things is sad.

>>116
in science, there are things we do not know. christianity has the answers to things science does not know, because it makes shit up. we DO NOT KNOW how the universe began. Big bang actually has evidence to support it; unlike creationism.

there is no proof god exists. there is no eveidence to support the existance of god; therefore whatever reason you have to believe in god is irrational.

quit saying that arguing cannot change the way people think. I was once a theist; then I started to question the things I was being told. Once I learned about the scientific method, I found that there was NO EVEIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS "GOD EXISTS" ; with the scientific method, when you find no support for a hypothesis, you either 1.change the hypothesis, or 2. reject the hypothesis.

Think about this for a second. God is just a way for people to get rich. what do they do at masses? pass collection baskets to everyone. if the priest doesnt supposedly get it, then where does it go? and how does the priest support his family if he has to work at the church? all religions throughout history have just been to play with humans basic nature so some people can get rich.  

>>135
Again, I believe the Big Bang and not Creationism. I believe in Theistic Evolution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Deism

No evidence =/= irrational. Irrationality means without reason, and reason can exist without evidence. I've already stated my reasons.

I never said arguing cannot change the way people think. I said arguing about the existence of god will not change the way people think. Changing your views on this happens from personal revelation and research, like what you did, and I aswell, however I went from Lutheranism to Deism), not in a heated argument where the oppostion is calling you inferior, irrational, and just plain idiotic. Again, there isn't evidence for or against God, and there probably never will be. If you think that something doens't exist until proven, well that's your belief. I mostly believe that too, with an exception here because I think God is outside of science and space and time, so we will never be able to prove its existence.

>>137
research, lol.

>>137 Well, basing your faith on the probability that god is hiding somewhere behind a Higgs-particle or in dark matter is just silly. If it exists it is running out of hiding places *and* mediums through which it can have any sway over our empirical reality. So, you should be an agnostic. At least a theoretical one. "Theistic evolution"... When will theists realize we've dissected basically everything on the planet?

Xel, quit posting with a name. comment not tripworthy. comment not nameworthy. makes you easier to flame.

There is no evidence for evolution or big bang.  Every shred of "proof" is simply a lie.  There are way too many gaps in the fossil record for there to be an accurate representation of evolution through that.  And there is no way for information to be created; genes cannot simply be "added", only modified.  And big bang is lacks any sort of proof aside from a few things that might hint it's not total bullshit.  Most scientists don't even believe in big bang anymore.

There are infinite things which can neither be proven or disproven, therefore we have no choice but to believe only in things which are proven.

>>141
Oh I see, so we don't know what happenned billions of years ago. It was neither god or the big bang.

>>142
Proof denies faith. The whole point of faith is that you can't be sure ie THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE

>>141 Them's fighting words baby. Sauce (people of the robe who has rubbed your prostate don't count)?
>>141 "And there is no way for information to be created; genes cannot simply be "added", only modified." Anonymous please. Like capitalism, life takes the path of least resistance.  DNA was best suited for the job, so it can be found in everything from ancient bacteria to furries to human beings. Are all theists this nutty or am I having a nightmare?

>>145
DNA is slightly different from parent to offspring, if the mutation means the offspring is more likely to pass on it's genes then the mutation is added to the species as future offspring with the gene pass it throughout the species.

>>146 And that fact is diametrically opposed to my statement how? It's not like it showed up one day and then started mutating during reproduction.

>>139
"Well, basing your faith on the probability that god is hiding somewhere behind a Higgs-particle or in dark matter is just silly. If it exists it is running out of hiding places *and* mediums through which it can have any sway over our empirical reality."
That's not what I'm "basing" my beliefs on, its only part of it. I'm not saying god is hiding somewhere in the universe, I am saying it is outside of the universe. For example, if this were a 2D universe, it could've been made by a 3D god who was above and outside of it. People in the universe would only be able to look in two dimensions, therefore they would never "find" god. Likewise, in this 3D universe, god could be 4 dimensional and could've created the universe from outside of this. Or, if there are more dimensions in this universe, god is n+1 dimentions, or n+x for that matter.

 "So, you should be an agnostic. At least a theoretical one. "
ag·nos·tic
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I am agnostic, I have already said this at least once before ITT. You don't seem to fit the first definition.


""Theistic evolution"... When will theists realize we've dissected basically everything on the planet?"
Again, can you even fucking read? Here is what I linked to:

"Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason, rather than on faith or revelation. Most Deists believe that God does not interfere with the world or create miracles. Some deists believe that a Divine Creator initiated a universe in which evolution occurred, by designing the system and the natural laws, although many deists believe that God also created life itself, before allowing it to be subject to evolution. They find it to be undignified and unwieldy for a deity to make constant adjustments rather than letting evolution elegantly adapt organisms to changing environments.

One good example of this is the recent (December 2004) conversion to deism of the former atheist philosopher Professor Antony Flew, who now argues that recent research into the origins of life supports the theory that some form of intelligence was involved. Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argues that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved", though he subsequently retracted this statement in an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005.

Some Deists contend that God ceased to exist after setting in motion the laws of the universe."


Up until the last sentence, that is what I believe. Now stop generalizing me as a believer in intelligent design.

>>141
way to fail high school biology

>>147
disregard that, i suck cocks

>>148 We live in 4 dimensions as well, but we see one 3-dimensional segment at any given moment. There are six left is the consensus. And when it has run out of places to hide we will drag it into the streets and beat it to death.
Okay, so a deist just needs to feel as if there is a slim possibility that daddy will show up one day and kiss it good? Well, okay. As long as you're not a member of some family-first organization I have nothing to complain about. I'm still happy about this though http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/living/religion/15682280.htm

I have a friend that is christian, and my parents are devout christians. I used to be a christian.
I'm now Agnostic. Having god shoved down your throat every day sucks. I also read many articles when I was a christian about the nonexistance of god. I then realized just how much the christian religion/bible is based on stories. Thats all they are. No one can prove or disprove god, So I decided to become Agnostic. My life really opened up when I broke free from Christianity. Neat things happened. Pushing any religion on anyone, especially someone you don't know is bad.

>>151
 
Xel, just shut the fuck up. You're seventeen. You're too young and too stupid to have a dual belief right now. You lack the clarity that comes with experience. There are plenty of old men who once felt like you and have changed their stance completely...and with good reason.

The idea of you, a child, coming at anyone as an expert on anything remotely metaphysical is so funny that I fudged your mom's panties, which I wore at her request. (Hey: It happened!)

You're a clever brat, but sometimes you come off like Paris Hilton trying to explain why she deserves the nobel peace prize.

Jesus Christ was like Elvis. When he came about, everyone loved him, cause of his swinging hips and ways of saying stuff.
Everyone loved him, except husbands and people who hated queer people.

And just like Jesus, when he died, everyone mourned for him. Just like the news about the death of Elvis. Some sick bitches can't forget about him, because he was so different, so new that they kept believing in something dead. Like singing or listening to his songs, either case, love songs or hymns. They believed in him so much some decided to believe in other stuff like aliens bring Elvis back to life. Some people believe the blood of Jesus lives amongst us today too. Some totally discard both ideas, because that was back then and can never be now. Like the 80's, that can never be anymore and should be respected as a period of time.

Now all you Christians, Muslims, and whatever religion should go listen to Elvis as the far superior King of Rock, and fuck yourselves cause he's dead.

>>148 I believe we do not need the notion of a superdimensional intelligence ever having acted upon ours. It is a possibility but we should concern ourselves with our reality and dismiss others as intellectual and emotional weaklings. Also, the complexity of life is impossible to quantify as too complex to have accumulated without arbitage. This is speculation.
>>155 Good old agism and failed attempts at troll. My belief is not dual either - I accept the possibility of an arbitrary intelligence acting on my world, but I do not think the notion should be entertained or respected. We do not need to act or think with the notion in mind because there are too many degrees. The very idea that humans need this sort of idea to operate and feel safe is an insult.

>>157
Summary: Xel is a pseudo new-age, dogmatic, humanist.

>>158 I prefer sceptic, reality-based agnostic libertarian with innovist and communitarian preferences, valuing non-financial freedoms over financial ones. Randomly throwing a bunch of monikers you freedom-fighter wannabes consider 'uncool' is not effective.

>>157

"Good old agism and failed attempts at troll. My belief is not dual either - I accept the possibility of an arbitrary intelligence acting on my world, but I do not think the notion should be entertained or respected. We do not need to act or think with the notion in mind because there are too many degrees. The very idea that humans need this sort of idea to operate and feel safe is an insult."

LOL "Agism". Call it whatever you want, kid. Whatever gets you to sleep at night. Just keep in mind that your reply to my statement was a trite attempt at outing a troll. To assert that you might be far too brash and naive to grasp some concepts that are entirely dependant on respective human experience isn't a call to arms. You think it is, because you're a bratty child, your replies and your inability to retort with any degree of certainty is my proof positive of your intellectual immaturity.


Case in point: >>159

>>160 Certainty? I'm certain that I have no ground on which to call bullshit on those that accept the possibility that a sentient entity we can not find as of writing once acted upon us and still does. It's when these people (christians, muslims and other unpredictable types) think and say we should act with this notion in consideration that I reach for sharp objects in the vicinity. We do not need to fuss about the jurisdiction and judgement of a super/sub-dimensional being when we have empirical, logical, solvable and very worldly problems in this dimension - many of which are caused by these irrational bastards in the first place.
As for your knee-jerk attempt to dismiss my self-nomination as haphazard and incomplete, I proud myself of being a non-convinced human being who look at facts before aligning my actions. How old are you? What have you experienced that allows you to thump your chest? Does a more varied and lengthy relationship with the environment intrinsically make for a more credible and balanced organism? Is theoretical conviction even desirable and a positive trait in a complex reality? I know I'm being a precocious little motherfuck who'll probably be having different opinions in the future - but since your alpha-male calumny holds little value to me I figured we could dance a little.