Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,415
- 14,307
- 136
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by: Vic
Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|Originally posted by: CKent
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?
I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.
If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.
Do you walk into Burger King and start preaching? Do you quote the Bible to your coworkers? I'm saying it's out of place.Originally posted by: Vic
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
This is Off Topic, prick. Don't like it, don't click the thread.Originally posted by: CKent
Do you walk into Burger King and start preaching? Do you quote the Bible to your coworkers? I'm saying it's out of place.Originally posted by: Vic
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Well said!! Atheist views are based on science, fact and logic. Religious views are based on superstition, fear and ignorance.
There is nothing scientific, fact-based, or logical about believing in something that can never be proven, such as atheism. Atheism is akin to the people who, before Chuck Yeager, were certain that humans could never travel faster than the speed of sound. There were no experiments, no facts, no previous experiences that it could not be done. They simply possessed a negative belief in prejudice. Such is atheism. And yet they hold up science as though science validates them when it does nothing of the sort. Except that, unlike the sound barrier, we will NEVER be able to prove atheism (or theism for that matter) from a scientific basis.
So like I said, who's the bigger nutcase?
Originally posted by: Vic
This is Off Topic, prick. Don't like it, don't click the thread.Originally posted by: CKent
Do you walk into Burger King and start preaching? Do you quote the Bible to your coworkers? I'm saying it's out of place.Originally posted by: Vic
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh...Originally posted by: busmaster11
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: busmaster11
No. Please stop putting your foot in your mouth. You said JESUS meant Jew God. Now explain it.
Christianity is not a greek religion. Its revolves around a JEW who was the Son of God. After He left the earth, the Great Commission began to be fulfilled by people such as Luke, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. Paul preached to the Jews first, for whom as a Pharisee would be natural. They were hardened so he went to the gentiles, including Romans and Greeks, but not exclusively them.
The divinity of Jesus was documently in dozens of gospels written at most, a few decades after his birth. Four of which, believers know are divinely inspired.
Its sad how one can be so enthralled with gnosticism and obscure works and completely deny the sheer volume of manuscript supporting everything from His miracles to his resurrection though so many eye witness accounts. But this only goes to prove my point. no facts or evidence or miracles or anything seen withthe eyes of unbelievers can bring about faith. Faith to believe comes from God - and begins with repentance, brokeness and humility.
Christianity is a Greek religion. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. There are no known Gospels or Epistles that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Look at the Pauline Epistles written to the first churches: Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica are all Greek cities (in Greece, Macedonia, or Asia Minor). The congregations spoke Greek. They were Gnostics. And let's not even go into the Johannine works -- that's pure unadulterated gnosticism.
Sorry, man, this is your faith. You should learn more about it. It was until 325 that the Catholic church deified Jesus.
And I don't see why you should be so offended. If you have so much faith, then you shouldn't need the book.
Are you debating anything I've said, if not, you're just splitting hairs. That, and subtly abandoning your point which I questioned about the name Jesus.
Each of the four Gospels specifically testifies to Jesus's divinity. Each were written WELL before 325 and probably before 70 AD.
So tell me how Jesus was diefied in 325. Or, tell me just which point you disagree on.
Plus, if you think Christian faith is a blind faith independent of the Word, that would be a grave misconception.
No, they don't. Unless you choose to interpret them as such.
Council of Nicea.
The misconception is yours. "The Word" as presented in the Gospel of John is a blatant mistranslation into the English, especially when interpreted in the typical neo-fundamentalist manner. It NEVER mean the Gospels or the Bible (neither of which existed in John's lifetime anyway). The Greek word Logos means the "rational thought" (or "intelligence" if you prefer). The concept of Logos has a considerable history in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Gnostics. It is the power of the mind that expresses itself rationally and creatively. To interpret Logos as the Bible or Gospels themselves is simply ridiculous.
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Right... which world do you live in exactly? Because in the real world religious nutcases go door to to door trying to convert people, organize rallies, become missionaries and generally try to foist their rules on everyone by legislation or intimidation. At the same time, Richard Dawkins writes a book that says "its ok not to be religious", gets a bit of media attention and all of a sudden "atheists are always proselytizing" ?! Wow.
Originally posted by: CKent
Do you walk into Burger King and start preaching? Do you quote the Bible to your coworkers? I'm saying it's out of place.Originally posted by: Vic
What's tech got to do with it? Did the invention of the microchip somehow disprove God?Originally posted by: CKent
You're preaching on a tech forum. Think about that for a moment.
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Well said!! Atheist views are based on science, fact and logic. Religious views are based on superstition, fear and ignorance.
There is nothing scientific, fact-based, or logical about believing in something that can never be proven, such as atheism. Atheism is akin to the people who, before Chuck Yeager, were certain that humans could never travel faster than the speed of sound. There were no experiments, no facts, no previous experiences that it could not be done. They simply possessed a negative belief in prejudice. Such is atheism. And yet they hold up science as though science validates them when it does nothing of the sort. Except that, unlike the sound barrier, we will NEVER be able to prove atheism (or theism for that matter) from a scientific basis.
So like I said, who's the bigger nutcase?
You're the bigger nutcase by far. While science cannot prove atheism it quite easily disproves religion. That's the point here Vic-ey. EVERYTHING you believe has been disproven and yet you still blindly believe it. The Bible didn't happen. PERIOD!!
Want to talk nutcases? You're the poster boy Vic. You're the same as someone who still believes the earth is flat. You're the same as someone who believes that the sun revolves around the earth. You're the same as somebody who still believes that mankind will never fly or harness the power of the atom. But unlike the earthcentric fools, the flat earth fools and the anti-science fools who finally stopped preaching their BS when science proved them wrong, you just can't give it up. Science proves that your view of religion is completely fictional and yet you still believe it. Nutcase doesn't even begin to describe how deeply in denial you are.
Originally posted by: CKent
Originally posted by: Vic
Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|Originally posted by: CKent
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Yeah, and black people are always committing crimes too, isn't that right Vic? Hell if you're going to stereotype, go the whole 9 yards why don't you?
I'm referring to this thread specifically, which is an attempt by a believer to proselytize.
If you're looking for the stereotyping, I suggest you look to your own posts, fsckhead.
The truth hurts eh? Maybe you should think before you stereotype atheists as proselytizing in a thread where a believer is the guilty party jackass.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Well said!! Atheist views are based on science, fact and logic. Religious views are based on superstition, fear and ignorance.
There is nothing scientific, fact-based, or logical about believing in something that can never be proven, such as atheism. Atheism is akin to the people who, before Chuck Yeager, were certain that humans could never travel faster than the speed of sound. There were no experiments, no facts, no previous experiences that it could not be done. They simply possessed a negative belief in prejudice. Such is atheism. And yet they hold up science as though science validates them when it does nothing of the sort. Except that, unlike the sound barrier, we will NEVER be able to prove atheism (or theism for that matter) from a scientific basis.
So like I said, who's the bigger nutcase?
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Right... which world do you live in exactly? Because in the real world religious nutcases go door to to door trying to convert people, organize rallies, become missionaries and generally try to foist their rules on everyone by legislation or intimidation. At the same time, Richard Dawkins writes a book that says "its ok not to be religious", gets a bit of media attention and all of a sudden "atheists are always proselytizing" ?! Wow.
Dawkins does evangelize atheism. Even worse are the people who read his books and expand his statements far beyond his actual views.
Bad news for you, people in this world happen hold different beliefs about most anything and everything. They have the inherent right to speak those beliefs, whatever they may be, without you or anyone else getting your nuts all twisted up.
Neither side is innocent here, so I don't buy your claim to victimhood. We'd all be a lot better if both sides could learn tolerance, and could educate themselves on the actual beliefs of other side, but I'm not counting on that anytime soon. It's sooooooo much easier just to blame the some "opposing" group for everything you think is wrong in the world....
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Well said!! Atheist views are based on science, fact and logic. Religious views are based on superstition, fear and ignorance.
There is nothing scientific, fact-based, or logical about believing in something that can never be proven, such as atheism. Atheism is akin to the people who, before Chuck Yeager, were certain that humans could never travel faster than the speed of sound. There were no experiments, no facts, no previous experiences that it could not be done. They simply possessed a negative belief in prejudice. Such is atheism. And yet they hold up science as though science validates them when it does nothing of the sort. Except that, unlike the sound barrier, we will NEVER be able to prove atheism (or theism for that matter) from a scientific basis.
So like I said, who's the bigger nutcase?
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.
To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.
Originally posted by: Martin
True, except its much easier to speak of atheism if you think all of them are of the stupid teenage rebel atheist variety...
Yes he does. I don't see him posting. If he made a tasteless thread here shoving it down everyone's throat I wouldn't say a thing if you had a problem with it and said so. Denigrating atheists as proselytizers in a thread started by a religious one is ironic though and belies your real beliefs and almost unbelievable bias.Originally posted by: Vic
Dawkins does evangelize atheism. Even worse are the people who read his books and expand his statements far beyond his actual views.
Bad news for you, people in this world happen to hold different beliefs about most anything and everything. They have the inherent right to speak those beliefs, whatever they may be, without you or anyone else getting your nuts all twisted up.
Neither side is innocent here, so I don't buy your claim to victimhood. We'd all be a lot better if both of the radical sides on this particular issue could learn tolerance, and could educate themselves on the actual beliefs of other side, but I'm not counting on that anytime soon. It's sooooooo much easier just to blame the some "opposing" group for everything you think is wrong in the world.... now, be careful!! those evil religionists are coming to brainwash your weak mind!!
Originally posted by: Rob9874
No, you were saying that a tech forum is too smart for God. And that a more appropriate forum should be TrailerPark.com forums, or somewhere that less enlightened individuals participate.
It's funny how men have believed in God for thousands of years. Scholars have written volumes on the subject. Some of the greatest men in the world believed in God. However, some high school and college kids in 2007 are smarter than all of them, just because they got good grades in their science courses. Humorous. People think they have it all figured out.
Proselytizing.Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?
ExactlyOriginally posted by: Martin
True, except its much easier to speak of atheism if you think all of them are of the stupid teenage rebel atheist variety...
Originally posted by: CKent
Proselytizing.Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?
Originally posted by: Garth
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Originally posted by: Vic
Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.
Who's the bigger nutcase? The devoutly theistic or the rabidly atheistic? I'm not sure, especially when beliefs are based off ignorance.
Well said!! Atheist views are based on science, fact and logic. Religious views are based on superstition, fear and ignorance.
There is nothing scientific, fact-based, or logical about believing in something that can never be proven, such as atheism. Atheism is akin to the people who, before Chuck Yeager, were certain that humans could never travel faster than the speed of sound. There were no experiments, no facts, no previous experiences that it could not be done. They simply possessed a negative belief in prejudice. Such is atheism. And yet they hold up science as though science validates them when it does nothing of the sort. Except that, unlike the sound barrier, we will NEVER be able to prove atheism (or theism for that matter) from a scientific basis.
So like I said, who's the bigger nutcase?
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.
To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.
Originally posted by: Garth
Sorry for interjecting, but you've falsely characterized atheism. It isn't a belief in something that cannot be proven. Rather, it is a lack of belief in something which is inadequately evidenced.
To be sure, there are many atheists that irrationally believe things that in principle cannot be confirmed, but these are a subset of atheists, not all of them.
I read your post.Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?Originally posted by: CKent
Proselytizing.Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?
Originally posted by: archcommus
That "Our Lady of Fatima" Wiki entry was damn interesting. Christian/atheist whatever or not, you should give it a read.
Originally posted by: CKent
I read your post.Originally posted by: bamacre
Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?Originally posted by: CKent
Proselytizing.Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?