What would it take for you to believe in God?

[Vic]

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?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


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.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

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.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

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.

 

[sweeper2]

easy.... FAITH

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

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.

This is Off Topic, prick. Don't like it, don't click the thread.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

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.

This is Off Topic, prick. Don't like it, don't click the thread.

Don't read my replies if you don't like what I say, sweetie :heart:

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Vic

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.

Sigh...

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.

The Jews at John's time had the Septuagint, or at least, the Pentateuch. Call it what you want, but it was the scripture from God.

I use the word "Word" interchangeably to refer to the Bible, or God's Word. If you want to split hairs there, count me out. Anyone can copy and paste and pretend they know things they don't.

If you do not believe that all four of the gospels point to Jesus's divinity as widely held, the burden of proof is on you. Please cite your sources.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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 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!!

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

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?

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.

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.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

Uh huh.... this is yet again another ridiculous ignorant rant from you. We had one of these not long ago, like last week, right? I'm not religious, remember? And you're definitely not scientific. Try to keep this mind for the future, before you make yourself look stupid again.

BTW, the topic is GOD. Not religion. However, religion is specifically an institution of human beings (akin to government I would say) and, as such, science can definitely prove that religion DOES exist. Observation being a primary tenet of science and all, they need only look at all the various religions in the world. God OTOH can neither be proven nor disproven by science, nor do legitimate scientific circles even care. It's a non-issue to real scientists.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.


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.

Wow, aren't you the fscking asshole? :roll: :|

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.

What am I guilty of?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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....

First, as I've said before the ultimate point of the book is reason versus faith. When you say he evangelizes atheism, you become one of "the people who read his books and expand his statements far beyond his actual views". Although the quote doesn't fit in entirely - most of you people didn't really read his book (there is only one).

Second, what is this new "right" not to be offended and to not have one's views questioned?

Third, your snide little comment clearly implies you think atheists are just as bad if not worse than religious people. OK, then you won't mind playing a little game: for every instance of a large group of religious people proselytizing I find, you'll reply with something just as bad coming from a large group (feel free to normalize!) of atheists, without confusing secularism for atheism. You game? I mean if you think "Neither side is innocent" you shouldn't have any trouble. Or is this an unfair game because one side is much worse than the other?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

True, except its much easier to speak of atheism if you think all of them are of the stupid teenage rebel atheist variety...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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...

Indeed. As well there seems to be a plethora of that kind on the internet, and they're not shy about making their ignorance known, either. Simply visit any religious chat room...

 

[CKent]

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!!

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: 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.

Bring back the days of beheading people who disagree with us!

No, seriously... sorry you read it that way, that's not what I meant at all. I was only saying a tech forum - like Burger King and your job - is an inappropriate place to evangelize, and that by going ahead with it anyway he made himself look like a loony.

Jim: "Hey Bob, nice weather we're having, eh?"
Bob: "You're going to Hell Jim, repent!"
Jim:

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

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...

Exactly

 

[archcommus]

That "Our Lady of Fatima" Wiki entry was damn interesting. Christian/atheist whatever or not, you should give it a read.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent
Then misery must cause proselytization. Though I doubt you'd agree.

Quite the contrary, I agree completely. That's why atheists are always proselytizing.

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.

As usual, I disagree. Atheism is the disbelief in God. That is the definition of the word.

And to be sure, I am definitely referring to the "strong" atheists who have reared their ugly heads in this thread, screaming that science affirms their irrational disbelief when it does not, sorry.

 

[RapidSnail]

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.

But atheism is much more than not believing in God; it is a belief that there is no God: something that cannot be proven. (Likewise, I could say that Christianity is not believing that there isn't a God, instead of the belief that there is one.) You see, you cannot disprove God, therefore you must have faith that he doesn't exist. Isn't that the very reason why many of you throw around "Pastafarianism" and the "FSM"?

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

 

[bamacre]

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.

I have been interested in that story ever since I heard of it when I was young. You are actually first to even mention it, in all of the 11ty billion pages of this thread.

IMO, it is very interesting because there were so many people who witnessed it, and because it happended over such a long period of time. There a quite a few books on the subject.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: bamacre
What am I guilty of?

Proselytizing.

Oh? And how did you come to that conclusion, or rather assumption?

I read your post.

Oh?

Can you be more specific?