Thankfully God created Fark so that we may all have this discussion.....

Yup, because nothing says tolerance like religious fanatics.

Good thinking, subby.

BTW, you do know that agnostic does not mean undecided or unsure right? It means it is impossible to prove, and thus unknowable.

CrazyCracka420
Weird, every girl I've been with had a much more intense orgasm from vaginal sex, than oral. Sucks for you

I've never seen somebody so openly admit they suck at oral sex.

Erythros: The disease that has claimed the lives of more people than any other is religion.

Horseshiat.

The disease that has claimed the lives of more people than any other is malaria or the flu (yeah, by number they beat the bubonic plague), depending on your period of history. The largest culprit, by organized number, is the entire goddamn insect world.

In terms of human causes of death over the whole expanse of our limited history? IT'S JUST US! Not religion, not politics, just "human nature" which is a bullshiat term for "animal response".

Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that. Until "we" (royal we - humans) started forming social bonds we didn't have any inherent contract to not do another harm.

Wolves will still kill other wolves if they're pissed off. Gorillas will kill the children of females they want to fark so they have to get pregnant again. We're no better. Actually, we're arguably worse, because we have the talent to mass murder. More importantly, we have the will and the capability. No other mammal does. You have to get down to the insect kingdom to find an example of proper pre-planned genocide outside of humans.

Hell, that you can even post tripe like this:

If you believe in a GOD, but reject organized religion then you are a Religious Skeptic Theist

\Theist
\Religious Skeptic

Is evidence enough that religion has done something for you, because the planet wouldn't be anywhere near organized enough without it. Nor without politics, but that's just a natural extension of religion. And religion is just a natural extension of tribalism, etc., on down the chain to a single family unit.

Religion is just an organizing tool, and a powerful one at that. It isn't necessary, but whatever replaces it will be just as powerful because it fulfills the same need: organization.

Most Humans only think on the individual level. Religion epsecially.

For example, 1 billion people on this planet right now don't have enough food,
they're going hungry/starving/etc..

None of that has anything to do with God. But has everything to do with
economics, government, war, logic, reason, etc..

I'm open to evidence that supports how god is behind world-wide events
such as those. But beyond anecdotal indivual stories like "He helped
me to choose whether to have that operation or not through prayer!",
there's nothing. Because there isn't any evidence that God exists
only individual faith.

I'm still open to any evidence, but even my own faith won't hold up
when some Afghani insurgentbelieves that firing a rocket at me is going to get him into heaven,
while I believe that me firing my m-16 back at him will get me into heaven as well. (although it's the kindof stuff my parents, parents preacher, grandparents etc.. email and write to me)

It's 50/50 if I'm not religious... but based on the situation I'm in it's 50/50 anyways since if I'm fully religious and believe in god, the muslim guy might be right and I'm believing in the wrong one.

belowner:
Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that.

You are proof positive that because you are a religious fanatic you are also violent.. Thank you for proving my point :-)

Is evidence enough that religion has done something for you, because the planet wouldn't be anywhere near organized enough without it. Nor without politics, but that's just a natural extension of religion. And religion is just a natural extension of tribalism, etc., on down the chain to a single family unit.

Religion is just an organizing tool, and a powerful one at that. It isn't necessary, but whatever replaces it will be just as powerful because it fulfills the same need: organization.

Religion has not done anything negative to me.

Through thorough examination of various religions, their origins, beliefs, teaching and motivations led me to the conclusion of the reality that religion is just what I stated. A MAN-MADE system of somebody's belief of what worship of a God should be like.

If only religion served the need for organization then it would be fine, but unfortunately there are way too many fallacies logical and historical within every religion to justify allegiance within any particular one.

The religious fundamentalists are more into the religion then they are into God and so they forget the reason they wanted to become religious in the first place or they joined the organization for the wrong reasons. Possibly only for organization at which point you need a day-timer and some introspection.

For example: If you consider yourself Christian, tell me when the first bible was written, and how many times it was translated/transcribed? How many times the words were slightly changed during transcription to reflect the transcriber's beliefs? Which version of the bible you read, and how many changes were made, even from just the Old King James version to your present version?
How many times the bible mentions that if the word is changed/altered/deleted the alterer will pay severely?
And finally.....Why do you follow a bible that is so vastly different from the original?
If you truly want to do what is best in the eyes of God, understand what you are practicing, and why you do what you do. Take a good hard look at your religion, you may not like what you see.
Or, you can be a lemming.

\Not said in anger
\God would not have it any other way

Erythros: You are proof positive that because you are a religious fanatic you are also violent.. Thank you for proving my point :-)

Goody, a point by point argument by someone who hasn't read to the end! And a stereotypical assumption to boot!

I will go ahead an quote all of this so you think you've said something important, but you didn't read a damn word I said:



Through thorough examination of various religions, their origins, beliefs, teaching and motivations led me to the conclusion of the reality that religion is just what I stated. A MAN-MADE system of somebody's belief of what worship of a God should be like.

If only religion served the need for organization then it would be fine, but unfortunately there are way too many fallacies logical and historical within every religion to justify allegiance within any particular one.

The religious fundamentalists are more into the religion then they are into God and so they forget the reason they wanted to become religious in the first place or they joined the organization for the wrong reasons. Possibly only for organization at which point you need a day-timer and some introspection.

For example: If you consider yourself Christian, tell me when the first bible was written, and how many times it was translated/transcribed? How many times the words were slightly changed during transcription to reflect the transcriber's beliefs? Which version of the bible you read, and how many changes were made, even from just the Old King James version to your present version?
How many times the bible mentions that if the word is changed/altered/deleted the alterer will pay severely?
And finally.....Why do you follow a bible that is so vastly different from the original?
If you truly want to do what is best in the eyes of God, understand what you are practicing, and why you do what you do. Take a good hard look at your religion, you may not like what you see.
Or, you can be a lemming.

You're an animal. Animal response. It's an organized animal response, and it throws out signals, all the proper ones, to people you hope will come to your aid.

I am not one of those people.

Everything past "for example" that you wrote is based on an assumption you want so you can write the rest of your drivel.

You haven't actually addressed anything I wrote. You dismissed my hypothetical threat of killing you and then went into some nonsense about being a Christian.

At no point did you answer or even address base human nature. You didn't even bother addressing the nature of man. Instead, you ask me about the farking bible.

Meh. I had higher hopes.

Most first-world countries are barely religious, while the poorest and most poverty stricken third world countries are deeply religious.

United States is the notable exception, since while Church and State are seperate, Religion still plays a major role in our country.

But still the statement that "Religion promotes organization" is laughable at best. Maybe if there were only one religion, but there are literally thousands and thousands of variations... and fairly common theme between them is that whatever your variation is is 100% right and all the other variations should be stoned to death (i.e. see modern day middle east).

Rockstone: "At any rate, Einstein was a physicist. He is no more an authority on the existence or nonexistence of deities than my cat Spooky."

OK, you say Einstein can not comment authoritatively on god.

Rockstone: "And god has never regenerated the lost limb because we don't know the mind of god to begin with. And it isn't always things that might've healed- all the time you hear of people getting better from things that should have killed them."

But you can!?

Lagrange: "I'm sure it's been said, but I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there's no way to be sure that God exists."

There is a way to be certain that its all make-believe: the claims are self-contradictory and there is no empirical evidence.

Belowner

The saddest thing is that your religious fanaticism clearly shows in your unwillingness to be tolerant of others' beliefs and shows just how closed-minded you truly are.

Wolves will still kill other wolves if they're pissed off. Gorillas will kill the children of females they want to fark so they have to get pregnant again. We're no better. Actually, we're arguably worse, because we have the talent to mass murder. More importantly, we have the will and the capability. No other mammal does. You have to get down to the insect kingdom to find an example of proper pre-planned genocide outside of humans.

There are so many things wrong with this statement I really didn't feel like writing a book of a response to it. You mix a few mini truths together to come to some random assumption about human nature which is for the better because we as higher mammals have religion?
Me thinks not.

Based on your argument then,
-all horrific crimes throughout history are committed by atheists, or those without organized religion, like gorillas or insects.

I figured the fallacies of your argument were so glaringly obvious I wouldn't need to respond and embarrass you , but you forced my hand.

Religion probably had a hand in preventing me from bashing your skull in because I thought you said something stupid. Back in the day, I'd kill you and that would be that. Until "we" (royal we - humans) started forming social bonds we didn't have any inherent contract to not do another harm.

Moral people do not need a religion to stop them from injuring a fellow human.

You're an animal. Animal response. It's an organized animal response, and it throws out signals, all the proper ones, to people you hope will come to your aid.

Another fallacy of argument is to attack the presenter rather than stick to the argument at hand. This is juvenile.
I am secure enough in my research and beliefs that I need not have others come to my aid. I seek only to show people another door to a realm of possibilities accessible only with an open mind.

At no point did you answer or even address base human nature. You didn't even bother addressing the nature of man. Instead, you ask me about the farking bible.
At no point did YOU truly address human nature.

The For Example was just that, an example. It is addressed to the forum and not a personal attack.
Get over yourself.
Let me spell this out so a fourth grader can understand;
If you are religious, delve into the history and inner working of your religion.
Ask questions. Understand why rules are there, why rituals are performed and wonder if this is truly what God wants you to do.

I have on numerous occasions engaged Jehovah's Witnesses in biblical and religious discussion. There is no group better trained to sell their religion than the Jehovah's Witnesses. I enjoy opportunities to open the minds of those willing to truly be a better person in the eyes of God. By being a better person I mean by placing the focus on God, NOT your religion.

If you do not believe in God then just be a good person.
If you have a religion, why? This is an answer you should have. If not, then why have a religion? If your answer is "Because it is the right/best/only/first/oldest/family/etc religion." Then you may be misguided.

Nature just is, biatches.

You'll believe whatever the fark gets you through the day, you have no choice. You will believe some stuff that suits you, because that's what your brain does. As an apparent result of stimuli and initial conditions, it forms conceptual relationships that channel thought. So your thoughts are channeled and in turn change the conceptual relationships, like a river forming a canyon or something except like, a lot faster and stuff.

Free will is a misnomer.

Individualized cost / benefit heuristic maximizing what's learned to be maximized with all sorts of feedback loops and projections. It's sort of free will, sort of probability.

But I'm very open minded about it.

As if I have a sort of have a choice.

Linux_Yes: Last One Left: What if I am convinced that I'm close-minded?

then you have reached the next level, grasshopper.

i lol'ed

thanks

lordargent: See, you have to take the cartesian product of EVERYTHING.

I mean, what about the people who think god was really just a super powerful alien that seeded the planet?


Thiest. Just with a different conception of god. After all god already can be meant to include pagan/neopagan concepts like forest spirits, gaia, etc., and ancient Greek/Roman gods include those that were born human and ascended to godhood for their deeds, etc.

Ah yes a breakthrough in the science of oxymoronology

I have to wonder one thing about these threads...

If this was a high class, and I'd be the teacher and be asking for the kids to raise their hands, how many would?

1) who's trolling on purpose

2) who's really convince that they "know the truth", are the "right" ones, and are correct about life, reality, etc.

It's easy to point out that whomever didn't raise their hands on either would be the third group.



WayToBlue: Yup, because nothing says tolerance like religious fanatics, regardless of belief system.

Good thinking, subby.

BTW, you do know that agnostic does not mean undecided or unsure right? It means it is impossible to prove, and thus unknowable.

FTFY

high class ... high school class


_{/forgive me for it is morning}

imfallen_angel: Let's see..

FTFA:

People who are less confident in their beliefs are more reluctant than others to seek out opposing perspectives, researchers said today.

While it's not news that like-minded people often flock together, the new review suggests we actively keep our blinders on when opposing views are nearby.

Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

Close-minded individuals opted for information that went along with their views 75 percent of the time.

"Close-minded people are very certain and dogmatic in their views, and generally believe that there is a single correct point of view," said study researcher Dolores Albarracin, a psychology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The implication is that you have a group of people who would only seek to confirm their points of view, resisting all evidence to the contrary via avoidance of exposure."



This described the Fark militant Atheist more than agnostic people.

So who funded this study? The institute of NoshiatSherlock?


You should miz up your word usage, and writing style better.

Kerpal32...

EWreckedSean

"Agnostics aren't unsure in their beliefs. They are just really sure that god might exist, and he might not. We just accept the possibility that either could be true."

Yeah, pretty much sums it up for me. Though I think if there is a god, it's not as petty and retarded as people make it out to be. You know, sending people to Hell to get poked in the ass for all eternity by a little red guy with a pitchfork for listening to the wrong music, wearing the wrong clothes, getting a divorce, having a few beers, jerkin' the gherkin, or anything like that. That just seems to be making the all-knowing, supreme master of the universe you're worshiping into a dumbass. And that strikes me as silly. But you know, if that's what turns ya on...

Plus, I figure it is what it is, so why lose sleep over it?

Tartha De Tear: First off, you missed that I was just being funny. DON'T MISS THE FUNNY.

Looks aren't everything, dahling. =)

Tartha De Tear: Second, I'd really like to read the paper to which you refer.

There's not (yet) a single paper with all of that.

The central paper is the one on "simple"; presumably, you've had the background to go from set theory (ZF-based von Neumann integer construction) to Chomsky grammars and the arithmetical heirarchy.

The next step is the trivial observation that the information theory concept of Mutual Information provides a resolution to the Riddle of the Ship of Theseus. (Floridi is right to be thinking about information entities, but since he approaches the problem like a stereotypical liberal arts major pretty much all the ethics he infers is bogus.) The non-obvious (and previously non-trivial) bit is how this gives a Green Knight for Hume's guillotine. Very loosely, if there is no "keeping same" in the goals, then existence of change implies probability as time→∞ of change to develop some degree of such goal, and there will be such a goal; if there is such a goal... then there is such a goal. Ergo, development of a natural tendency for "ought" to include trying to maximize the chances of having something somewhat the "same" as you around in the future.

Take that with you as statistical mechanics goes to thermodynamics and thermodynamics to evolution. The next step (seemingly trivial but unpublished) is how this Green Knight on board the Ship of Theseus gives rise to each ethical axis of the five Haidt and Graham have identified.

The main pothole along the way is the still unanswered question of how the thermodynamic arrow of time ties to the relativistic axis of time. For going past the current endpoint, I think the ideas associated with constructals look promising for more advanced developments in the future.

imfallen_angel: in the end, there is only one truth.... nobody has all the answers



Erythros: There is no group better trained to sell their religion than the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Iggy's boys?
They're not trained to be as pushy in the sale, I suppose, but better trained to do the sale when they encounter an interested customer.

abb3w: but better trained to do the sale when they encounter an interested customer.

This guy is a prime example

abb3w: There's not (yet) a single paper with all of that.


_{/what I think of your trolling...}

imfallen_angel: I think

guyinjeep16: You should miz up your word usage, and writing style better.

KiltedBastich...

Kliffoth: /raised Catholic

are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?

Rockstone: In line of apostolic succession, our Catholic lineage is traced back to Peter, one of Jesus Christ's Disciples.

I see. And were these apostles able to dub new apostles or did that authority have to come directly from a certain person?

do all of your popes have this direct authority given to them in each and every case?

also the IDW vs Catholicism thread may be a good place to start, and see if you find anything that strikes you particularly odd, then perhaps you still would like to defend your position?

(...if you've had enough time to think...)

/unfortunately I've lost the link to that IDW vs catholic thread
//could some kind farker throw me a bone?
///the one where I really went into details instead of my drive-by jabs

imfallen_angel: 2) who's really convinced that they "know the truth", are the "right" ones, and are correct (but are still learning) about life, reality, etc.

raises his hand

/with a slight modification
//i hope you don't mind
///"right" until shown better...

Erythros: \Religious Skeptic

of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

/what's your religion of choice?

I drunk what: of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

I'm sure you have evidence to show which religion you feel is correct.

I drunk what: are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?


Nope. I never really believed. Even when I was little the whole concept of God seemed unreal to me. Transubstantiation sounded downright stupid even to my 5 year old mind. I tried to believe because my parents wanted me to.

Until I was about 15 I couldn't shake the guilt though, I felt guilty for my unbelief, I thought something was wrong with me.

Why must religions that preach love and tolerance (supposedly) use fear and guilt to control their followers? You'd think if the message was that great people would stay faithful without all that...

I drunk what: Kliffoth: /raised Catholic

are you still catholic?

if not, can you indicate the main items that turned you away?

Rockstone: In line of apostolic succession, our Catholic lineage is traced back to Peter, one of Jesus Christ's Disciples.

I see. And were these apostles able to dub new apostles or did that authority have to come directly from a certain person?

do all of your popes have this direct authority given to them in each and every case?

also the IDW vs Catholicism thread may be a good place to start, and see if you find anything that strikes you particularly odd, then perhaps you still would like to defend your position?

(...if you've had enough time to think...)

/unfortunately I've lost the link to that IDW vs catholic thread
//could some kind farker throw me a bone?
///the one where I really went into details instead of my drive-by jabs

Wow I drunk what. first of all: yes, the Pope when he died was replaced with new ones, however- the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies.

Stop insulting the Catholic Church- you are just insulting yourself! All Christian Religions come from the Catholic Church, all Christian denominations split from it, changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine. *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

Rockstone: the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies

I am able to find bishops in the Bible, perhaps you can show me the passages that describe the role and authority of "popes", "cardinals", "nuns", "priests", etc...

/not the jewish priests, btw

Rockstone: Stop insulting the Catholic Church-

wouldn't I need to start?

Rockstone: you are just insulting yourself!

I'm not catholic and never was.

Rockstone: All Christian Religions come from the Catholic Church Jesus The Christ

FTFY

/though yours was one of the oldest
//and easily the most influential

Rockstone: all most Christian denominations split from it

or "returned to the original", if you will

Rockstone: changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine.

such as:

-infant baptism
-selling of indulgences
-torturing people to "convert" them
-worshipping Mary
-worshipping the Pope
-calling priests "father"
-teaching that men are able to forgive sins
-idol worship
-forbidding marriage
-the suppression of true scientific advancement
..
..
so on and so forth, etc...

/just to name a few

Rockstone: *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

so if you were to restore these books you would then be able to justify all these things?

please feel free to copy-pasta any scripture you feel is pertinent from any of your books...

/*cough* *cough*

the Mormons have suggested that the Bible was incomplete and submitted their supplemental material, do catholics (who participate in similar behavior) agree with this?

should we hold creed books-material to be equal (or in many cases superior) to the divinely inspired Word of God?

maddogdelta: I'm sure you have evidence to show which religion you feel is correct.

Take your pick (new window) kiddies

I drunk what: Rockstone: the bishops vote for the next pope when he dies

I am able to find bishops in the Bible, perhaps you can show me the passages that describe the role and authority of "popes", "cardinals", "nuns", "priests", etc...

/not the jewish priests, btw

Rockstone: Stop insulting the Catholic Church-

wouldn't I need to start?

Rockstone: you are just insulting yourself!

I'm not catholic and never was.

Rockstone: All Christian Religions come from the Catholic Church Jesus The Christ

FTFY

/though yours was one of the oldest
//and easily the most influential

Rockstone: all most Christian denominations split from it

or "returned to the original", if you will

Rockstone: changing whatever they desired for whatever reason they could imagine.

such as:

-infant baptism
-selling of indulgences
-torturing people to "convert" them
-worshipping Mary
-worshipping the Pope
-calling priests "father"
-teaching that men are able to forgive sins
-idol worship
-forbidding marriage
-the suppression of true scientific advancement
..
..
so on and so forth, etc...

/just to name a few

Rockstone: *Cough* Martin Luther and his blatant removal of the Deuterocanonical books *Cough*

so if you were to restore these books you would then be able to justify all these things?

please feel free to copy-pasta any scripture you feel is pertinent from any of your books...

/*cough* *cough*

the Mormons have suggested that the Bible was incomplete and submitted their supplemental material, do catholics (who participate in similar behavior) agree with this?

should we hold creed books-material to be equal (or in many cases superior) to the divinely inspired Word of God?


Wow, what you just argued was all typical protestant bull- here is why.

-The Catholic Church baptizes infants because Christ wills it. He must will it because He said, ``Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.' And one can not come to Christ without Baptism, surely you agree.

-You mean alcoholic beverages? Jesus's First miracle was turning water into wine.

- The Protestants did the same, and one or two torturing someone is not a reflection on the whole of the church.

-We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

-We do not worship the pope, stop pulling things out of your rear.

-Catholics call their priests ``Father' because in all matters pertaining to Christ's holy faith they perform the duties of a father, representing God. The priest is the agent of the Christian's supernatural birth and sustenance in the world. ``Father' is a title which does not conflict in the slightest with Matthew 23:9. Christ forbids the Christian to acknowledge any fatherhood which conflicts with the Fatherhood of God--just as He commands the Christian to ``hate' his father, mother, wife, and his own life, insofar as these conflict with the following of Christ. (Luke 14:26). But Christ does not forbid Christians to call His own representatives by the name of ``Father.' Catholic priests share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (not a human priesthood), and their sacred ministry partakes of the Fatherhood of God.

-Catholics see several advantages in confessing their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. First, there is the Church's guarantee of forgiveness, which private confessions do not provide; secondly, there is the sacramental grace which private confessions do not provide; and thirdly, there is the expert spiritual counseling which private confessions do not provide. With the Apostles, Catholics recognize that the Church is, in a mysterious way, the Body of Christ still living in the world (Col. 1:18); therefore they recognize that God will receive their pleas for mercy and forgiveness with far greater compassion if their pleas are voiced within the Church, in union with the Mystical Body of His Divine Son, than if they are voiced privately, independent of the Mystical Body of His Divine Son.

-We do not worship idols.

-Catholic priests do not marry because, while Christ does indeed approve of marriage for the Christian clergy, He much prefers that they do not marry. He made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up ``all' to follow Him, saying, ``And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.' (Matt. 19:27-29). The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: ``He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.' (1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, matrimony is good-- Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church--but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments--that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law--under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.

-the suppression of true scientific advancement. Protestants are Just as Guilty.

The Mormons might have pulled the material from thin air, the Deuterocanonicals came from the greek Jewish Bible that the apostles used. You removed them because you didn't think purgatory existed etc. etc. The Deuterocanonicals ARE the divinely inspired word of god.

/Yes you are insulting yourself, because your Christian Denomination came from the Catholic Faith.

Main reference: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html

The Believer: "I have magical beans."
The Atheist: "You do not have magical beans."
The Agnostic: "No one has all the answers."

Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.


No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

Kliffoth: Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.


No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

You are spewing bull and lies. Jesus is mentioned much more in our prayers.

We do not worship her, we admire her and venerate her, we believe she is queen of the universe and was born without original sin, but we do not believe she was a goddess. We do not pray to her like a god, we ask her to pray for us. The first part of the Hail Mary is directly from the bible.

Kliffoth: No

is that all you disagree with?

/i've already done this before (still waiting for someone to find the link for my Vs. Cats thread)

I feel a picture show coming...

/they are worth a thousand words

I'm a very liberal atheist. I am currently reading The Purpose-Driven Life and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck each day. Know your enemy.

I think this thread is gonna terminate before you find it.

I drunk what: is that all you disagree with?

I fail to see what you're getting at.

Rockstone: Kliffoth: Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.


No, Catholics worship her. Mary is mentioned more than Jesus in Catholic prayers.

When you sin the priest tells you to say 'Hail Marys' not 'Forgive me Jesus's'.

Early Christians needed a Goddess figure to convert the Pagans.

You are spewing bull and lies. Jesus is mentioned much more in our prayers.

We do not worship her, we admire her and venerate her, we believe she is queen of the universe and was born without original sin, but we do not believe she was a goddess. We do not pray to her like a god, we ask her to pray for us. The first part of the Hail Mary is directly from the bible.


So you don't worship 'God's Wife' the 'Queen of the Universe' even though you pray to her constantly? So what it's part of the Bible, it's still a part that's repeated ad nauseum.

What about that whole part of the Bible where it says to go into your room and pray to God in private? Why do Catholics confess to priests then? Oh yeah, because it's earier to control someone when you know all their dirty little secrets. Ask the Scientologists.

I drunk what: Erythros: \Religious Skeptic

of all of them or just the incorrect, hypocritical, misguided, corrupt or political ones?

/what's your religion of choice?

\Religious Skeptic of ALL religions.
\Raised Catholic
\Father converted to Jehovah's Witnesses (Don't even get me started) and tried in earnest to convert me.

I do not subscribe to any "religion" for many reasons, some which have been pleasantly pointed out in this thread, although there are many many more which would require the time of a 4 year degree in true religious studies to get through.

swarms909: I'm a very liberal atheist. I am currently reading The Purpose-Driven Life and listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck each day. Know your enemy.

You can add Hannity to the list of "reporters" who put more of their own "spin" to relevant issues to increase their following of sheep.

Rush is the epitome of a self-centered boss of all bosses right wing capitalist and Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity all aspire to be like him for the sake of one day hoping to make the money he makes.
In any given week if you listen carefully enough you can find them contradicting themselves from the week prior just to have a "Strong Opinion" on something that will wrangle in more sheep.
Know Your Enemy

Erythros: Based on your argument then,
-all horrific crimes throughout history are committed by atheists, or those without organized religion, like gorillas or insects.

OK, this statement alone is so farking stupid, so lacking in argument, that I conclude you're farking retarded.

Go nuts. You aren't interested in having an argument. You're interested in bleating whatever you think your eventual thesis paper is going to be about.

I'm not talking about religion, asshole. Is that direct enough for you?

I drunk what: Take your pick (new window) kiddies

A holy book being authoritative because it says so isn't evidence. Check out "Kissing Hank's Ass" ^{(^)}. Just because the list says it's perfect doesn't make it perfect.

I'm sure you have actual evidence, right? Otherwise, you claim is complete bull.

Rockstone: I think this thread is gonna terminate before you find it.

you may be right

/usually there is some lurker that will help me out...
//I guess no one remembers THAT thread where we totally covered all this stuff
///ah well lets do it again

Kliffoth: I fail to see what you're getting at.

while your response showed that somebody was paying attention, I was slightly disappointed that of all of Rockstone's "rebuttals" you only found a discrepency with that one particular item..?

maybe after a quick lil picture show you may see what i'm getting at...

Erythros: \Religious Skeptic of ALL religions.
\Raised Catholic
\Father converted to Jehovah's Witnesses (Don't even get me started) and tried in earnest to convert me.

I do not subscribe to any "religion" for many reasons, some which have been pleasantly pointed out in this thread, although there are many many more which would require the time of a 4 year degree in true religious studies to get through.

well no wonder, after be presented with those choices

I'm surprised you didn't have a Mormon mother trying to convert you as well, just to "seal it"

so have you given up on Christianity altogether, or just feel like there isn't a flavor that is even close to what it "should" be...?

I drunk what: or just feel like there isn't a flavor that is even close to what it "should" be...?

How about evidence that any are correct?

I drunk what: -infant baptism

Rockstone: The Catholic Church baptizes infants because Christ wills it. He must will it because He said, ``Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me.' And one can not come to Christ without Baptism, surely you agree.

Since baptism is for the remission of sins (new window), what sin has a newborn infant committed? (thought I already know you're going to say "original sin", so we can talk about that (new window) if you'd like) Furthermore a pre-requisite of baptism is the confession (new window) from the person to be baptized that they believe Jesus The Christ is the Son of God, do you have such confessions from each infant that is baptized?

I drunk what: -selling of indulgences

Rockstone: -You mean alcoholic beverages? Jesus's First miracle was turning water into wine.

sort of, but kinda like LMGTFY (new window)

/i'm being slightly sarcastic here
//because this one was a lol wut moment...




I drunk what: -torturing people to "convert" them

Rockstone: - The Protestants did the same, and one or two torturing someone is not a reflection on the whole of the church.

Protestants did? [citation needed]

One or two?! Spoken like a true Catholic. Shall I Google that for you as well?

/perhaps by "one or two" you meant one or two centuries?




I drunk what: -worshipping Mary
-worshipping the Pope

Rockstone: -We do NOT worship Mary, but she was born without original sin, she was the mother of Jesus Christ- the only son of god, and she was a virgin her entire life, this means more than ignorance- we admire her.

-We do not worship the pope, stop pulling things out of your rear.

I wouldn't call GIS "my rear" exactly, it has its useful moments..

I drunk what: I drunk what: -infant baptism

One interesting point I heard someone make once is : "If you want to hear what is wrong with your religion, get someone from another religion to tell you."

BTW, I'm still waiting for... well... you know...evidence... that what you say is correct?

// Not the "bad things about Catholics" bit. I mean the "IDW's religion has it all right" bit.

I drunk what: -calling priests "father"

Rockstone: -Catholics call their priests ``Father' because in all matters pertaining to Christ's holy faith they perform the duties of a father, representing God. The priest is the agent of the Christian's supernatural birth and sustenance in the world. ``Father' is a title which does not conflict in the slightest with Matthew 23:9. Christ forbids the Christian to acknowledge any fatherhood which conflicts with the Fatherhood of God--just as He commands the Christian to ``hate' his father, mother, wife, and his own life, insofar as these conflict with the following of Christ. (Luke 14:26). But Christ does not forbid Christians to call His own representatives by the name of ``Father.' Catholic priests share in the priesthood of Jesus Christ (not a human priesthood), and their sacred ministry partakes of the Fatherhood of God.

I'm glad to see that you are familiar with the scripture. I am sad to see the "logic" gymnastics you do to contort and twist them.

you may want to meditate on scripture some more to see if anything starts to surface...

1 Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, 2 saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: 3 all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. 4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. 5 But all their works they do to be seen of men: for they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments , 6 and love the chief place at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called of men, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your teacher, and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, even the Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter. 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows houses, even while for a pretence ye make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive greater condemnation.

I drunk what: -idol worship

Rockstone: -We do not worship idols.



not only DO you, but you do it to such an extent that you clearly violate:

"4 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5(B) You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am(C) a jealous God,(D) visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands[a] of those who love me and keep my commandments."

I drunk what: -teaching that men are able to forgive sins
Rockstone: -Catholics see several advantages in confessing their sins to a priest in the Sacrament of Penance. First, there is the Church's guarantee of forgiveness, which private confessions do not provide; secondly, there is the sacramental grace which private confessions do not provide; and thirdly, there is the expert spiritual counseling which private confessions do not provide. With the Apostles, Catholics recognize that the Church is, in a mysterious way, the Body of Christ still living in the world (Col. 1:18); therefore they recognize that God will receive their pleas for mercy and forgiveness with far greater compassion if their pleas are voiced within the Church, in union with the Mystical Body of His Divine Son, than if they are voiced privately, independent of the Mystical Body of His Divine Son.

ok, let's give the gymnastics a rest, and make this a bit more simple. Point to ONE scripture that says men are able to forgive sins, or at the very least show some passages that gave such an example, if not clearly stated...?

btw, do you recall one of the reasons why the jews were so angry with Jesus?

...something about blasphemy?....

/I wonder what they were implying?
//one would have to be equal with God?

I drunk what: -forbidding marriage

Rockstone: -Catholic priests do not marry because, while Christ does indeed approve of marriage for the Christian clergy, He much prefers that they do not marry. He made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up ``all' to follow Him, saying, ``And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.' (Matt. 19:27-29). The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: ``He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.' (1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, matrimony is good-- Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church--but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments--that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law--under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.

Some interesting reading (new window), ditto (new window)

I drunk what: -the suppression of true scientific advancement

Rockstone: -the suppression of true scientific advancement. Protestants are Just as Guilty.

[citation needed]

I found it interesting that you accuse me of pulling stuff out of my arse

regardless... Galileo, among a few others, would like to have a word with you