Discussion About Religion

[Whia]

I used to call myself an atheist bounty hunter.

It's almost like you're defying people to take you seriously.

I would go to atheist videos, and pause at like the first 5 seconds, and head straight to the comment section (who needs to watch garbage material of some insecure atheist people who have a extreme hate boner to Christianity.

So you commented on videos you didn't watch? So you're just outright admitting to remarking on things you don't understand. Cool, noted.

Do we Christians have channels dedicated to poking fun at atheist or differnt religons? no.

Yes. Yes they do. Off the top of my head, Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind make a career off this. Is there anything you're not wrong about?

I used to discuss the Bible with them, and I'd almost always just rip their arguments all to shred.

Curious why you haven't been doing any of that here then.

But that was at least a year ago. I'm rusty. Wisdom goggles need to be rejuvinated. Hence why you're exposing me on a few points. But that's going to change.

I bet you it's not.

What do you mean by empircally verified? It's verfied by whom?

Not whom, but what. And the short answer is the scientific method.

I believe the Bible is the verifired Word of God.

Sure. Now actually demonstrate this claim.

I looked up the defintion of empircal and it means verfiable based on observation or expirence not by theory or "pure logic".

Empirical evidence is part and parcel of scientific theories.

By your own frution, you trusting that your parents went to taco bell would you be trusting in some not verfied empircally.

Yes, because it's an incredibly unremarkable claim - it has no elements that would require suspending belief until further notice. Note the distinction between "I went to Taco Bell" and "I have fairies in my closet" and see if you can figure out why that distinction was made.

What do you mean by demonstrate? it has multple defintions.

What else would I possibly mean by demonstrate other than provide evidence?

The defintion of that and the Bible's (thanks for the qutation of sciprute...edifying to read) aren't exclusive. To believe in the things not seen means we must have complete trust in confidence in the one who tells/guides us. As you can see, I later say the Bible defintion as well. I was just quoting the defintion from wikipedia.

And the problem is you're using them interchangeably when the context alters the definition of the word. That makes it an equivocation fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

What are you talking about? faith and trust ARE SYNONUMS in of itself. faith is just more of spirtual word that the Bible uses. So yes, you have faith in things because you trust and/or believe in them. Like what is so hard to mentally understand about that? You're just over analyzing and confusing yourself.

"Faith and trust are synonymous"

Sure. But then that means...

"You have faith in things because you trust them"

is a tautology. Just like it was in the last post.

It's not my fault if you're sloppy with your terms.

So you don't believe in searching for Truth.

Acknowledging the apparent, possibly inherent limits of human understanding ≠ I don't believe in searching for The Truth™.

You just believe in some man-made process of where you sound the most intelectual and smartest then make claims backed by the most-beleiving arguments based on whatever evidence they can throw up or expose and call it a day wether it's truth or not. Sounds backwards and always a step behind.

Yeah you don't understand science even slightly. Any scientist or even scientifically literate layperson will tell you the exact same thing I told you.

The especially funny/embarrassing part is this is the exact same kind of "skepticism" you expressed in your previous post when you went on about how "we have to have trust and hope in our methods" and etc etc. So you appeal to radical skepticism when it suits you, but when it's pointed out that science rightly acknowledges its limits, then you respond with this drivel.

Faith in vaccume isn't always expident. What matters is WHERE YOU PUT your faith. And putting your faith in Christ is superior to anything else.

Per your religious beliefs, which still require substantiation.

You see, now i'm starting to remember. This is how you combat decieving talking points. You atheist tend to look at things in wholesome and ignore the nuances.

The irony of this is outstanding. I'm trying to pin you down on the consistent usage of one 5-letter word but apparently I'm the one lacking nuance.

Like. ATHEISM VS THEISM. FAITH VS EVIDENCE. That's why you guys can be so deadly. But when you actually look at the Biblical nuances truth of life....who can stand against? my bounty hunting is starting to come back. Dude, I'd advise you stop right now. Drop this conersation and surrender your life to Jesus. Because you're about to start to get exposed.

Please be gentle.

there's no "rational way to justfy it's acceptance". Hm...interesting. How about this for a rationale. People have the right to worship and beleive in the gods or God they so choose or are led to.

Yeah at no point was that ever being disputed anywhere in this thread.

And you Mr. Whia, should accept that.

Again, was never being disputed.

Is there a name for the fallacy when your opponent just completely makes **** up about you?

yet atheist don't even make into the top 5 of held beleifs about God. lol.

Remember last month when you made this same fallacious argument, I pointed out it was fallacious, and you then agreed with me that it was fallacious? I'll provide quotes since you've clearly forgotten:

Me: How can you determine if the object of your faith is legitimate?
You: The amount of followers it has...
Me: This is a logical fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)...
You: Okay. That also applies to atheism/agnosticism as well. Dosent matter how many followers a belief system has - but wether that belief is CORRECT. I agree with this line of thinking.
Me: Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Why are you using arguments you admit you know are fallacious?

So why are you using arguments that you not only know are fallacious, but that you've already admitted, in this thread, you know are fallacious?

But hey, i'm in your boat (trigger warning to people of differnt relgions...REPEAT....Trigger warning). I find any spritual claim that's not rooted to be in complete acceptance and beleif in the Bible is a complete waist of time and all of those unforunate souls who died in the grave beleiving such lies and diversions will and are suffering greatly as they await judgement. Once judgement happens, they will all be thrown into the lake of fire and burn forever, amen. Dam I could give of what the population my religon is. The Bible is ABSLOUTE Truth. But the acceptance of Christ can save you from such a terrible fate.

Demonstrate your claims.

 

[Crimson King]

Over the years, I've really run the gamut with regards to religion. I was a hardcore, devout Catholic, did some weird cult thing I think where I made my own version of Christianity that was Deism but dumber, became an atheist, then turned occultist or whatever.

One recurring notion, and it was enhanced by personal meditation and assessment, is the fact that all religion, no matter which, is based on made up ideas and used in English terms. I was watching a show with a funeral scene (so a fake funeral for a fake person), and the notion that we "know" this person was in Heaven and such really rang so hollow that it kinda took on its own thing.

No one alive today has 1st hand accounts of ANY religion. Everything has been distilled and modified to fit in with evolving language norms, and those also reach to become societal norms. It is all just completely made up.

That all said, I also took another stance as I went further and further into Pagan studies, Satanism, and the Occult: believe whatever you want, so long as your beliefs don't hinder another person's happiness. At one point, I would go out of my way to break people's notions of religion down. Now, I think as long as they aren't harming people, it's fine.

 

[Another Player]

Religious elements have a tendency to advocate dogma and/or suggest over empirical data. While faith has it's rewards I don't think it's a substitute over testing and hard work from sciences. These days I think many more want to understand it's origin over people trying to justify personal belief over someone else's. The only truly way to believe you is if you're guessing correctly without doing research. And you know without research the top level Smash players wouldn't attain what they have.

 

[Notaniceperson]

Idr get what anti theism people are wishing too accomplish 1 Be a scum bag to anyone who believes different and "denies science" 2 Too rid the world of religion like dictaters and basically try and imprison people for believing something? This is incredibly dangerous to both parties if you remember Natzi Germany and it's purge on people who look different than them look how that turned out Germany got taken over and innocent Jews lost there life. People like this are the scum of the earth and need serious help 3 Some guy on the internet trying to be edgy.

 

[link2702]

^apparently didn't read the discussion at all.

No one who is atheist/agnostic/non-religious wants any of the things you just stated.

They want the government(s) to not favor one religion over another, they want things to *ACTUALLY* be equal for everyone.

And FYI your example about Nazi Germany is flawed, since one of the main reasons Hitler gained power was by heavily using Christianity as his propaganda tool. He convinced an entire country that they were "god's" chosen people and race, and that they needed to purge the rest of the world of the lesser people. If your point was to try and make the argument that religiously motivated governments aren't dangerous, you failed miserably there.

Many atheists today also simply don't like the hypocrisy of so many believers (mostly american Christians) who play the victim card anytime they're required to be treated the same as every other faith or non-faith. The Evangelicals especially often want special treatment, and are extremely quick to claim "Christian persecution!" just because they're told to follow the laws of the country or to pay attention to separation of Church and State. Or how they complain that the job/career they voluntarily signed up for/studied school for, requires things that "go against their beliefs", most notably public servant/government jobs, which quite clearly fall under the separation of church and state category.

 

[Another Player]

The poll asks for your religious beliefs. Not to justify them. I suppose the next time someone asks we should not allow people to post. But that's admin/mod duty and not anyone else's.

 

[Doc Monocle]

When I hear the word 'religion,' I think of an effort of humanity to appeal to; to appease someone or something that they believe to be of peerless power.
Why is the subject matter so important? Because it concerns us all, even self-proclaimed atheists. It concerns someone who believes in a higher being(s) in the sense that the being(s) (deity(ies)) is/are considered by the mortal person (subject) to hold influence or control over the course and quality of their lives.
The subject, therefore, considers it prudent that, at all costs, they satiate the deity in whatever way the deity is believed to accept. Religion also concerns those who disbelieve the notion of a deity... but do they?
Notice earlier that I said that religion pertains to the appeasement of someone or SOMETHING believed to be of peerless power by the subject. That an atheist rejects the existence of a supreme being has no consequence for the existence of an organism or
inanimate object thought by the subject (consciously or otherwise) to have unrivaled influence over their lives. That is, whether someone's belief is theistic (accepting of a particular deity(ies)), or atheistic (rejecting of the existence of a particular deity(ies)), there will still exist a deity in their lives, though a good portion of atheists may call themselves to be non-religious.
The only alternatives (if we may agree with the notion of religion presented at the beginning of this post) are that
the subject believes that all things that they know to exist have equal impact on their lives, or that a group of objects and/or organisms have this stated power (the latter of which amounts, essentially, to polytheism, and the former of which amounts to pantheism).
What does that leave us with then? The atheist is either monotheistic, polytheistic, or pantheistic, and (true to the etymology of 'atheism') does not truly disbelieve in the existence of a deity(ies), but rather is OPPOSED to it.

There is much more that could be said on this subject. However, I am inclined to partition the content of my speech when large amounts of text are involved on deep issues.