Islamic Officials In Malaysia Ban 'Black Metal' Music (#1334)

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 3:51 pm

Seinfeld26 wrote:

I totally agree with you about the Church's opinion about people who don't share their belief in Jesus. It's a gaping hole in the Christian religion that's probably been around since its first inception. I think it's probably because of how unheard of Atheism really was back in the middle ages, so religious wars were restricted to which specific God you believed in. If you believed in God, but not the same God your fellow church believed in, you were burned at stake. Actually believing in a God was more or less taken for granted at the time. You could say Atheism is that untouched topic that Christianity still hasn't really developed an opinion of yet.

So if it is so inheritantly flawed, why believe it?

Anyway, a few questions (yes, I stole them from somewhere else):
Please use creationism to explain the development of drug-resistant strains of bacteria. Ask your doctor why you need to take all of your antibiotics when prescribed. That is evolution, observable, verifiable and demonstrated in your own body.

Please provide a creationist explanation of sickle-cell anemia's relationship to malaria, the Peppered Moth, Australian rabbits and myxomatosis, or the presence of gills and tails in the early embryonic stages of virtually all vertebrates (including humans). Use your precious and much vaunted but never demonstrated creation "model" to explain the presence of vestigial hind legs in numerous snakes and whales. Explain why God would have created over 250,000 different species of beetle. Why did God create over 2,000 different varieties of fruit-fly (25% of which can only be found in Hawaii)? Why did God create muscles that allow us to move our ears? What is our appendix for?

There are some 8,600 species of birds so far described and 3,700 species of mammals. 20,000 species of fish are documented out of an estimated 40,000 believed to exist. Known insect species number over 850,000 and this is estimated as being fewer that 1/5 or even 1/10 of the total number in extant. The number of catalogued flowering plant species is over 286,000 and about 4,000 more are catalogued every year. The number of different species of fungi is in excess of 40,000. If you add it all up you get over 1.6 billion different forms of life on this planet. Since over 99% of all life forms that have ever existed are now extinct we end up with a total species number of as high as 16 billion. Please explain why your creator went to all this effort only to give one species any special favors. How did Noah manage to place at least 3.2 billion different life forms on the ark?

Which of Noah's children were black? Which were Korean, East Indian, Hispanic? Which had blue eyes, green eyes, hazel eyes, brown eyes? Which were albino? Which of Noah's children had brown hair, black hair, blonde hair? Which of Noah's children had syphilis, AIDS, gonorrhea, tuberculosis, polio, smallpox? Which of Noah's children had congenital heart defects?

Kathaarian · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:26 pm

http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/goat/f ... onism.html

the rest of the rant that Zad stole the questions can be found here.

I'd like to see these questions answered by a Christian or any other religion follower but I know it's not happening, so this is rather pointless Zad.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:28 pm

Kathaarian wrote:

http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/goat/fuckcreationism.html

the rest of the rant that Zad stole the questions can be found here.

I'd like to see these questions answered by a Christian or any other religion follower but I know it's not happening, so this is rather pointless Zad.

I should've just posted that, shouldn't I?

Well, we'll see...

Kathaarian · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:34 pm

Zad wrote:

Kathaarian wrote:

http://ruthlessreviews.com/rants/goat/fuckcreationism.html

the rest of the rant that Zad stole the questions can be found here.

I'd like to see these questions answered by a Christian or any other religion follower but I know it's not happening, so this is rather pointless Zad.

I should've just posted that, shouldn't I?

Well, we'll see...

Check the last registered user often from now on. It might be Jesus coming with the answers.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:36 pm

Kathaarian wrote:

Check the last registered user often from now on. It might be Jesus coming with the answers.

You never know...

Misha · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:46 pm

Jürgen wrote:

Carnifex Umbris wrote:

Seinfeld26 wrote:

The main definition of Christianity is a belief that Jesus is the true son of God. That's the one belief we all share. We all fear God to one degree or another and try to follow Jesus's teachings. But the extent to which we do this varies wildly. The fact of the matter is that there's a common misconception that all Christians are monks and goody-two-shoes who listen only to non-secular music, partake only in Christian activities, etc. Dispelling that myth, most Christians are regular people like you except that they believe in God and Jesus.

Christianity is a faith/belief in God. You try to live out God's will through daily life, but you don't necessarily have to be a monk to be a Christian, nor do you necessarily have to shut yourself off from non-secular activities. The idea that religion doesn't promote free-thinking really depends on the person you're dealing with. There are some Christians who strictly believe you should be as I just described, and others (like me) that believe there's nothing wrong with living a normal life while still adhering to basic moral decency (do not kill, do not commit adultery, etc). I personally find nothing immoral about listening to Slayer. But, of course, some Christians will disagree with me there. The thing is that, as a Christian, you do draw the line somewhere. But the threshold varies depending on the individual.

The big problem I have with organized religion in general and Christianity in particular is the fact that by the church's lights, everyone who doesn't share that belief in Jesus isn't "saved" and is automatically going to Hell, burning for all eternity, demons poking them with pointy sticks, etc. After all, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the world, even today, who don't know about Jesus/Christianity. So they're going to Hell for having the audacity to be born in a non-Christian part of the world?

Well, the bible says that the final judgement will come after all the people in the world have heard the gospel.

Oh!! A perfect point in time that is! Glad it's never going to happen then, because some people are deaf, thihihihihihih!

Misha · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:48 pm

Radagast wrote:

Misha wrote:

Aaron tried to answer the question to what free will is, but how are you sure there even is an ability to choose?

I'd say it basically comes down to biology. A person constructed in a certain way will react in a certain way to a given situation. Of course there are situational variations such as mood and emotional state, but I suppose a pessimist could look on that as there being no freewill at all.

That's the idea, and that's why essentially people shouldn't be able to recieve a death penalty.

Anonymous · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:51 pm

Misha wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Misha wrote:

Aaron tried to answer the question to what free will is, but how are you sure there even is an ability to choose?

I'd say it basically comes down to biology. A person constructed in a certain way will react in a certain way to a given situation. Of course there are situational variations such as mood and emotional state, but I suppose a pessimist could look on that as there being no freewill at all.

That's the idea, and that's why essentially people shouldn't be able to recieve a death penalty.

Situation? Like sitting around in your house bored, and you decide to go out and kill someone? Some determiner.

Goat · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:52 pm

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

Misha wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Misha wrote:

Aaron tried to answer the question to what free will is, but how are you sure there even is an ability to choose?

I'd say it basically comes down to biology. A person constructed in a certain way will react in a certain way to a given situation. Of course there are situational variations such as mood and emotional state, but I suppose a pessimist could look on that as there being no freewill at all.

That's the idea, and that's why essentially people shouldn't be able to recieve a death penalty.

Situation? Like sitting around in your house bored, and you decide to go out and kill someone? Some determiner.

It's not as complicated as you guys are making it. I just decided to post this instead of going to read the Bible - free choice.

Edit: You're welcome!

Misha · **Posted:** Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:59 pm

GeneralDiomedes wrote:

Misha wrote:

Radagast wrote:

Misha wrote:

Aaron tried to answer the question to what free will is, but how are you sure there even is an ability to choose?

I'd say it basically comes down to biology. A person constructed in a certain way will react in a certain way to a given situation. Of course there are situational variations such as mood and emotional state, but I suppose a pessimist could look on that as there being no freewill at all.

That's the idea, and that's why essentially people shouldn't be able to recieve a death penalty.

Situation? Like sitting around in your house bored, and you decide to go out and kill someone? Some determiner.

There is no such thing as decision, there is only consequence.

Action Jesus · **Joined:** Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:35 am **Posts:** 145

Honestly some of you guys are JUST as bad as those Christians who run around trying to force us to become fellow Christians. You are ignorant, judgemental, and hypocritical. You claim acceptance of all people yet you will treat religious people poorly. You classify a HUGE group of people into a few glaring stereotypes. I'm agnostic. I'm also only 17. I have a lot to experience and a lot to see in my lifetime. Who knows what will happen in the future that will shift my beliefs? Yeah, my name is a little joke on Jesus but it is just a joke. I'll make fun of everyone and everything (race, sex, religion included) because I think a sense of humour should unite people rather than destroy that precious unity. Some of you, on the other hand, are just being offensive.

lizardtail · **Posted:** Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:21 am

it's free debate, man, opinions get offensive.

I doubt anyone's holding out for the chance that they'll be changing anyone else's opinion anyway, haha, if you've seen the way Zad and Aaron can carry on then you'll realise that they're more steadfastedly awkward and reliable as a really tenacious atomic clock..

personally my take on religion is that your belief system really isn't justified until it's being questioned because that at least triggers the intellect.. in a vacuum it's just a faith and it's not until you've proven its personal veracity that you can really be satisfied.

so like we're making messiahs here dude

Action Jesus · **Joined:** Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:35 am **Posts:** 145

It's their religion. They can believe whatever the hell they want as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on others. They shouldn't be expected to answer questions they may or may not know in order to prove that they have faith. That is rediculous. Many of you could not answer the most difficult questions about science. Does that mean your belief in it isn't "justified" until you have to defend it? Man, I athiests piss me off. Most of the people on this board are pretty young. The questions you ask could easily take a LIFETIME to really understand. That is the interesting aspect of religion. The truly faithful and religious found their faith through experience which lasts many many years while science is just something we study in a book and instantly believe, but rarely think about.

lizardtail · **Posted:** Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:36 am

ah, well, that's the end of the debate then. everyone go home.

lol

people wouldn't participate in discussions about religion if they didn't want to make their own opinions know, and in so doing so they bring up points that contradict other people's faith.. no-one's forcing anyone to post.

and um.. science isn't a belief. just so we're clear.

Eyesore · **Posted:** Wed Feb 01, 2006 1:37 am

I believe in swordfish.

Dead Machine · **Joined:** Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:24 pm **Posts:** 2527

Action Jesus wrote:

It's their religion. They can believe whatever the hell they want as long as they don't attempt to force those beliefs on others. They shouldn't be expected to answer questions they may or may not know in order to prove that they have faith. That is rediculous. Many of you could not answer the most difficult questions about science. Does that mean your belief in it isn't "justified" until you have to defend it? Man, I athiests piss me off. Most of the people on this board are pretty young. The questions you ask could easily take a LIFETIME to really understand. That is the interesting aspect of religion. The truly faithful and religious found their faith through experience which lasts many many years while science is just something we study in a book and instantly believe, but rarely think about.

...

Hey, no offense dude, but this is utter bullshit.

Of course I can't answer the most difficult questions about science. If I have any 'faith,' it is in verifiable hypotheses with rigorously tested and retested conclusions. The only way you could call such a thing a 'belief' is if the scientific community was totally duping everyone on the planet and making shit up while sitting around all day and drinking frozen daiquiris.

Dee, per usual, said it best: if you participate in a religous debate, you obviously want to make your opinions known. Nobody is saying 'YOU THERE! Post or we send you to Auschwitz!' or some crazy crap, so they OBVIOUSLY want to field these questions.

I tend to think that romantic thinkers who base opinion on subjective experience and emotion become religous people more readily than enlightenment-style thinkers who base opinion on facts and logic do.

Action Jesus · **Joined:** Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:35 am **Posts:** 145

Dead Machine wrote:

There is no god, grow up and act like an adult and stop clutching to your Jesus security blanket. This goes for all you bible-fellows out here.

I think that was going a little father than just participating in a religious debate or asking questions. If I had made a similar condescending about someone's sexual orientation or race, I would have most likely been been banned in about 5 seconds.

You can't prove that religious men were simply making things up either (except Scientology... good God).

Dead Machine wrote:

I tend to think that romantic thinkers who base opinion on subjective experience and emotion become religous people more readily than enlightenment-style thinkers who base opinion on facts and logic do.

I have met people who base opinions on emotion, subjective experience, facts, and logic. Besides facts and logic don't truly become facts and logic unless you seek to prove it yourself. Until than, you are only taking others' word for it just as many young religious people do.

Dead Machine · **Joined:** Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:24 pm **Posts:** 2527

Action Jesus wrote:

I think that was going a little father than just participating in a religious debate or asking questions. If I had made a similar condescending about someone's sexual orientation or race, I would have most likely been been banned in about 5 seconds.

You can't prove that religious men were simply making things up either (except Scientology... good God).

Admittedly, yes, it was, in retrospect I shouldn't have posted it, but since nobody has voiced objection to it because it offended them, I haven't yet removed or apologized for it. In advance, if you were offended by that, I am sorry. I should have been quite a bit more tactful.

They're the ones positing the existence of an omnipotent being. They have to prove his existence, I don't have to disprove it.

Action Jesus wrote:

I have met people who base opinions on emotion, subjective experience, facts, and logic. Besides facts and logic don't truly become facts and logic unless you seek to prove it yourself. Until than, you are only taking others' word for it just as many young religious people do.

So... facts and logic have to be reproven by every individual that decides to incorporate them into their worldview?

That's nonsense.

Oh, and I think you knew what I meant when I said that thing about romantic/enlightenment-style thinkers. I meant people who TEND TOWARDS one or the other. I don't think there's anyone who shuts out either side entirely.

Action Jesus · **Joined:** Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:35 am **Posts:** 145

You should have to disprove it just as much as they should have to prove it? The existence of an omnipotent being or creator (not all the extra in religious scriptures, just the basic God or no God debate) is just as feasible as saying that there is none. Logic and science, in a way, supports it with the idea that something must always come from something else. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. There is absolutely no proof that there isn't a God. This is because we have simply not discovered a way in which we might prove or disprove the existence of such.

What is you proof that it is the tendency? When enlightened ideals began to spread to America for example, many of the early thinkers of the time did in fact have religious beliefs. In fact, very few famous philosophers and thinkers actually say that God doesn't exist. Rather that that they simple ignore the subject or accept the possibility of either.

Dead Machine · **Joined:** Sun Sep 19, 2004 6:24 pm **Posts:** 2527

Action Jesus wrote:

You should have to disprove it just as much as they should have to prove it? The existence of an omnipotent being or creator (not all the extra in religious scriptures, just the basic God or no God debate) is just as feasible as saying that there is none. Logic and science, in a way, supports it with the idea that something must always come from something else. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. There is absolutely no proof that there isn't a God. This is because we have simply not discovered a way in which we might prove or disprove the existence of such.

The person making an assertion -any assertion- is the one whom the burden of proof falls on.

EXAMPLE: I assert that plastic is the personification of death. If we followed the same logic as you do, you'd have to prove that plastic is not the personification of death while I proved that it is, which is ridiculous.

The fact that matter can't be created or destroyed has nothing to do with the existence of an omnipotent being. You can't use scientific evidence to back up an idea that defies science without being an idiot.

Action Jesus wrote:

What is you proof that it is the tendency? When enlightened ideals began to spread to America for example, many of the early thinkers of the time did in fact have religious beliefs. In fact, very few famous philosophers and thinkers actually say that God doesn't exist. Rather that that they simple ignore the subject or accept the possibility of either.

It's based entirely on the people I know.

I like how you selectively argue.

Metal Reviews

Islamic Officials In Malaysia Ban 'Black Metal' Music (#1334)

Who is online