View Full Version : Atheism vs. Agnosticism vs. Monotheism
I thought that we could manage a religious debate. Share what your opinions are on the supernatural and higher beings, but do not argue more than a disagreement. I am sure we can do this, but only if we don't freak out.
Me, personally, am I Christian.
I believe that God always was and always will be, and that he created the Earth in 6 days. I do disagree with many things from the Bible though. I don't think there was a great flood. I was taught to take the bible literally when it is meant to and to not be a fundamentalist. I also believe that God is Jesus Christ, and vice versa, as well as a Holy Trinity of God's three persona. No, not independent minds, persona, which literally means masks. I think that some atheists are what they are because they are angry with him or because they don't think that God could have made such a horrible world.
Please enrich us with your opinions on what I said and what you yourself believe.
President Camacho
10-Feb-10, 00:31
there is no such thing as a reasonable religious debate or discussion.
religions exist to give meaning to things that have no reason.
but i can troll you if you want.
also, no polytheists?
Jesse the Great Tsar
10-Feb-10, 08:47
there is no such thing as a reasonable religious debate or discussion.
religions exist to give meaning to things that have no reason.
but i can troll you if you want.
also, no polytheists?
I was wondering the same?
I was wondering the same?
Plato proved Polytheism incorrect and impossible in the 400's B.C. No point in adding it.
I'm a full on Atheist. I believe in no gods or religious beings, I live my life for me, no one else in the sky or anywheres. I do respect religions around the world, I just don't practice them.
Plato proved Polytheism incorrect and impossible in the 400's B.C. No point in adding it.
As opposed to your correct religions?
As opposed to your correct religions?
Indeed, good point Stev.
I will just state now that I am technically Anglican, but personally a nondenominational Christian, I have a great distaste for organized religion.
I've gone through my rough bouts, and I've investigated other belief systems, I guess you could say that I'm a very open minded individual, and I like to know a little bit about a belief system before I criticize it as false.
My major issue with atheism today, more so, atheists (at least the ones that represent the atheist movement) I suppose, is their pure, unbridled arrogance and almost hatred for the 'religious'.
I came upon an article a while back, can't seem to find it now, but it described "Atheism 2.0" (With "Atheism 1.0" being the Dawkins and Hitchens crowd, the arrogant types), which is a group of Atheists who, despite their own beliefs don't dislike the 'religious' for their beliefs, and understand that religion can be good for helping people cope with difficulties and carry on their lives. I like that. I like that a group within a group (as in Atheists) which put down the religious for not being "open minded" is actually...being open minded. I respect that.
Jesse the Great Tsar
10-Feb-10, 14:24
I will just state now that I am technically Anglican, but personally a nondenominational Christian, I have a great distaste for organized religion.
I've gone through my rough bouts, and I've investigated other belief systems, I guess you could say that I'm a very open minded individual, and I like to know a little bit about a belief system before I criticize it as false.
My major issue with atheism today, more so, atheists (at least the ones that represent the atheist movement) I suppose, is their pure, unbridled arrogance and almost hatred for the 'religious'.
I came upon an article a while back, can't seem to find it now, but it described "Atheism 2.0" (With "Atheism 1.0" being the Dawkins and Hitchens crowd, the arrogant types), which is a group of Atheists who, despite their own beliefs don't dislike the 'religious' for their beliefs, and understand that religion can be good for helping people cope with difficulties and carry on their lives. I like that. I like that a group within a group (as in Atheists) which put down the religious for not being "open minded" is actually...being open minded. I respect that.
I hated reading on other debate forums because of the atheist that thought all who were religious were some zealot.BTW I'm protestant and have no idea what that means other than Martin Luther and forgetting the Pope.
Well for me Zak, it's Atheism 2.0 If religion helps people in life, then it's fine with me. Others can do what they want, I only care about what I believe in.
Well for me Zak, it's Atheism 2.0 If religion helps people in life, then it's fine with me. Others can do what they want, I only care about what I believe in.
It's a good belief honestly, I can tolerate it. What I can't stand is just watching Dawkins or Hitchens on Youtube or TV, they are just such arrogant pricks. It annoys the hell out of me.
I don't see wrong with anybody else's beliefs so long as they don't encroach upon the rights and liberties of another individual (ie. the initiation of force).
I`m cool with all the religions, just don`t come a knocking at my door preaching, cause I have no tolerance for that shit.
President Camacho
10-Feb-10, 14:57
Plato proved Polytheism incorrect and impossible in the 400's B.C. No point in adding it.
the Hindus would like to have a word with you...
also
proved
a religion? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! you're a funny guy. ill give you that.
the Hindus would like to have a word with you...
also
a religion? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! you're a funny guy. ill give you that.
I think he meant logically and philosophically proved.
Philosophical Proof and Physical/Factual/whateveryouwanttocallit proof are two completely different things.
I'd still like proof there is a god, as my prayers for a Ferrari Enzo are still unanswered!
the Hindus would like to have a word with you...
also
a religion? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! you're a funny guy. ill give you that.
Need an explanation?
The hindus believe that one God came in many forms, so thats not polytheism.
Plato proved that God must be real. That means permanent and unchanging. So the Christian idea of God is Platos. However, Plato lived before the church, yet he was the basis for the philosophy of the early church.
Uh, well I only believe in one god, Chuck Norris. He's real, and has killed thousands if not millions of people in his life time.
I hated reading on other debate forums because of the atheist that thought all who were religious were some zealot.BTW I'm protestant and have no idea what that means other than Martin Luther and forgetting the Pope.
I'm technically Lutheran, so Martin Luther ftw.
But I'm very similar to Zak in that regard. I go to a Lutheran church, but... I just don't care for religion. My youth group is very open-minded, and they say you just need to have a personal relationship with God, which is what I've always believed, which is why I go to that church: like-minded people.
For me, the worst Christian sanctions are Catholics and Mormons. Catholics because they don't believe in safe sex or same sex marriage, and their priests touch little boys in the wrong places. Mormons because have 6 wives ain't cool, and Stephanie Meyer was a Mormon, and I can't forget how Twilight ruined 2008 and 2009.
Andrew Klavan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t1gv1zeMkY&feature=channel)
Whether or not you can stand his satire, you have to admit that it's got a certain...sarcastic feel to it, I like that about Klavan.
I'm not Goro this time
11-Feb-10, 06:43
Need an explanation?
The hindus believe that one God came in many forms, so thats not polytheism.
Plato proved that God must be real. That means permanent and unchanging. So the Christian idea of God is Platos. However, Plato lived before the church, yet he was the basis for the philosophy of the early church.
How exactly can you prove that God is real?
How exactly can you prove that God is real?
My point exactly Goro.
You also cannot disprove the existence of God.
Proving a negative = not possible.
On a certain level, I've always found Pascal's Wager an interesting logical and philosophical look at the pros and cons of choosing theism or atheism.
You also cannot disprove the existence of God.
Proving a negative = not possible.
On a certain level, I've always found Pascal's Wager an interesting logical and philosophical look at the pros and cons of choosing theism or atheism.
Yes, but saying something isn't real is much easier then saying it is, because you don't need proof that something does not exist, but proof is more or less needed to proof it's real. I don't wanna get into a flame war here, but I always ask Christians, prove it.
It's about faith, not proof.
Therefore nobody in a religion needs to prove anything, because they have faith in what they believe. Although, some people may have more personal experiances where they've witnessed God in some shape or form.
It's about faith, not proof.
Therefore nobody in a religion needs to prove anything, because they have faith in what they believe. Although, some people may have more personal experiances where they've witnessed God in some shape or form.
Well keep on rocking you faith, I have no problem with that at all my friends.
I'll point out that i don't personally follow any religion.
Whether i believe a god exists is irrelevent, because i'll always live my life on my own terms, and not somebody else's.
I'll point out that i don't personally follow any religion.
Whether i believe a god exists is irrelevent, because i'll always live my life on my own terms, and not somebody else's.
Same way with me man, stay strong, stay frosty, and stay up (uh, maybe not that one)
As stated by Stevurn and Andy Klavan in that link in the page before, if you watched it, the issue is not who can prove or not prove the existence of God, it's all a matter of faith of what you believe in.
I'm not Goro this time
11-Feb-10, 14:14
I guess that's true. All I can say is, I don't have faith in a deity of any kind. I find religions interesting, and I respect them, but I'm an atheist.
Thrasher9294
11-Feb-10, 17:23
I'm Christian, but most certainly not heavily.
Just, it seemed like everyone got along when we didn't have people being this far apart on religion. Everyone used to be about the same, at least the people around me.
Also, not that any of you are, but most of the people I know became Atheist for fairly dumb reasons. Attention, or just plain ignorance.
For example, my friend Ashley. She was pretty big on it.\
Then, her friend passed away after she'd prayed for him not to.
Now, God sucks because he didn't save someone from a Terminal Illness.
Also, I can't stand how they cry out for freedom of Religion, and not arguing about religion, and not having Christians step in on them, and then they do the same freaking thing. Like the whole Christmas Billboards things.
And yes, I understand, I hate people who come up and talk like God will save you from everything Bible pushing crap. That's annoying.
But, why get so butthurt over things like saying "God" in the Pledge, or having a statue with the Ten Commandments on it?
"Happy Holidays" is another thing that kinda pisses me off, too.
To me, in a lot of ways, it seems hypocritical. Atheists will complain about anything that mentions God in any way, shape, or form. But they'll put whatever the hell they want up about Atheism or something that most would consider "Anti-christ".
Still, another thing is that it seems like children don't want to be taught properly by their parents, and don't want to follow rules. Then, they view Christianity as some rule-giving thing, and hate it.
Many of my fellow students who are Atheists are cut from a similar mold, though, and that's what gives me some of these notions. Then again, this is just my hypothesis on the whole thing.
Everything was fine the way it was.
And yes, I do disagree with some things in the Bible. But it does have some good lessons in it.
And it's not like you have to live by the way God tells you, it's not like you're chained as a slave to some protocol. It's just some important words to live by and have hope in.
And that's my look on it.
I will always respect religions, 'cept Scientology, that shit just be fucked.
You also cannot disprove the existence of God.
+1
+1
But it always works both ways, remember that.
You also cannot disprove the existence of God.
Proving a negative = not possible.
On a certain level, I've always found Pascal's Wager an interesting logical and philosophical look at the pros and cons of choosing theism or atheism.
3000 B.C Horus: Born Dec 25th, Born of a virgin, adored 3 kings, betrayed and killed and ressurected after 3 days, had 12 deciples, performed miracles. Called "Lamb of God"
1200 B.C
Attis: Born of Virgin and on Dec. 25th, Crucified, Dead for 3 days then REssurcted
900 B.C
Krishna: Born of a virgin, star in the east, performed miracles, resuurected after he died.
500 B.c
Dionysus: Born of virgin on Dec 25th, performed miracles, ressurected after death, called "Alpha and Omega"
"Sirius" aligns with the "Three kings" of the Orion's belt on Dec 24th, they all point to the sunrise on Dec 25th, Birth of sun on Dec 25th at winter Solstice,
In the northern Hemisphere near the winter Solstice, the sun graudualy keeps moving lower and lower in the horison each day until it stops moving at stays in place for 3 days: Dec 22nd, 23rd, and 24th durning which it resides on the southern cross constelation (Or Crux) constelation, on the 25th the sun moves up 1 degree being "born" again and foreshadowing longer days on spring.
The Sun died on the Cross dead for 3 days only to be ressurected again.
Hence all the similarities.
There goes Jesus, Call me full of shit or an idiot but I present you with facts.
But you haven't logically or philosophically proven anything.
And live I've said, proving a negative is not possible.
I didn't make that rule, it's a common rule of debate and logical proof, it's argumentum ad ignorantiam, appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance.
But you haven't logically or philosophically proven anything.
And live I've said, proving a negative is not possible.
I didn't make that rule, it's a common rule of debate and logical proof, it's argumentum ad ignorantiam, appeal to ignorance, or argument from ignorance.
I never tried proving a negative fact I just presented facts to be interpreted how people like.
Thrasher9294
13-Feb-10, 10:44
Lamb of God is a shitty band, anyway.
I'm not Goro this time
13-Feb-10, 14:09
Lamb of God is a shitty band, anyway.
I agree, overrated as fu- wait, what?
Taepodong-2
13-Feb-10, 14:29
I agree, overrated as fu- wait, what?
Thrasher is calling bands shitty again when his music isn't that great either and derailing the topic.
Thrasher is calling bands shitty again when his music isn't that great either and derailing the topic.
Yeah, well let's get it back on topic!
CATHOLICS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FU........
Just kidding everyone.
Jesse the Great Tsar
14-Feb-10, 13:29
I find god to be more of a subtle change kinda thing.
Thrasher9294
14-Feb-10, 14:18
Thrasher is calling bands shitty again when his music isn't that great either and derailing the topic.
It was a one-post joke at Kane.
Overreact, then, if you want. You'll all be pissed no matter what I do whenever.
CATHOLICS ARE ALL A BUNCH OF FU........
Just kidding everyone.
OMG like the funniest joke ever lolrolorlol
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.