(10-Feb-2008 at 17:07)
That aspect of thought really makes sense and I'm sure anthiest and other non-thiest have been aware of the fact for some time.
The fact is some of the freak occurces that caused the plauges can be explained by science. Thats doesn't mean the plauges did not happen or that god didn't cause the plauges.
Some of the plauges were proven to actually happen but with limited means of explanation anciet people are only gonna explain it as they can.
I think most people don't understand god and science are diffrent things though for instance
Say you are a farmer in acient times and you want your crops to grow but you didn't serve god or whatever it may be.
A drought hits your crops in middle of the summer, some of the acient people might have blammed the drought on god or themselves.
The science of it all basically says plants need sunshine and water to keep them growing.
God simply didn't bless you with rain for your crops but the science of it all is that your crops are sure to die because of this drought because water is there life source.
I personaly don't believe in causality though because to me it makes less sense than religion especially with this vast number of elements we are working with. Billions of planets and billions of galaxies and billions of stars. Causality just doesn't make sense to me.
I think science and religion can coexist and I also believe some of the scriptures were worded wrong to make somethign seemingly impossible.
I want a dollar
I am going to the bank to get a dollar
Poof I got my dollar it was almost like magic.
Skip the second sentence and it seems like a mircale.. I think thats what the bible accidently does
(16-Feb-2008 at 08:02)
If the miracle didn't happen, there are 4999 people who would have said BS and told the writer to shove it.
Also, as far as the walking on water/walking beside the water thing goes, Peter steps out of the boat, starts walking, and then (after looking down) starts sinking. Jesus has to go pull him up out of the water. So did Peter just step in a hole in the sand?
In the final analysis, you either believe every word or no word. The writers make that patently clear. Each one states that their writing is the truth and that it is made to help people understand what Jesus did. John goes so far that there are even more miracles that don't get listed in the Gospels because they would fill up all the paper on earth. Because of this, it's pretty clear that (in order to believe in any of the Bible) you can't just pick and choose what you believe out of the Bible because you're basically piecing together your own religion based on the things you like or are most probable, not the things a god could do. Could a god multiply fish if s/he felt like it? Sure! Why not? If you believe in a god, then he probably invented fish to begin with...he could drum up a few more in no time. I mean, you -can- technically pick out what you want to believe from the Bible, but then where does that leave you? You don't get challenged to believe anything unusual. You pick out the parts you like, discard the rest, and create a god in your own image. You could say that is what the Biblical writers did, and that's where faith comes into play.
It's a hard thing...to believe that what these guys wrote 2000 years ago was really what happened. I can certainly understand those who find it difficult. As such, I'm trying not to be very accusative and more explanatory. Hopefully you see that.
If you believe any part of the Bible, then it's that Jesus = God. The whole Bible from Genesis to Revelation is about the dealings of God with mankind leading up to and immediately following the sending of the final and perfect sacrifice for the sins of the world. If you believe that God can't do miraculous things, then He isn't really God and your salvation is void. Hence, the entire thing is a lie made up to attribute divinity to Jesus. If that is the case, then why follow it? There is no point. Paul even states this. To paraphrase, he says that if we're wrong and Christianity isn't real, then we are to be pitied more than all men.
I dunno...I fear that most will think this is an accusative writing, meant to make people feel bad. Let me tell you that it is not what I mean. I'm simply trying to explain why it bothers me so much that people like to say "Jesus was just a good man". If he claimed to be one with God and said that no one could be saved from their 'sins' except by believing in him, then he's obviously not just a good person. He's either someone granted the authority of God or he's a cruel liar who has tricked billions of people into following his void message. On the one hand, he's the greatest thing ever. On the other hand, he's the most despicable of characters.
Of course, then you would argue that the writers simply added in the part about him claiming to be God...but seeing as that's about all that's written about him, you either have to believe that he believed it or nothing that was written about him was true.
In either case, you're left with the same decision. It's either all about God or all a lie.
Elder of Nex Imperio
Proud Monarch of E v e n t Horizon
I <3 halflings, Norbert, and kitties!
(16-Feb-2008 at 21:03)
I will agree with you ninjaphobos that some people simply view god in there own image and or to their own liking and misconstrew the words of the bible, either on purpose or on accident.
The point that I am trying to make clear is that while mircales may have happened and were written down truthfully or falsely, there is still a misconception on the mircales that god creates.
God is viewed atleast by the average athiest 'in my opinion' more like a magician than a god.
For instance, god told the egyptions to stop enslavement of Mosesses people are he would cast a plague of locust of the egyption people. A lot of people think this was an instant thing, god snapped his fingers and 'poof' locust came out of think air in a matter of seconds, simular to the way a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat.
When chances are god follows his own rules on natrual law and makes locust more attracted to the land. Only science can explain the events that attracted locust to the egyptions lands.
I am simply saying the locust were well on there way and already existant in gods plans to over throw egypt before humanity was ever created.
I am not giving an indefinite reason for jesus appearing to be floating on water in some translated text and peter sinking.
This could be do to a sandbar(sp?) or even giant stones. Not that it necassarly is because of a sandbar that people say hes floating on water but because thats the only way they knew how to explain things as they were happening.
Say jesus was standing on stones and he said to peter, "you have to trust me" and peter trusted jesus but hesitated and didn't follow jesus in his exact foot steps thus sank in the water.
I think the miricale itself would have been jesus being that knowledgeable about the land.
I think jesus didn't wan't the words to be written in a way where he was deciving them.
If jesus were god, why would he have to prove himself by walking on water? Walking on water would be a frivolous endever.
I think the text was mistranslated so much, that the point of the scripture was compeletly changed in itself. Another words jesus was actually trying to take peter somewhere important and not just showing off his powers.
If you think about it, languages are not that difficult to mistranslate in the first place and lose the point in the translation.
To prove what I am saying is true. Copy my entire post of text and translate it to spanish using cutting edge technology like "babel fish" or "dictionary.com translator" and translate it back to english and see what you come up with.
I bet it translates to some insane garbled non sense, no matter whose text you copy and no matter what languages you translate it to.
Even if you translated Mexican spanish to Spains spanish, the point would almost be lost entirerly.
Basically what I am saying is scientist try to translate this language with a massive civilization gap and miss the point entirely.
Not only that but it is a well known fact that text was with held from the bible. If you with hold a few words from one scripture than the meaning and point completley changes.
There are translators that currently dispute with each other, the exact translation. Why do knowledgeable language translators have trouble comming up with one definite meaning to a scripture, because the laguage is so old.
Translating acient language is not as simple as agreeing that 1 + 1 = 2. The bibles translation however has been exepted by most priest but even then that doesn't mean the translations were 100% accurate.
Say I draw a picture and 1000s upon 1000s of artist thought that my picture meant something specific and most of the artist agreed on its exact meaning, weather the artist were right about what the picture is suppose to mean that doesn't mean they are 100% exact in describing exactly what I was going for.
I am not saying that you shouldn't believe the bibles word for word and that you should create your own image of god (which I believe you should) by doubting some scripture and believing other scripture. I am saying you some scriptures that were translated could easily be misitreputed and watered down. In fact, the whole point could have been changed to what the priest saw fit.
Jesus could have easily been the charles mansion of his time. I am not saying that he was, but now days when we think of a person who claims to be god, we just assume they have pyschosis or are very manipulitive. There are now day people that currently preform magic tricks for audiences and claim they are mircales, thus controling a group of people. Scientist are often kept on there toes, trying to figure out these so called mircales.
Another words, in the now days aspect, what could be viewed by thousands as a prophit who has the ability to create miricales, could also be viewed as cult leaders who preform magic tricks to convince a group to worshop them.
A lot of people also viewed things the same way back then exept it was illegal to claim to be a diety back then and for that reason jesus was slayed.
Which is a whole other concept, but still they probally thought of jesus as charles manson.
Just the way I view things
as far as metaphores go.. the bible does contain some metaphores and a preist will explain this to you if you ask.
Last edited by Ninjoo, 16-Feb-2008 at 21:11.
(17-Feb-2008 at 16:40)
Its peoples own choice what they choose to believe. But that's it. They should not tell other's what to believe or telling "you're wrong". That is not good in humans. When we see someone who doesnt' share our view, we want to try to make them believe like us. I guess that is part of human charasterics.
Religion itself is not bad. Nor is science. Its the peoples using it make it bad or good.
Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga
(18-Feb-2008 at 01:15)
The bibles scientific accuracy is to be applauded. For example, in Genesis chapter 1 we discover that the earth was covered in vegetation before the existence of the sun and moon. Obviously the bible must be right.
Isaiah tells us the earth is hanging on nothing, a claim that bible students long held to be a remarkable triumph for the old book. News flash: space is not nothing.
Another point, I am troubled by Gods bad temper. Like those kids that were shouting at Elijah (or was it Elisha? I forget now), there he was walking down the road and these kids start shouting; 'go on bald head', our loving father was so outraged he sent a bunch of bears who were hanging around the area to rip them apart. Now I ask myself, what happened? Somehow I can't see Jesus in the New Testament doing something like this. Is God schizo or what?
I won't add anymore for now, but the angles of attack are oh so endless.
-Heb 11:1 ( for any christians that read this post)
(18-Feb-2008 at 03:23)
Once again ninjaphobos, I have to applaud your clarity in writing and your honest unbias perspective in explanation of why you believe in christianity.
You have lead me through your logic to more clarity on my own.
Essentialy since your logic is in depth, to even remain on the same lvl as you, for discussion purposes, I have to give actual scientific reasoning and logic to put the bible in question, as opposed to aggresive rants.
You already pre-approved skeifs post assinine by defiling(sp?) your religion in that manner.
Current religious people don't rely on the sciences of ancient times, ninjaphobos clearly demonstrates that.
Science itself has been a process of evolution and at one point 'gravity' was a phenominal discovery.
People in the ancient religious times obviously were only able to accept all that sciencetist and philosphers were able to discover or invent in there times.
Don't blame religion for comming up with faulty science. scientist who are religious and even regular good ol fashioned scientist can only come up with hypothesises that make sense according to the information that they currently had.
Honestly, at one point, no science even thought of the concept of photosythesis.
As for your other point... A person can not see things through omnipotent eyes.
Not only that its basic survival of the fitest and thats just the way things work in this world. If people are not able to run away from a bear then they could get mauled. Its not gods fault that the humans were tredding 'hungry bear domain' with out there nifty bear spray to come in handy and got eatin.
That would be like saying its 'gods fault' if a person walks into oncomming trafic and gets killed. It doesn't matter the nature of that person, weather it be ghundi or hitler, that person is still gonna get smacked by a moving vehical.
Moving to my point earlier about mistranslations of the bible, weather on purpose or on accident.
The bible could have also been misintrepruted because of the language the people were using in a diffrent sense.
Since the language of our time is more evolved then the ancient languages people once used. Scriptures could have accidently made double entendres with out translators recognising the diffrence.
This reason could mainly be due to the fact that fewer words were used to explain more things.
It also wouldn't be an anomaly for a string of words to be completley transformed.
For instance say we used the word "cents" and it meant two things instead of one.
Cents - a small sum of money
cents - when a person is using logical reasoning.
Say I was to make a statement like "I make a lot of cents in my job". or something like "You could make a lot of cents with your intellect"
If the bible does have accidential double entendres that occur, it can easily be misleading or mistranslated. which im sure it does because if you think about it enough most statementes can mean two diffrent things.
Basic proof for this is the fact that inuendos(sp?) are often applied to any statement and most often including sex. So double entendres in the scriptures of the bible could easily happen on accident, especially when more intellegent people read it and most people on average who read the ancient text, happen to be more intellegent.
Hopefully you can understand what I am trying to prove
... its probally really unclear
I know cents and sense are spelled two diffrent ways but in ancient times its possible that a word with two diffrent meanings was spelled the same way
Last edited by Ninjoo, 18-Feb-2008 at 03:30.
(19-Feb-2008 at 01:51)
If I may indulge, I wonder: what is the motive behind deconstructing God? It seems like criticism and maybe slander. I think that there might be bit of God in the back of your minds which you are trying to cleanse our of yourselves for some reason. If this is the case, then perhaps it would be better to create something new rather than to simply criticize God. There are limited benefits in convincing yourselves of the negative aspects to God rather than the positive ones.
(19-Feb-2008 at 02:21)
I agree with you. There is no point to descontructing god because you will never be able to.
Hopfefully you guys didn't misitreprut what I was saying as critisism to god because thats not what I am doing at all.
I am critizing the people who re wrote the passeges from the bible and our current translation technology.
I would still like to know why exactly you guys who are religious and christians... why exactly you are christian.
Of course I am still gonna have a discussion with you and possibly put some of your reasons into question for your beliefs but that doesn't mean I am gonna dis respect you. That just means I am trying to get deep rooted logic from you and truth and cut through the red tape thats layered.
I put your reasons into question because I am confussed on why someone would fully believe anything that is not 100% proven.
I believe the possibilty that god created us but I also believe the possibility that he had nothing to do with our creation and is made up.
This doesn't mean I think the concept of god is any less than the concept of evolution.
Also givin the fact that if god exist and he is who he says he is than its stupid to put his logic into question because god doesn't need anything from you.
Think of a genius thats human and think of the fact that they don't need people to question there debates because they already have it figured out more than you ever will.
Now think of god. God is much more than a polymath when it comes to intellegence, infact if god is who he says he is than god actually created intellegence and questioning his motives would be retarted.
Now niceley asking him why he choose his motives and asking him to explain his motives make more sense.
Most people get this information from the bible.
Which could be translated in so many ways that it might be impossible to figure out what you truly wanted to know about god because this is our main resourse.
(19-Feb-2008 at 03:23)
It is like, "Why exactly are you breathing?"
There is only mindfulness that I feel. It seems unhealthy to question it.
It is not like "What exactly are you darwinist?"
I would be telling the story and producing my own evidences. It is not the same.
I do not even speculate on God.
(19-Feb-2008 at 04:58)
Breathing is nothing like the belief in god. That is not a logical statement at all. How could you possibly compare instict with the train of thought a human is capable of.
You don't breathe because it feels right. You choose to be a vegan because it feels right.
Breathing is not something you can control with thought and that is a fact.
I know what you might be thinking.
"I can hold my breath if I choose to"
"I can breathe slower if I want to"
That would also be wrong because it is a proven fact that only one element of the way the brain works in humans can be distinguished as non instintual reaction.
Breathing is not one of those things that is choice thought.
If you choose to hold your breath its because a chemical was realised in your brain to trigger your breath control and make you want to do it.
Simply like bears that climb trees as a defensive mechinism from being eatin.
These bears also don't know the diffrence between danger but just sense danger.
Say there is a fire certain bears will feel like they are out of danger by using the same defensive mechinism as to avoid being eatin.
Which is obviously untrue and the bear doesn't know its actually stepping into danger.
I used this example because the same parts of the brain that control breatheing are instinctual in all senses.
Only one part of the human brain isn't instinct and allows you to analize complex thoughts. This part of the brain is more developed in adults than children.
Embracing and practicing a religion and accepting a religion is not instinct and is a rational choice analized by your brain.
This question is nothing like "Why do you choose to eat jelly doughnuts?"
"because they taste good"
This question is more like
"Why do you choose to believe in evolution"
"because it makes sense"
Thats not instinct telling you it makes sense but actual thought power.
Thus it is correct to ask why you "why would believe that religion a choice opposed to something else."
It seems unhealthy not to question your own beliefs. If you hear the voice of god telling you to kill people, you should probally question that voice.
"Hmm I think I might be crazy and should check myself into a mental institution"
Its unhealthy to immerse yourself in belief if you don't know why its happening. Say you just went with the voices and couldn't logically make sense of it.
"It must be god he knew everything about me"
In this sense you are feeding your delusional senses in an unhealthy way and not logically analizing something.
Its unhealthy to not question the logic if were part of the crusades.
Its best to question your beliefs for honest fullfillment.
This is diffrent than god telling you not to let satan deviate you from his true words.
This is putting together a puzzle piece by piece on why this truly makes sense to you.
God says love thy neighbor like you would yourself.
Questining why you believe that is nothing like deviating the logic of that statement.
You obviously don't just believe that because it feels right.
You believe that because it makes sense.
The question is not only why you believe religion but what religion focuses on that inspires you.
Say you are considered a witch in old times but you are really a follower of jesus christ.
Why would you not lie to them to save your own skin? Because it feels right being tortured in the name of religion?
No, you have pieced together enough of the puzzle to decside that its worth it to be tortured in the name of religion.
Is this just something that makes sense? No, they are forcing you to use serious thought when it comes to liberty of life. Its a concsious decision, choosing religion.
Last edited by Ninjoo, 19-Feb-2008 at 05:05.
(19-Feb-2008 at 08:25)
This is true: I do not breathe because it feels right. I breathe because I feel it. What I can choose in the process of breathing is to be mindful; I can choose to feel it and I can observe the feeling. This process only offically becomes "breath" after I analyze complex thoughts about breathing. For example, "I am breathing" and "Breathing means that I can live" and so on. But breathing that is rationalized in this way is no longer breathing in itself because it has lost its subtle feeling. In order to feel breath we must just feel breath and not the significance or the complex analysis Of Breath.
God also has a feeling. I can rationalize about God for the sake of this discussion and I can choose to believe that I am feeling God in some dead and impractical realm of rationalized analysis, but why would I? These would be a empty exercises when I can simply feel God in the first instance of feeling. There is really no space for me to question, but only to observe what is already there.
(19-Feb-2008 at 10:26)
Good point on the focus of feeling of breathing.
I never actually thought to feel a breath in a complex manner.
When I take a breath in thats good I just accept it as something I like to do in this instance you are using a tool to stay alive as a drug to induce euphoria.
Reguardless breathing is still instinct and your methods to achieve a natrual high are still instinctual while the concepts are not.
Trying to obtain the feeling that breathing provides is a neat natrual high.
Still relying on gods existance through feelings isn't the same thing as belief of god.
let me give an instance of what I am talking about.
You can feel lots of ecstacy with feeling that someone created you.
There are lots of ways to create a positive Chi by thinking about feelings.
You are saying you believe god because you have more positive emotions relating to the idea of god.
Controlling an idea in your mind for positive feelings does not make sense when it comes to god.
In this situation
God = positive feelings that you create that manifest through your body
God isn't really your mind speaking to yourself.
God is an omnipotent being while you are not.
You are using the same logic that I demonstrated didn't work when I was speaking about god talking to you.
You can feel your presence enjoying the fact that you accept your feelings as god but your feelings are not god they are simply chemicals that god possibly created or you yourself manifested with the notion of god.
What I am trying to say is if you rely on those feelings to prove god to yourself than you are no longer worshoping god.
You are worshoping a those feelings of god
Thus making you worshop a false idle and yourself which is basically satanism.
You have to understand the power of logic and the power that words can bring.
Stateing the word satanism simply gives me cringes but stating the word love and god gives me happy feelings although I nether disbelieve god or believe in god.
God in other senses is an improvtu tool for manipulation of instinct because words have so much power on the human mind.
Not only that but through social conditioning I personaly have to relate god to good forces and satan to bad forces weather I believe in them or not.
So it all basically comes down to this. The belief of god and the feeling of god are two diffrent concepts.
You feel gods power through social conditioning which gods power is really your minds power just being instinctual.
You consider feeling of god more important than that of rationalizing the liberty and freedoms that god gave you.
You consider feelings of god more important than rationalizing your belief. This means you can't have true nobility and honor in the name of god when your feelings are being manipulated.
Would you die for your feelings NOO.... that doesn't make sense.
Think of the much more powerfull feeling you get when rationalizing the fact that you are dying a nobal death even under torture or supporting a worthy cause just as jesus did.
The feelings are not dead in logic and language but stronger than ever. Infact, in certain situations of torture the logic in your belief of god should be much more powerfull than your feelings of god. The feelings alone will make you give in but the logic that you are able to keep with your special relations to god in a diar hour will prevent your will from being crushed.
The knowledge of a mind is an pure evil thing in the christian sense because satan induced it on all of humanity.
God is smarter than satan though obviously so he gave you the tools of his word to escape evilness so you can truly be a free will.
Understanding why you believe and surve god logically makes your will invinsible and even the mightighest of weapons will not slay your will because its that of god and not of your own.
So comming to rational terms about the word of god can save you.
God says you should devote atleast an hour a day to him and by using rationalization to come to terms with your belief so there is no doubt is faith and faith in god is infalable logic that will save you from the fires of hell.
I don't understand why christians use the term faith so losely when faith in god is an insurmountable power.
Faith is a test of logic because when you walk through the valley of the shadows of death you shouldn't fear evil. With out critical logic in the shadows of death you will surley fail.
Thus if someone wants to burn you alive in the name of god your last bit of logic remains faith.
Hopefully you can understand what I am saying and what I want know is much deeper
Last edited by Ninjoo, 19-Feb-2008 at 10:34.
(19-Feb-2008 at 18:35)
Ah, love yes. The Christian concept of love is quite nice in theory. In the New Testament the word translated love that Jesus went on about is 'agape' right, a principled love, the love that lets you turn the other cheek. Maybe its just me but I don't see this love in any religion. They have pretensions of love yes, but this love is only within certain parameters. If someone doesn't want to embrace this love then they are condemned for it.
If you don't accept God's love you will be killed (or worse) for it during some brutal final judgment or after you die. I can't reconcile the concept of a God who preaches love but practices murder. Just doesn't seem very loving. Many dictators have seen genocide as a cool solution to problems. God is up there with the best of them.
(19-Feb-2008 at 23:59)
What god is trying to say is that these people are taken over by satan and worth killing.
An eye for an eye, man, thats the way it works.
The diffrence between hitler and angels that take an eye for an eye is they take someone like hilters eye.
Another words no one that you would want to exist gets slayed.
It might seem cruel but its not
Plus look at god as a banker and someone robs the bank.
Let me put this in a way you can understand
God is a banker and we are all in debt because everyone that sins is withdrawing money from the fountain of life.
Sin is not a good thing. If I killed a bunch of jewish people wouldn't you want me in jail?
Its the same concept exept some people want to rob the bank of life.
God will forgive your debt if your rob bread for your family and repent but some people in certain situations obviously deserved to be perminatly jailed for there actually.
Its like hitler stole 100 billion dollars from the bank.
Plus there are a lot worse things than a killing.
God himself doesn't judge anyone or kill anyone.
(21-Feb-2008 at 07:27)
If there existed a creature that could only breathe, then the ultimate clarity for this creature would be to witness its own breath.
The ultimate clarity for man is to witness God.
(21-Feb-2008 at 07:47)
Haha you are wrong
I have evidence that god must exist through logic
Logic is mysterious!!
God is mysterious
god invented your logic
This is evidence for the fact that god exist.
How could god not exist when the clues are all there?
The clues that reality exist!!
but god obviously has to exist more than you if you can never proove evolution or science
reality is mysterious and unprovable in the aspect that we take our time trying to figure things out and its not already figured out for us.
How does god exist?
He exist because everything is one giant math problem that can never be figured out.
I can't show you physical proof because god is to mysterious and eludes us.
I can show you logical proof.
God exist because you can never explain where something comes from
Thats why you can't disprove god. He exist all right, you just have to find the big guy in the sky or else you dind't solve anything.
You can't prove something wrong with out proof thus god exist.
(21-Feb-2008 at 08:28)
I was EXTREMELY blunt with you to figure it out, I deserve better logic than that.
What do you mean by your sentence dude?
Putting the clues together for proof of evolution and proof of math and proof of science.
Put the clues together and you logically come up with god.
is this logic not imaginitive enough for you? doesn't this paint a pretty enough picture for you?
Oh whats that I see an athiest resorting only to emotion and not thought.
Improbable my dear watson.
(21-Feb-2008 at 08:35)
There are no gaps in the universe. So how are you able to organize your data when discontinuity never exists?
You must be pretending that discontinuity exists in order to put that imaginary section of the universe 'on hold' in order to focus on something else to explain before coming back to it later. But by the time you get back to your original fantasy the details have all changed. The universe does not sit still does it?
There's no simplification able to be made! There's nothing to figure out. It is all One.
(21-Feb-2008 at 09:04)
Your last sentece for discussion purposes was ambiguous.
In fact everything you said was.
How do you explain scientific math saying that demention exist if there are no gaps in the universe?
Hmm axions travel in and out of demtion.
Time doesn't exist either
Its obviously an imaginery graph.
In gods universe time exist and by saying this I am implying that god made this universe and god also has other universes but for the purpose of explination he put us in this universe so we could explain it.
You can't simplify god by our definition.
Yes logically he exist.
On another note
The only way I see for you to actually aproach proving me wrong is to say god either exist or logic is wrong.
LOGIC is wrong not what ever the discountinue theory states.
Stop comming up with non sense that doesn't prove that.
Its ambiguous, assinine, and further more doesn't make sense and is off topic.
Lets focus on one thing at a time
You start using your mind and I will give you piece of mine about this situation.
Contrary to popular belief, you are not smart by becoming an athiest.
So stop trying to look cool by being athiest!!
Being an athiest because your community is athiest is not cool at all and every athiest should stfu about there 'brand of town' they are born in.
I don't care about weather its popular or not or weather you seem cool or weather you are fitting in.
comming up with bogus, non insightfull logic, and vague off topic descriptions is not cool.
In this thread I clearly stated not to do that and thus the thread is still openend.
Last edited by Ninjoo, 21-Feb-2008 at 09:10.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments||AsianAmerican||Religious Discussions||54||27-Aug-2005 14:08|
|The illogic of religion||Gus Mackay||Religious Discussions||46||05-Aug-2005 12:28|
|On the topic of Evangilism and Finding your religion.||pump||Religious Discussions||17||31-Jul-2004 11:13|
|Religious survey,all input welcomed||Jean831112||Religious Discussions||29||13-Apr-2004 16:52|
|Question on Religion from an outsider||Cleyra||Religious Discussions||52||16-Jul-2003 05:24|