The Faith & Religion mega Thread

White implies black, life implies death, and self implies other.. I think were like cells in a body which can't tell there's another world outside the body, yet there is..

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Things are condemned if you don't educate true-provable truth that's why us majorities say no to religions in schools we want a better world, religions do not! Kids evolve faster than even education can...

Oh, I don't know, Jamison – at one time it was "proved" that the Earth was flat. Newton's laws of motion were "proved" until Einstein came along. Religion is certainly a very deep part of human existence – always has been – and I think that some study of it should be included in school curriculums. Just, "not with an agenda."

Unless the parents choose to put their children into a parochial school.

Religions are one of the richest and most beautiful tapestries of our societies, and they always have been. They should be studied. Kids and adults should learn about the many religions that are out there, not just their own (if any).

I'll also flatly reject your statement that "religions do not want a better world." Of course they do.

I think that kids – and adults – need to be taught that differing opinions and points of view exist, other than their own. I also think that it's important to teach kids – and adults – that there are really very few (if any) "absolutes" in this world. Don't believe something just because someone else told you to do so. But, don't reject something as "valueless" because it doesn't align with whatever you believe right now.

We used to teach philosophy as a fundamental part of education. (I refer to philosophy as "thinking about thinking.") A lot of even scientific inquiry is philosophical, especially in places where direct empirical evidence cannot be obtained (such as quantum physics). This is a mechanism for dealing with uncertainty and also the unknowable – of which "there is a'plenty on this planet."

And, we have to firmly acknowledge the presence of the unknowable, as well as the things "about which we might be utterly and completely wrong ... we just don't know it yet." If we deny to our students knowledge of such things, we do them a great disservice.

All of this stems back to my notion that "science," "religion," and "philosophy" are not mutually exclusive even when they appear to disagree, and that none is an invalid nor a valueless form of human discourse. I think that we need all of these tools. All of them are bona fide parts of what it means to be a human in this world. And, they always have been. We need them all.

"Science" does not have to defeat "religion," nor vice-versa, and "philosophy" is not staring at your navel. Our world is too wonderful – and, too unknowable – to permit it. If we try to shut-down or even to vilify other modes of thought, we are putting blinders on that we ought not wear.

Re: the concept of sticking to the subject of the discussion, rather than relying entirely on personal "commntary"... oh yeah, and that such ideas came from me, a human, rather than a rock...

Originally Posted by BW-userx childish arguments --

Since that concept is widely used in Rules of Debate I hardly consider that childish, but maybe I missed to what you were actually referring due to lack of specificity and clarity.

Just FYI here's but one sample of those rules --- Rules of Debate ---

Re: the possible value of merely "sounding right"

Originally Posted by BW-userx that is called a sense of self worth and self righteousness.

Although we clearly have very different ideas even on basic Logic let alone Philosophy, the above came as a major surprise to me since what sort of self-worth can possibly come from mere appearance when one knows that appearance is a mask of deception? That not only makes no sense to me it makes counter sense in that for me that would be a source of shame, not pride, so I take considerable pains to avoid such worthless notions.

Originally Posted by BW-userx No Christian tried to obtain Satan for power.

??? To what is this supposed to be a response? I ask because the original comment was a supposition regarding some Christians' views on atheists with an attending point that Satan is a Christian concept, though other religions often have parallels. FWIW atheists have zero deities, especially for ones with nothing better to do with all that supposed power, and time to use it, than worry about Homo Sapiens.

Originally Posted by BW-userx funny you should mention that burb (sic), you never did actually get back to me on what was really important. instead you did what? worried about some stupid crap you didn't even say. and still did not prove that you did not say it you only said you "looked" into it to be sure but never showed proof of it. If you looked into it then proof can be shown by you.

I'm confused on this. Are you referring to my post regarding you mistakenly (benefit of the doubt) quoting me with words I did not write? ....which, BTW you still have not corrected. If it is that to which you now refer, I searched through 12 full pages preceding your quote and used Edit > Find to find anyone who wrote those words and found exactly none. As far as I can tell you made them up. So let's get truly serious now.

The last time someone in this thread inserted their own words and tried to pawn them off as someone elses and, coincidentally, to "sound right" I suppose for the sake of self righteousness, I threatened to report such behaviour to a mod if it wasn't admitted. It was not and I did and that person left in disgrace.

Even though I've agreed to suspend "willful deceit" as a prerequisite for the definition of lying for the sake of argument, that doesn't change the fact that willful deceit is a far greater crime than mere wrong opinion. By either degree of definition it is you who are lying by attributing quotes to words I never wrote. Since you made the quote, prove it (it does not refer to any post which is conveniently omitted) correct it or remove it immediately or there will be consequences. Catch my drift here?

Originally Posted by enorbet Re: the concept of sticking to the subject of the discussion, rather than relying entirely on personal "commntary"... oh yeah, and that such ideas came from me, a human, rather than a rock...

yeah right now you're trying to elevated to a childish debate.

As if I am going to debate if a rock has a thought or not. With you or anyone for that matter.

pressing matters or I'd read the rest of it, later when I get time.... perhaps

Originally Posted by enorbet Re: the concept of sticking to the subject of the discussion, rather than relying entirely on personal "commntary"... oh yeah, and that such ideas came from me, a human, rather than a rock...

everything that comes out of your "mouth" is up for debate and or commentary.

Originally Posted by enorbet Since that concept is widely used in Rules of Debate I hardly consider that childish, but maybe I missed to what you were actually referring due to lack of specificity and clarity.

you actually wanting to argue if a rock can have a thought or not when you use it to mock me is childish. of course I do expect a denial of that out of you.

Originally Posted by enorbet Just FYI here's but one sample of those rules --- Rules of Debate --- Re: the possible value of merely "sounding right"

that is you trying to make yourself right in what you said. Just so you can justify yourself with yourself first then me and anyone else that reads this.

Originally Posted by enorbet Although we clearly have very different ideas even on basic Logic

I do wonder about your brand of logic, mixing water with oil just does not work.

Originally Posted by enorbet let alone Philosophy, the above came as a major surprise to me since what sort of self-worth can possibly come from mere appearance when one knows that appearance is a mask of deception?

you posed that thought as a question.

What I spoke of was psychology not Philosophy

yes you are deceiving yourself of what is actually right. Due to you not having God in your life to make you truly righteous by His Truth and ones own self thoughts on what is right or wrong. Because what comes from a selfishness is a selfish act.

Originally Posted by enorbet That not only makes no sense to me it makes counter sense in that for me that would be a source of shame, not pride, so I take considerable pains to avoid such worthless notions.

Originally Posted by enorbet ??? To what is this supposed to be a response? I ask because the original comment was a supposition regarding some Christians' views on atheists with an attending point that Satan is a Christian concept, though other religions often have parallels. FWIW atheists have zero deities, especially for ones with nothing better to do with all that supposed power, and time to use it, than worry about Homo Sapiens.

Satan has many names and one of them is atheism.

A bold statement indeed. it is part of my belief system called Christianity. It too has beliefs about Satan. Just like you stated he is part of the Christianity beliefs.

Originally Posted by enorbet I'm confused on this. Are you referring to my post regarding you mistakenly (benefit of the doubt) quoting me with words I did not write? ....which, BTW you still have not corrected. If it is that to which you now refer, I searched through 12 full pages preceding your quote and used Edit > Find to find anyone who wrote those words and found exactly none. As far as I can tell you made them up. So let's get truly serious now.

you are the one that stated this as fact.

Originally Posted by enorbet post #7526 Those are not my words and not posted by me in 500+ pages here. Please correct your "quotation" if not your"analysis" and dissertation.

How did you know within 500+ pages in this thread you did not say what got posted within my rebuttal to you if you had not looked at all of the post to be sure?

your honesty is in question. more your ability to prove what you tell me. You and others in here love to toss out accusations out at me without solid proof, and others within here have no idea how to even deceiver a truth.

Originally Posted by enorbet The last time someone in this thread inserted their own words and tried to pawn them off as someone elses and, coincidentally, to "sound right" I suppose for the sake of self righteousness, I threatened to report such behavior to a mod if it wasn't admitted. It was not and I did and that person left in disgrace.

could you prove they did that on purpose beyond a reasonable doubt?

this is the definition of a lie in reverse. it too can be denied that one lied in full knowledge of it. Just so they can place plausible doubt into the equation.

Originally Posted by enorbet Even though I've agreed to suspend "willful deceit" as a prerequisite for the definition of lying for the sake of argument, that doesn't change the fact that willful deceit is a far greater crime than mere wrong opinion. By either degree of definition it is you who are lying by attributing quotes to words I never wrote. Since you made the quote, prove it (it does not refer to any post which is conveniently omitted) correct it or remove it immediately or there will be consequences. Catch my drift here?

I merely asked you by how you stated that was not you to proved proof. you have a habit of tossing out accusations about me and show nothing to back it up.

You state you want to have a debate, whereas I see it as all you want to do is start arguments you cannot back up just for the sake of starting arguments.

Perhaps because all of your other atheist buddies do not want to argue with you. You are not here to try an learn anything about the Christian faith. You and the other are only in here denying it and toss out your irrational misinformed incomplete thoughts on Christianity only showing how much you two do not even really know about it.

You and that other one in here do nothing but spit out falsehoods, misconceptions of the truth. Lies about the Christian Faith.

Because you and all of the others belief system are garbled with lies and not truths within it (the (your) belief system) to make you and all of the others do nothing but error in your thinking.

you are too busy trying to reinforce you misinformed beliefs about Christianly to even know what you are really talking about.

all then that comes out of you and all like you are LIES be they known or not to be lies they still cause you and all of the others to ERROR in your thoughts therefore your belief about Christianity.

Because lies do not belong in the belief system, That is not how God intended it.


Satan loves a lair. Because he is the father of lies.

he loves the ones that do not even know what they are doing to themselves more. Because he knows he has them. So he does not have to attack them to get them to sin. They just do it on their own.

That makes Satan's job much easier.


If you'd shut up and learn more about the Belief system and how it works.. .. well then....

Originally Posted by BW-userx Satan has many names and one of them is atheism.

I wondered when this would eventually come.

I knew it was there, behind the curtain of obfuscation.

No Christian tried to obtain Satan for power.

...satan only exists because of fairy tales, many are blind as bats but without sonar!!!@!@! 0.0

Originally Posted by BW-userx yeah right now you're trying to elevated to a childish debate. As if I am going to debate if a rock has a thought or not. With you or anyone for that matter. pressing matters or I'd read the rest of it, later when I get time.... perhaps

I hate to be forced to state the obvious but it was you that brought up the whole rock thing, not me. I brought up encouragement to stick to the topic at hand as per Rules of Debate. Nothing childish there with the possible exception of your response.

Again and again like me...

@ BW-userx - Your debating skills seem to be extremely childish, actually on the level of "I'm rubber, you're glue..." Look, I have been here for over 300 of the pages in this thread and you have been here for less than 50, and the words you "quoted" were attributed to me. I know what I write and it is highly suspicious that up until that post you normally used the Forum's quotes mechanism that lists the post from which the quote was taken and the first (and rare) time you didn't do that was effectively to put "straw man" words in "my mouth". You did this and I did due diligence by going back a very reasonable distance within the pages where the bulk of our "conversation" has taken place. Your post tag link points to post #7517 and everyone can see the words you posted are nowhere to be found in that post, so despite your protests to the opposite, the burden of proof is on YOU since you provided a false link in which the words are likely yours. They certainly are not mine. I, sometimes have not used formal quotes and I am quite willing to back each and every one up since I have no sacred cow to prop up.

Until you fix this, you, Sir, are a liar and a cheat and I will gladly retract this should you "man up" and accept the responsibility of your own words and admit your transgression. At some point should you not fix this I will have a Mod help in this decision of whose responsibility it is and who has earned an infraction.

Edit: For the sake of specificity and clarity and as a helpful reminder, the mistaken or falsified quote appears as this

Originally Posted by BW-userx post BW-userx post link Quote: Originally Posted by enorbet View Post Link to the post in which you assert these words were written by me Allegedly posted by enorbet "Maybe that is why I am confusing you. You do not try to get a full understanding of what you tell me,"

It's that last line just above that are NOT my words yet you said they were. It's either merely a lie of passing on a falsehood (your definition) or it is willful deception.
Now anyone can click the two links and compare for themselves.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Oh, I don't know, Jamison – at one time it was "proved" that the Earth was flat. Newton's laws of motion were "proved" until Einstein came along. .

I've enjoyed much of what you've posted lately and though I disagree with much that I snipped out of the above post I thought I'd start with focusing on a rehash. We have been through this before, sundialsvcs. NO it was never proven the Earth was flat! It was merely an assertion by possibly well-meaning religious people that thought Flat Earth better fit biblical text and human lack of teference, no evidence offered, therefore, no proof. Newton's Laws were not supplanted by Einstein. Newton is still used today within the confines of what Newton had available to study. It would be as if Newton stated, "When throwing an apple, the arc of travel can be calculated if the mass of the apple and the acceleration of the throw are known." and Einstein clarified with "Not if that apple is thrown on the Moon". Newton is still correct on the Earth with this pseudo example and actually still works with extratererrstrial objects in the "vacuum" of Space IF one specifies the location and motion of the observer.

So please, do try to come up with something that actually states your case, rather than this falsehood. Your point is not necessarily invalid, but your path to it is a bit dodgy at best and diminishes your argument. A "house" is only as strong as it's foundation.

Could you say science wants a perfect world when it appeared to create the need for a nuclear bomb, no beliefs created that need facts and physical materials blew up believes and scientists alike... believes\chaos kill facts don't.

Fairy tails need "heroes..." need "villains..." need facts to end the psychoses.

Feeding the poor makes more poor, teaching facts shows how to make a door.

Last edited by jamison20000e;

Every religion has some kind of pantheon. There are "good" gods and "evil" ones, and the "good" gods, no matter how all-powerful they are, can never defeat the evil ones and cause them to simply cease to exist. This is simply because "evil is in the heart of man," and it will never be extinguished.

The Christian religion is a little unusual in that it has a single, specific "god of evil," and that this god is actually described as an angel who went rogue. This god is pure-evil and is the personification of evil as well as the source of all evil. If you commit an act of evil, it is because it was Satan's idea in the first place and he "tempted you" to follow his instructions. Evil will one day be destroyed by destroying this tempter, after which mankind will no longer commit evil deeds.

Judaism, as reflected in the Christian bible, had a number of "false gods" – although they were not "evil" and were not considered by their adherents to be "false." They were worshiped by the citizens of neighboring countries who every now and then kicked Israel's butt, and at other times had their butts kicked.

They particularly featured Bàal, whose name could be interpreted as "son of god" and who in ancient versions of that religion (or its precursors) was described as being one of the multiple "sons of El." ("El" of course being (possibly) the god we now refer to in modern usage as "God.") In the Christian religion, God has no children other than Jesus, whom the Jews do not acknowledge, and Jesus is the "only son" – specifically, the "only begotten son," which actually does not preclude the existence of other god-children. Nevertheless, the Christian version is that God has only one child, and that He demanded that child as a human sacrifice.

The only other specific reference to multiple god-beings is in Genesis, where God is quoted as realizing that man, if allowed to eat from the other tree, "will become like us." (Implying that man would become a god.) The notion of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost™" is entirely a Christian invention, although "God's spirit rested on" prophets many times throughout both texts.

It is also interesting that, with Christianity, the only thing one must do in order to obtain eternal life in a kingdom dripping with mansions and gold paving-stones is to believe the story. ("Whosoever believeth in Him," etcetera.) Your "acts" have nothing to do with it. (Even though, in the Last Judgment scene, people are being considered by their earthly deeds. And even though followers are told to change their earthly ways ... "sell all that you have," etc. The plurality is unexplained.)

Originally Posted by enorbet I hate to be forced to state the obvious but it was you that brought up the whole rock thing, not me. I brought up encouragement to stick to the topic at hand as per Rules of Debate. Nothing childish there with the possible exception of your response.

then you had to have pondered " is that even possible, it just might be. lets talk about that because I am not even really sure about that one even."

then you try and get me to buy into that. blank thought about something you should have learned long before you got out of Junior High. or middle school or whatever you it is called wherever you are at.

Because whY?

it was a comparison. stop making up justifications just to try and make yourself sound right and me wrong.

this is a faith and Religion thread not a lets ponder upon what we already know so we can argue about it. Just for the sake of arguing. that seems to be a pattern with you. just arguing one sided thoughts with half truths and then making accusations instead of dealing with the subject matter about faith and Religion.

you side track a lot , and this here is just an example to show that about you.

Originally Posted by linux4evr5581 White implies black, life implies death, and self implies other.. I think were like cells in a body which can't tell there's another world outside the body, yet there is..

Just don't forget cancer tho some maybe open to interpretations... eg

Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

others are not

and it will never be extinguished.

...hogwash! Anything can change like how you use your computer, it's called evolution (fight it, don't,,, no matter matter!)