I invite all chistians to a debate with me.

[easeoflife22]

This is the debate, you can make any arguement you like for proof of your theory of God, but you cannot reference any biblical texts.

The reason being, the Bibles were created by believers to support their beliefs. Being the inspired word of god, they made a lot of mistakes and are completely questionable and inadmissable to this debate.

Well that's kinda wrong, because as Christians, they don't believe the Book is flawed.

Just like any so-called evidence they give will be deemed flawed by you, just like their personal experiences will be dismissed by you.

The Bible is one of the foundations of their beliefs. It's what makes them Christian, really.

[easeoflife22]

So what your saying is that a book supposedly being the written word of god, can't be proved to be so, so they're fucked cause it's all they have. Interesting.

My whole point was nothing that is concrete evidence supporting god can be found upon this earth. No experiences that can't be explained, just absolutely no proof at all. How can one believe in the existence of something that is supported by the same amount of evidence as the boogyman.

The earth was not created 6000 years ago. God would know that, and not put it in a book of his word. The earth was never completely flooded 5000 years ago either, as their is no geological eveidence of this ever happening. And the earth is not flat and supported by pillars. Kind of some big errors to overcome. If they can't even get the basics down right, why should I listen to the rest of it?

[This message has been edited by easeoflife22 (edited 10-02-2006).]

NO, that's not what I'm saying.

I said nothing about dis/proving the Bible.

I'm saying that YOU are barring them from using one of their strongest pieces of evidence, setting unfair rules for a debate.

Let them use the Bible. Then YOU refute it by using logic and critical thinking. Don't be a pussy.

[easeoflife22]

Why should I? In a court proceeding, it would be found inadmissable if any of it was found to be false.

[easeoflife22]

You know what, just cause I'm a nice guy, I'll allow it, since I've made my point anyways. I know what they throw at me, and I'm not worried cause it's simply bullshit and it's all completely made up. But say what you will.

[easeoflife22]

It is sad though that they're strongest piece of evidence is pretty week. I mean c'mon, it's thousands of years old, written in a time when they thought the earth was flat etc. To consider it as valuable today is a joke. What is the proof that the Bible is a legitimate proof?

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

It is sad though that they're strongest piece of evidence is pretty week. I mean c'mon, it's thousands of years old, written in a time when they thought the earth was flat etc. To consider it as valuable today is a joke. What is the proof that the Bible is a legitimate proof?

It's the cornerstone of their faith. That's all the proof that's needed. Not proof of its validity, but proof of the need for it.

And would you rather there have been a new bible? Written by modern peeps, telling tales of a time long past? Why? The older it is, the better, because it's that much closer to the times the events occurred. Back before useful technology.

shrooms helped

why do you seem to hate them?

Some of the extremes can be pretty ignorant and hard to get along with, but that has more to do with who they are as a person (and how that person feels about their chosen faith) then what their faith is. Its also stereotypical to assume everyone in that group shares the exact same position on the matter.

Are you that stereotypical about all religions? Or that all atheists believe the exact same thing?

Why try and disproove their religion? Why not muslims? or buddists? all religions are wrong....unless you look at then with you view askew.

You prolly really just dont like the dogma in christianity, and dont even know it. But most religions, when stripped of their dogmatic rust, are pretty much the same, in my own opinion. If someone was to live their lives by the basic correlations they would find when researching these religions, they would find out they pretty much already knew it. In my opinion.

[Obbe]

^whoops, that was me, my girlfriend left window up....

[easeoflife22]

No, what I expect is the oldest possible bible that can be found that is still relative to this day. If there are human mistakes in it, it's not all that devine. When a book inspired by a god that is all-knowing, and there is simple mistakes in it that makes it less than devine, the source becomes questionable. Being the foundation of the faith, the faith then becomes questionable.

Why do I hate Christianity? I actually dislike all religions, and believe they are all false. Christianity especially because it is the major relgion where I live. The church instills ideas into followers brains, they are no longer thinking for themselves, but they're actions have a major impact on an atheists life. I'm tired of being subjected to the ideals of the christian majority, and feel it is unfair to be denied what I believe to be reasonable liberties. Maybe you don't realize it, but not everyone is happy with what you think are your good works.

The idea that people can have beliefs founded on nothing is also quite disturbing to me. People who believe things, but can't justify that belief with rationality, are victims of brainwashing. You might not realize it, but I do, and your a giant brainwashed hand of a few men who think they know how to run earth best. Even worse, your values are now being tapped into by governments to sway votes and really fuck over us non-believers. Christians better take a few steps back from the controls or they're gonna find a lot more suicide bombers on board. I'm literally tired of dealing with religious bullshit. Religion just has no place in dictating modern societies that are supposed to be fair and just, cause religions are just the opposite.

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

This is the debate, you can make any arguement you like for proof of your theory of God, but you cannot reference any biblical texts.

My theory: God is Energy - all energy including 'dark energy', it is eternal, it is indestructible, it is omnipresent, it is omniscient, it is omnibenevolent/all-good, it created everything and continually creates life and all that exists.

Your rebuttal? (without using the bible or any texts that cannot be proven 100% true)

Peace

[Obbe]

actually, im (i posted under my girlfriends name if you didnt catch that) not christian.

I also dont belive any of the religions, and think their wrong. But i also think they all touch on some real truth, that you would realize if you wernt just as ignorant as any extreame religious group, except oppositly ignorant. And i dont even think oppositly is a word!!

You are being sterotypical of christianity, and are beggining to rant about the horrid things they do to the world. Im on the same page, i agree, they have no place in government desicions, and their faith is a very, very silly one. But you are not any better at all, you are just the opposite.

[Obbe]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

My theory: God is Energy - all energy including 'dark energy', it is eternal, it is indestructible, it is omnipresent, it is omniscient, it is omnibenevolent/all-good, it created everything and continually creates life and all that exists.

Your rebuttal? (without using the bible or any texts that cannot be proven 100% true)

Peace

i agree with this. Since everything is energy, including matter. Although i dont know if i agree with the wording....

[easeoflife22]

Actually that is very much my belief, with some very slight differences, but much the same. That is however not the Christian God that is spoken of in the Bible. Other than the bible itself, nothing else points to this conclusion. Therefore, it was the bible that created that God in your mind, not described the theoretical one above. It's just foolish to believe in a book without fully contemplating it's impacts, some actually going in the face of the teaching within the book itself.

[easeoflife22]

My problem is with the religious institution, not the messages. It's the fact that they're being drilled into peoples heads, and that they're told to be ignorant of adverse thinking, is what scares the crap out of me. Honestly, you'd swear I was a good christian by my actions in life. I'm a very forgiving person, but these institutions are being used to get a lot of people on one page for purposes that are dangerous, and this needs to be adressed and dealt with.

[Obbe]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

My problem is with the religious institution, not the messages. It's the fact that they're being drilled into peoples heads, and that they're told to be ignorant of adverse thinking, is what scares the crap out of me. Honestly, you'd swear I was a good christian by my actions in life. I'm a very forgiving person, but these institutions are being used to get a lot of people on one page for purposes that are dangerous, and this needs to be adressed and dealt with.

then maybe you should try attacking the agressor and not its victims? hmmm?

Or how about we forget all about negativity all together, and you just try telling people the truth you believe in?

And even if you do that, you'll have to know that not everyone will want to listen. Dont insult them, just let them be. They'll die eventually. Humanity will die eventually.

Be at friggin peace!!!!

lol

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

That is however not the Christian God that is spoken of in the Bible.

What is this "Christian God" you speak of? Where is this God revealed? How do you define a "Christian"? If one admires the teachings of "Christ", without following a religion, does that make one a christian?

Peace

ADmiring something doesn't make you a follower of it.

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

i agree with this. Since everything is energy, including matter. Although i dont know if i agree with the wording....

Yes, the wording is inadequate, however words are what we use in trying to 'form' ideas, how can one ever envisage the form of the formless? Apparently not logically possible, it's obviously illusory to give any image or form to Energy, yet it appears in all forms? How then to describe it? If i say God is Energy, does that have any meaning if one is not able to form a picture of it? Is it true that any and all descriptions of God would be inadequate?

Namaste

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

ADmiring something doesn't make you a follower of it.

If one admires Christ's message to "Love your Enemies", and that admiration causes one to see that to love one's enemies means there are no enemies(for how can one who is loved be an enemy?), is one then a follower and thus a christian?

Peace

[Obbe]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Yes, the wording is inadequate, however words are what we use in trying to 'form' ideas, how can one ever envisage the form of the formless? Apparently not logically possible, it's obviously illusory to give any image or form to Energy, yet it appears in all forms? How then to describe it? If i say God is Energy, does that have any meaning if one is not able to form a picture of it? Is it true that any and all descriptions of God would be inadequate?

Namaste

lol, are those all for me? cause i dont think i could answer one.

edit-is anybody who has posted in this thread a christian? because if not, that kinda funny.

[This message has been edited by Obbe (edited 10-03-2006).]

All those who dont believe will be proven wrong..but the proof isn't here yet.

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

lol, are those all for me? cause i dont think i could answer one.

edit-is anybody who has posted in this thread a christian? because if not, that kinda funny.

No I don't expect you to answer them they were simply the questions in my mind when I read your reply.

I do not call myself a christian, however I have been called one by others and my understanding of history says this has always been the case. The original followers of Jesus were first called christians by others as a derogatory insult. As you say: 'it is in stereotyping', all forms of prejudice spring from ignorance, and it seems to be ignorance that causes people to label/stereotype other's beliefs without actually understanding them.

Peace

[Obbe]

mmmm....fried chicken and marijuana. Later my brothren.

[easeoflife22]

A christian is one who believes that Jesus was the savior and died for our sins. It's not so much that I don't believe this, but it's irrelevent to me. It could have been bum on the street that said," love thy enemy" and it's still a good message. What does the source of wisdom have to do with the quality of it?

The Christian idealogy of God is that he can change things here on earth, that he has a hand in manipulating things. That if you pray to him, he'll perform miracles etc. I don't believe that there is such a god. The universe, or energy which makes it up is god, is a very good theory, and even makes sense. A energy balancing function governed by logical restrictions is even a better name for what God likely is. But then it's not really a god, cause a god is a being. It's more like an applied energy equation, lol.

I kinda figured not to many Christians would take a stab at this, cause it's a losing battle and their circular arguements becomes invalid without being able to claim their bible as proof.

When I was convincing my fiance that her religion was the wrong path, she brought up a the end time people would be trying to sway others away from their religion. I said," since the beginning of Christianity people have claimed it was false, so how many more thousands of years should a group wait before they realize it isn't going to happen."

[DeuceOmen]

off topic but what do you belive happens when you die ease. Fear of extermination on death is what draws people to belive anything in relgion in my opinion.

I myself cant follow anything that tell you "To acheive enternal happiness you have to belive this way" that makes no sense and is a terror tactic imo.

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

A christian is one who believes that Jesus was the savior and died for our sins. It's not so much that I don't believe this, but it's irrelevent to me. It could have been bum on the street that said," love thy enemy" and it's still a good message. What does the source of wisdom have to do with the quality of it?

Good question, but what I'm thinking is you have illustrated what I thought and that is: you are challenging your 'idea' of 'christianity' and your idea of it's God, then labelling as christians those who hold those beliefs.

That is a subjective view, no different to my holding of views that are subject to my own knowledge and experiences. Nothing wrong with that but I don't think it's accurate to claim no response from christians simply because they do not conform to your label.

One could argue that 'God is Love', that is a 'Christian'../bible%20teaching,%20a%20vision%20that%20is%20held%20by%20many%20other%20religions.%20therefore%20if%20god%20is%20love%20one%20could%20pr0a8542d393 'God is not' rather than what God is?

Peace

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

This is the debate, you can make any arguement you like for proof of your theory of God, but you cannot reference any biblical texts.

The reason being, the Bibles were created by believers to support their beliefs. Being the inspired word of god, they made a lot of mistakes and are completely questionable and inadmissable to this debate.

What do you hope to accomplish in this debate?

What would happen if you win, or i win or anyone else?....

Here is what i think would happen..

The winner would feel accomplished.

The loser would most likely feel the need to brush up on his/her ability to argue or avoid the conflict in the future.

Onlookers (depending on the maturity level) would probably not sway too much from their beliefs. Less mature onlookers may be swayed; but most likely, that would be because their belief hasnt been fully formed yet (hence, less mature).

reguards,

johnny

To the OP, you do have a good point, but we could argue all day and still not know the truth so all we can do is wait..

Explain this,

a women was riddled with cancer. She started doing stuff she had never done before. So she went to church.

6 months past, she felt better than she had for ages, she went back to the hospital and they could not find it.

OP you shouldn't be discouraging religious people. Without religions, you'd probably have been murdered by now along with the rest of us. Religion keeps people civil.

[easeoflife22]

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Slayer:

To the OP, you do have a good point, but we could argue all day and still not know the truth so all we can do is wait..

How long should one wait? Would you really wait for an eternity just in case Christ returns? You'll be just waiting out your life, just like the rest of the believers of the last 2000 years. I think that the majority just sitting and waiting for a so called messiah to fix everything, is the reason we aren't strategizing to just do it ourselves.

[easeoflife22]

quote:Originally posted by Obbe:

then maybe you should try attacking the agressor and not its victims? hmmm?

lol

Why did so many great empires fall? The slaves were turned against the empire. Without the numbers, the church is powerless to control anything. A direct attack on the church itself is pointless because it's too powerful, but a direct attack on each follower to sway them away, or create a mistrust of the church, that will eventually bring them to a level where they can be directly attacked and lose. In other words, if you take on the entire army at once, you'll lose. Take them on one at a time, and the stronger soldier will eventually beat them all.

[easeoflife22]

quote:Originally posted by DeuceOmen:

off topic but what do you belive happens when you die ease. Fear of extermination on death is what draws people to belive anything in relgion in my opinion.

Die? What proof do you have that we die? I don't believe in death. Right now, I'm dead, alive, and not even born, even living in multiple realms of all possibilities of my own personal existence at all ages. Time is just something we created, and the universe is not bound by it. Time is just an arbitrary system of reference to a point in the universe. You're never really dead, cause you'll always exist forever in this time.

[easeoflife22]

quote:Originally posted by redzed:



One could argue that 'God is Love', that is a 'Christian'../bible%20teaching,%20a%20vision%20that%20is%20held%20by%20many%20other%20religions.%20therefore%20if%20god%20is%20love%20one%20could%20pr0a8542d393 'God is not' rather than what God is?

Peace

That only creates the question, what is love? Love is simply a chemical reaction in our brains that gives us a feeling we decided to call love. It's caused by stimulous and prior feelings attached to that stimulous stored in our memories. Most likely an adaptation that allowed two mates, or entire groups to stick together, increasing chances of procreation and the survival rate of offspring. As a result, those that didn't gain this adaption were weaker and died off, leaving us with a species where this trait is prevailent throughout. So god is just chemistry, chemistry being organizations of energy interacting with energy in formations and through transfers. So God is Energy, and the logical rules that dictate it's interaction. The universe is just energy, so God is the universe.

Every single last arguement that can be given, can always be reduced down to this final answer. That Gods don't exist, just a universe comprised of energy governed by logical function. It won't perform miracles, create angels, judge you, etc. The only way you can really describe God, is by creating a massive equation that defines the logic the universe must abide by for it to function.

The equation can then be simplified to this

Universe=1

A better thread would be, "Prove to me that the Bible is a credible source of information."

Arguing with Christians is pointless until you get them to accept that their religious text blows pen0r.

[Obbe]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

Why did so many great empires fall? The slaves were turned against the empire. Without the numbers, the church is powerless to control anything. A direct attack on the church itself is pointless because it's too powerful, but a direct attack on each follower to sway them away, or create a mistrust of the church, that will eventually bring them to a level where they can be directly attacked and lose. In other words, if you take on the entire army at once, you'll lose. Take them on one at a time, and the stronger soldier will eventually beat them all.

so, instead of playing to the beat of your own beliefs and spreading them peacefully, while ignoring those who do not want to listen, you would rather try and convince others how their beliefs are wrong. Thats not selfish. You have no more proof christianity is wrong, then christians have that it is right.

and you actually want to spend time converting all the followers of a major world religion(one at a time, mind you), then the people indocterinating them into those beliefs....which would be wrong in the first place, because its their right to belive whatever the hell they want.

If destroying christianity is truly your life goal, then prehaps trying to convert the pope would be a better idea. Or a global broadcast of you telling many people in the world how the things they've belived all their lifes are wrong. or maybe you should join a ____ extreamist group, and start blowing christians up.



or you could ignore them, and leave them alone, and allow the fall of their religion to happen naturaly. Prehaps by spreading your own beliefs....just know, if you create a major religion, one day it'll be contored into somthing horridly off from you original idea, and people just like you who hate others beliefs will hate your own.

quote:Originally posted by psychedelicious:

OP you shouldn't be discouraging religious people. Without religions, you'd probably have been murdered by now along with the rest of us. Religion keeps people civil.

On the contrary, the following report shows that the evidence points in the opposite direction: http:../../moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Here's a good quote:

'In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies... No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction...'

[redzed]

quote:Originally posted by easeoflife22:

That only creates the question, what is love? Love is simply a chemical reaction in our brains that gives us a feeling we decided to call love. It's caused by stimulous and prior feelings attached to that stimulous stored in our memories.

You have illustrated my point: "It would be easier to define what God is not". Here's an example:

quote: What the world generally refers to as love is an intense emotionality combining physical attraction, possessiveness, control, addiction, eroticism and novelty. It is usually evanescent and fluctuating, waxing and waning with varying conditions. When frustrated, this emotion often reveals an underlying anger and dependency that it had masked. That love can turn to hate is a common concept, but what is being spoken about then, rather than Love, is likely an addictive sentimentality. Hate stems from Pride, not Love; there probably never was actual love in such a relationship.(Power vs Force, David R. Hawkins)

So to me it seems easier to define what is not love, just as it is easier to describe what God could not be. The vast majority would describe love in the terms used above just as the vast majority use anthropomorphic terms to describe God. The feelings you describe as love are more likely lust or the reactions of the brain that produces the so-called love-drug; a hormone the brain makes that causes us go all gooey for the first nine to ten months, long enough to make a baby, then one day one wakes up and wonders what the hell we ever saw in our partner.

Could we attribute such feelings/hormones/chemicals to a God who is recognised as "Spirit"(that is incorporeal being without a body)?

There is another form of Love and, if you had not discounted the bible as a source, a liguistic expert could show there were different words used to denote Love that describe something other than chemical causes. Subject to that let's continue with Hawkins ideas of Love, he says it:

quote:is characterised by the development of a love which is unconditional, unchanging and permanent. It does not fluctuate because its source within the person who loves is not dependent on external factors. Loving is a state of being. It is a way of relating to the world which is forgiving, nurturing and supportive. Love is not intellectual and does not proceed from the mind; love emanates from the heart. It has the capacity to lift others and accomplish great feats because of its purity of motive.

This type of love is rare as! Most people would not even think of it, the common description used of "making love" describes an act that necessarily involves "external factors" and commonly, as you have described, does not "emanate from the heart". Point is using the metaphor of 'God as Love' illustrates how difficult it is for the majority mindset to arrive at an adequate understanding of God thru the description of Love due to inbred, ingrained, cultural and stereotypical ideas as to what Love is.

Namaste

quote:Originally posted by Dragon Slayer:

All those who dont believe will be proven wrong..but the proof isn't here yet.

Well, why don't you proove that?