Messages

Ghost, please, go 3 pages ago and start reading... Then see who started with the "This is shit, you are being dickheads, blah, blah, blah..." thingie...

The biggest act of "sniping" I did was telling: "Stop being ridiculous". Wow!

If I brought the "stickam" thingie into discussion is because, "surprisingly", the ones who started telling that this threa was too long and needed to be locked, blah, blah, blah, were the ones who get "their thread" moved to popular... And, apparently, even telling in that time that they had no problem with that, they are annoyed... It' s not my fault. I think this thread can still be interesting, but if mods consider it can't, I have no problem with it to be locked...

"There is a troll, this thread is shit, the same old pish as ever, some atheists here are dickheads as well..."

I don' t know, BOYD, but according to the posts, the only troll I see in this thread is not arguing about Religion or atheism...

You tried to calll the attention of moderators for this to be locked. You not only failed, but also received a post by a mod telling that this is still being interesting or funny (InC's last posts are being quite interestings and funny, IMO).

I think it' s time to retreat, politely, before looking (even more) ridiculous, my friend...

EDIT: LGM, please, I  politelly ask you to quote where people here called you, or any other believer "stupid". He/she should receive a big warn by moderators, but, as far as I remember, you won' t find one.

Thanks for the support, Kapunttnik and Darth ^_^

Space boy, I don' t know what telling to you, because I don' t undertand what you said, but it' s ok.

And I must say that, yeah, I made the mistake of saying that what is told in Bible, if taken literally, is stupid (The belief, not the believers...) If I don' t remeber bad I changed it for "irrational" and/or "illogic" after realising of my mistake.

I don' t think I said that literalistics or not literalistics believers are stupid, though. If I did, it was a mistake, I don' t think it and I apologize, deeply, humble and sorrowed if I did. But, to be honest... I don't remeber telling people not to believe, either.

So, I am basically going to leave this die, without answers, I fear.

10 pages and all I learned is that Religions are indistinguishable from any other popular thing massively followed by humans, like Star Wars, Scientology or Star Trek, but, unlike the others, I can' t criticise it...

Did I say I believe in Nietsche? O_O

And Miguel... I want you to try to answer me with a short reply... If Jurassic Park touched me more, showed me more, shocked me more than the Bible, why is it an insult that I (Me, Nacho) considers it more important?

I am not saying "Jurassic Park should be more important to you than important to you than Bible". You are saying the opposite for me (Telling that I am insulting the Bible, blah, blah...). At least you are giving the Bible a better value than JP, since telling that one is more important to the other is "an insult" and telling the opposite it's "The truth".

You are doing, EXACTLY the same with my beliefs, and you know it. The thing is that, while I say, "Ok..." You say "You are insulting me!".

The final reply to that, even if you will never say it aloud, is that you (believers) think that your beliefs are better. And that, sorry, is quite annoying.

And don' t feel like a troll, my friend.  Some of these guys telling that "this discussion is shit" and blah, blah, blah, were keeping a thread at the top of gen gen for months with so interestings posts as:

"Stickam! Room: My P3n1sh" Password: Is Huge. See you there in 5 mins!"

It' s another example about how "Religion" has advantages between some other beliefs. We have witnessed a similar thread like this some time ago, but in that time it was not "Religion against atheism".

It was socialdemocracy between free market.

And no one complained about how long it was, or how "direspectful" one side was being with the other for not granting the right to the other side to "believe".

Of course, three "socialdemocrats" in a row asking to the members on their side to stop, that socialdemocrats must respect the free market belief (or three free market sided guys telling the guys on its side to stop, that conservatives must respect socialdemocracy, I don' t mind) should have been unimaginable...

But of course... religion is different... three atheists in a row can tell another to stop. It' s okay. If you want me to stop, I will.

I' d wanted believers to made the same when I was 6 and asked not to be raised in a religious society, but it' s okay... I guess I will have to assume that Religion is still untouchable.

Phew... I was quite decided not to contribute more to this thread... Anyway, let' s go:

If you want me to repeat that I do not consider consider believers idiots I will do it again... But it would be like the 5th time, it' s tiring.

I go on: Believing in God is not like loving. I am not against any kid of irrational behaviour, like love, or sacrificing your life for saving your friend' s life. What annoys me is that believing in God is:

a) Irrational.
b) And "comes" from a supernatural source.

Every believer I talked to (Or every except very few) tell me that the source of its faith is God.

No religious I' ve talked to told me: "I am religious because, even thinking that all the supernatural stuff is not true, the teachings I took from Bible work for me, and I like it".

Is something similar I could say from love. I don't know from where loves come, and I don' t really mind. I am happy with my girlfriend, and I want to go on that way. I don't have problems in saying that... Why believers do have? Are them so insecure of their beliefs that they need to put there a supernatural being?

But no. They tell me that the source is God. And since I don' t believe in God, the are telling me "Well, I am not going to tell it aloud, but, mate... You are wrong... God exists and I feel sorry for you for not believing it".

Also, there is the superiority complex. When I tell them if I could be able to have the same morale values as them without being religious, I allways feel that their thinking is "Well, you could probably get closer, but my morale, as comes from God, will allways be better".

So, they are also telling me that their morale is better than mine. It' s quite annoying, to be honest.

The only thing I want, from a believer is to recognise that they are not sure that God really exists, but it works for them. I would stop posting in this thread as soon as a believer recognises it.

And now I challenge you to read my posts again and see if the spirit on those posts is really forcing people to stop believing, or that I treated believers as ignorants.

Miguel... what makes you think I haven' t read it?

I did.

And I don' t believe in God still... I' ve read Jurassic Park as well, that touched me 20 times more than any gospel, and I don' t believe that we can bring dinsaurs back to life, either.

Thanks.

Are they Christians or not?

Which semantics? I asked if Jehova' s witnesses are Christians. You said no.

"Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus"

Therefore, Jehova' s witnesses (according to you) do not professe belief in Jesus as Christ or follow the religion based on the life and teaching of Jesus, and they don' t live according to the teaching of Jesus.

Where is the semantic problem?

Part 1: I said love is rational? Where? I mentioned three examples of why love does not annoy me, and many others, as Religion.

How does affect that Religion receives taxes to the personal belief of someone? In nothing. But it affects to me, who has to pay that taxes.

How does affect to a believer that religion is teached at schools? Of course it does not affect to believers. They must be extremelly happy, actually. But it might affect to my kids, who will have to go to school and learn, by an adult, a person who has been recognised by the state as a competent to take care of the education of the youngest, that languajes were created because God got annoyed with us because we were making a really big tower and that they have an undeletable sin with them forever because some idiot ate some kind of fruit 6,000 years ago.

Part 2: Christian: One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

Okay, I am going to imagine again, based on your posts:

Jehova' s witnesses, mormons, amish do not professe belief in Christ and do not follow the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Imagining is cool...

Anteater, excuse me if I don' t try to reply to all your arguments...

But there is one that called my attention. You say that:

As a Christian I can say that most 'alternative' treatments should not be used. We are to take care of our bodies, and that includes being responsible when choosing medical treatment.

Jehova' s witnesses are Christians, Do we agree? They (Or Most, of at least or some of them, and based on their beliefs) don' t accept receiving blood transfussions. If you are bleeding and are about to die, you must agree with me that "the most responsible medical treatment" should be receiving the blood.

So? Two questions come to my mind:

a) How can you know that your decission (that is accepting the blood, and is based on your beliefs) is "Christian fiendly" and theirs (not taking the blood, according to their beliefs) not?

b) What do you think of the Bible as a manual of morale when two people take different conclussions of it?

And Poch, excuse if I don' t reply to your statement "Motorhead is the proof I need"... I am not really sure if you are serious.

Hope, love, trust, happiness are supposed to have a supernatural source?

No.

A difference between Religion and hope, love, trust, hapiness...

Also, as far as I know, hope, love, trust, hapiness isn't receiving taxes at any country in the world.

Two.

Hope, love, trust, hapiness, is not teached at school...

Three.

Anyway, are you recognising that Religion is the same as hope, love, trust, hapiness? Do you finally recognise that Religion is a feeling, and nothing else?

If the answer is "yes", we can, finally afther 8 pages, end the discussion. Weeeh! Finally a believer recognises that "Religion is not actually that big".

If you say that "No, that religion is something else, something bigger..." then why you do use hope, love, trust and hapiness as a comparission? You would be recognising they are not comparable.

Miguel, if course you can believe in God.

And you can believe in superman, the smurfs, the Yeti or ghosts... Once you opened the "irrational" door, there is no way to stop the flooding.

But of course, believing in the smurfs or aliens is not very harmful (Well... It' s not usually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group))

But if you open the door to believe in something irrational, you apened the door for:

Be scammed by bastards like John Edward, Peter Popoff, and any other kind of cheater asking you money for nothing, such a "spiritual clean" (300â,¬), light on a white candle to increase the power of your aura(100â,¬) or kill a chicken to protect you from bad spirits (150â,¬), spending money in different ways to see the future, recover your lost love, etc..
Abandon serious medical tratments in benefit of homeopatic remedies, oriental medicines, acupunture, psychic surgery, hand imposition, etc... (With the following results for your health).

Maybe I haven' t been clear enough before (I' ve been, saying that I don't  consider believers idiots), but I will try to explain myself again. I respect believers. I hate false beliefs. Believers are victims. I' ve never insulted, made fun, or critizised a believer, my work during the last years has been for and because of them.

So, that's why I fight against irrational belief. Religion is the biggest one, the most accepted, the sacred cow that can' t be touched. Well... we are in the 21sth century, I think that the time to rumble that belief has arrived.

You ask me "Why not believing". Ok... Do you believe that there is a secret kind of cows that fly? Yes... they have wings, wings simillar to the ones raptors have, but bigger, and they can be found in Madagascar.

Did you believe me? No. Okay, if you come with the same story to me, I wouldn' t believe it either. There is not even the smaller trace of reality in that story. Might it be true? Of course! Although all the rational tools that our intellect has to determine if something is real or not say "no".

Every time I approached to religion I found the same. Not even a small evidence. "Healings" Which ones? "Miracles"? Which ones? Like that one that says that Saint Bernadette' s  body is uncorrupted, and you can feel the "shiver of misticism" around her when you enter in the room where she is? I' ve seen it. It' s uncorrupted because it has an inch of wax and "the shiver of misticism" actually is the shiver you feel when you enter in a refrigerated room. Like the miracle of "The blood of Saint Gennaro", that "blood" that magically licuates? That blood that is taken out of the refligerator in August and is kept between the hands of the priest for a couple of hours? Must I believe in God because of the "mystical experiences" I' ve seen in believers? The "same" experiences we can see in teenagers in a concert of "Take That" or in fans at any premiere of a new Star Wars films? Must I believe in God, "because the Bible is a very old book"? Yes, like Critias, and I don' t believe in Atlantis. Must I believe in "God" because it has a lot of followers? Well... 100% of the people believed that the Earth was in the middle of the Universe and it wasn't.

The weight of the evidence must rest on those saying extraordinary things. Religion it's quite extraordinary. They must show the evidences.

I am still here, sitting, waiting, and all I got is "It' s true! I can feel it!"

Hehehe... As said, I was kidding, you sing ok! 

I never said that the aborigen is a totally sinfull person. I assume everybody sins, even if they are just very few.

But' s let' s imagine he is "The person with less sins on Earth".

That is possible, no? Somebody must be the person with less sins on earth, or at least, there must be a little group of people with the same "X" number of sins, that is at least "X-1", compared with the rest of the world.

So, this aborigine is the person in the world with less sins, or belongs to the small set of people with the smaller amount of sins in the world.

But this PERSON never had the opportunity to join Christianism! He never heard the concept "Christ". He has seen 15 people during his life, all aborigines, no white men.

This guys can' t go heaven? If the answer is "no", it' s totally unsatisfactory.

...

And if the answer is "yes"... then, why believing???

It is curious (Symptomatic, as well) that you want to focus the discussion in what I think that you think and not in replying to the many contradictions that "the message" has. 

Anteater: Thanks. ^_^

One quick question: You didn' t understant well my question about the Australian aborigen (The one who needs Christ more than any other, apparently... Dunno why)

I am not asking "If he needs Jesus or not". I am saying that this aborigen has been the most humble, good, loving and polite person on earth, and now he is dead. He died without knowing the concept of "Jesus", simply because he has lived in a place where no Christian or missionere has arrived.

So, my question: Is this humble, good, loving and polite person not going to Heaven because he does not know "Christ"? Is your religion so damn unfair that a person who haven't had the opportunity to know Jesus go to Hell, directly?

If your answer is yes, your religion has a very sad ideology... 

I took it from here:

Perhaps neither, as I was saying that Christians are forgiven.

From a post written by SSH 13 minutes ago.

I explain: If you say that "We are forgiven" is not correct, and that the correct sentence is "Christians are forgiven" you are saying that "Christians, and only Christians are the only ones that are forgiven". If you said "Christians are forgiven" without correcting my "We are forgiven" you should leaving the room "I said Christians are forgiven, but I didn't mean other who are not Christians are not" opened.

But you didn't.

You specifically meant that "Christians, and only Christians are forgiven".

Maybe my confussion is that I don' t understand religion very well (That anyone can read the Bible and extrapolate from it whatever he likes doesn't help, I must say) so, I humble ask you:

Non forgived people can enter in Heaven?
Can non Christians enter in Heaven?
All christians enter in Heaven, since they are forgiven?
Isn' t unfair that an Australian aborigen can' t enter in heaven for not being Christian, and spite of having less sins that a Christian?

More questions come to my mind:
Does becoming Christian one second before of passing away count for being forgiven?
If a Christian renegates of his Chrisitianity one second before of pasing away, without time to do a sin, is he forgiven, since he was a Christian when he did the sins?

Please, answer.

Cool, so, no matter how good you were, if you were born BC, you are fucked.

So, no matter how good you are, if you are an Australian aborigen who never had contact with Christian Church, you are fucked.

Of course, if you are Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Sinthoist, Hindi... fucked.

I think that what you have in your head is not a religion, dude... It's  a private social club.