Would people be so religious if they knew what religion caused?

Great Debates
161

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Pretty much. Then accuse you of doing the same thing on your side.
[/QUOTE]
Except that they are wrong. Blatantly, totally-detached-from-reality wrong. And no, the religious and non-religious viewpoints are not equal. Sanity and insanity are not the same.

I MIGHT be wrong, but they are DEFINITELY wrong. I wouldn’t bet my life on the way I view the world being right; I’m sure but not that sure. But I’d quite cheerfully bet my life that the religious are wrong. It’s not much of a bet when you have no chance to lose.

162

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I MIGHT be wrong, but they are DEFINITELY wrong.
[/QUOTE]
That’s exactly the sort of contradiction that spewed hatred and bigotry always runs into sooner or later. For you to say that we are DEFINITELY wrong means you do not believe you MIGHT be wrong; otherwise, you would not hold our wrongness to be definite.

163

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Except that they are wrong. Blatantly, totally-detached-from-reality wrong. And no, the religious and non-religious viewpoints are not equal. Sanity and insanity are not the same.

I MIGHT be wrong, but they are DEFINITELY wrong. I wouldn’t bet my life on the way I view the world being right; I’m sure but not that sure. But I’d quite cheerfully bet my life that the religious are wrong. It’s not much of a bet when you have no chance to lose.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. That’s pretty much part of what comforted me in leaving the church. At the time I left it, I believed in hell and was perfectly willing to go to hell as a consequence of leaving the church. Since then, it’s become clear to me that whatever else is right or wrong, and I don’t pretend to know for sure, I do know that they’re clearly wrong.

And that comforts me :slight_smile:

164

[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s exactly the sort of contradiction that spewed hatred and bigotry always runs into sooner or later. For you to say that we are DEFINITELY wrong means you do not believe you MIGHT be wrong; otherwise, you would not hold our wrongness to be definite.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a (presumably honest) misunderstanding of what he’s saying and invents a zero sum difference in points of view.

Translation: I don’t know what the truth is except to know that it’s not that crap. He’s talking about maybe being wrong about his own theories of how the world works, not about being wrong about knowing that you’re wrong (obviously?). In the search for truth, things can be ruled out while still not knowing everything. That was expounded on in the following sentence of his quote which you chose to leave out. It’s also a less arrogant claim to truth than what many of the religious typically have. Not counting, of course, those religious folks that think of their religion as a mere opinion.

165

[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s exactly the sort of contradiction that spewed hatred and bigotry always runs into sooner or later. For you to say that we are DEFINITELY wrong means you do not believe you MIGHT be wrong; otherwise, you would not hold our wrongness to be definite.
[/QUOTE]
Hardly. We could both be wrong. YOU being wrong does not automatically make me right ( well, except about you being wrong ). I assure you, my worldview does not solely consist of the belief “Liberal is wrong”.

EDIT : As **9thFloor ** said.

166

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Hardly. We could both be wrong. YOU being wrong does not automatically make me right ( well, except about you being wrong ). I assure you, my worldview does not solely consist of the belief “Liberal is wrong”.
[/QUOTE]

LOL :smiley:

167

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Hardly. We could both be wrong. YOU being wrong does not automatically make me right ( well, except about you being wrong ). I assure you, my worldview does not solely consist of the belief “Liberal is wrong”.
[/QUOTE]
Your exception is exactly the counterexample I specified. You cannot be right about me being wrong and still be wrong. You made the bivalent claim. Live with it.

168

[QUOTE=DT]
Prove it. You can’t even prove there is a God, or an Enemy, much less what they are like or what they want.
[/QUOTE]
You will have to get that spirit of the Antichrist expelled first.

Experience. Either way I chose a side and I’m sticking with it.

And people are white if they say they are white, because people are always accurate when they describe themselves. Anyway of those self identified Christians, how many have truely dedicated their life to Jesus, how many really know the living God in Christ? Sadly not too many.

Sometimes I know you are staring God directly in the face while stating these things.

The religion around it, yes, the faith and having a personal relationship with God directly through Jesus, no it has nothing to do with your above statement.

169

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Your exception is exactly the counterexample I specified. You cannot be right about me being wrong and still be wrong. You made the bivalent claim. Live with it.
[/QUOTE]

In other words, he’s not interested in what you think. He just wants to gleefully squeal about ‘bivalent’ claims and parse words rather than understand your thought.

Which is why talking to people like this is ultimately a waste of time.

170

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
You will have to get that spirit of the Antichrist expelled first.
Experience. Either way I chose a side and I’m sticking with it.

And people are white if they say they are white, because people are always accurate when they describe themselves. Anyway of those self identified Christians, how many have truely dedicated their life to Jesus, how many really know the living God in Christ? Sadly not too many.
Sometimes I know you are staring God directly in the face while stating these things.
The religion around it, yes, the faith and having a personal relationship with God directly through Jesus, no it has nothing to do with your above statement.
[/QUOTE]

Blah, blah, blah. A genuinely intellectual discussion about religion would really be interesting; too bad it’s apparently impossible here. I know, it’s all our fault.

171

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Your exception is exactly the counterexample I specified. You cannot be right about me being wrong and still be wrong.
[/QUOTE]
Of course I can. As I said, I have a rather larger worldview than “Liberal is wrong”. For example; I beleive that God is imaginary, and that the Bush Administration had a good idea that 9-11 was going to happen. Proof or disproof of one of those beliefs isn’t proof or disproof for the other. And while I could easily be wrong about the Bush Administration in this, there’s essentially no chance I’m wrong about God.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
You will have to get that spirit of the Antichrist expelled first.
[/QUOTE]
So you can’t provide me with your imaginary evidence until your imaginary Antichrist is expelled from me. :rolleyes: Riiiiight.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Experience. Either way I chose a side and I’m sticking with it.
[/QUOTE]
You have no experience of God. No one does, since he’s a delusion, and a rather silly and pathetic delusion at that. An ego fantasy for people who just can’t stand that the universe isn’t impressed with a bunch of balding barely intelligent apes. And an excuse for various and sundry evils, and an instigator for same.

And so what if you chose a side ? That’s hardly an argument for it being the good one. Even if it existed.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
And people are white if they say they are white, because people are always accurate when they describe themselves. Anyway of those self identified Christians, how many have truely dedicated their life to Jesus, how many really know the living God in Christ? Sadly not too many.
[/QUOTE]
None, because there is no “living God.” Just various groups of people who claim that THEY are “true Christians” and the other guys over there are not, with no reason to beleive one over the other.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Sometimes I know you are staring God directly in the face while stating these things.
[/QUOTE]
So God is the SDMB ? This place is OK, but it’s not God.

I’m not “staring God in the face” because there is no such creature.

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
The religion around it, yes, the faith and having a personal relationship with God directly through Jesus, no it has nothing to do with your above statement.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus is dust, and was either a fraud or a lunatic while alive. There is no God. And the faith is faith in the religion. And no one has a personal relationship with a delusionary god.

172

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Of course I can. As I said, I have a rather larger worldview than “Liberal is wrong”. For example; I beleive that God is imaginary, and that the Bush Administration had a good idea that 9-11 was going to happen. Proof or disproof of one of those beliefs isn’t proof or disproof for the other. And while I could easily be wrong about the Bush Administration in this, there’s essentially no chance I’m wrong about God.
[/QUOTE]
To remind you of what you claimed, it was:

I MIGHT be wrong, but they are DEFINITELY wrong.There was no reference to me as either a second or third person singular. Your “they” referenced religious people, whom you called “insane”, and which was another dichotomy you drew — sane (you) versus insane (they). You cannot believe you might be wrong if you believe they are definitely wrong. The more you weasel, and the more you are supported by 9th “Blah, blah, blah” Floor, the more ridiculous your arguments seem.

173

[QUOTE=Liberal]
To remind you of what you claimed, it was:

I MIGHT be wrong, but they are DEFINITELY wrong.There was no reference to me as either a second or third person singular. Your “they” referenced religious people, whom you called “insane”, and which was another dichotomy you drew — sane (you) versus insane (they). You cannot believe you might be wrong if you believe they are definitely wrong. The more you weasel, and the more you are supported by 9th “Blah, blah, blah” Floor, the more ridiculous your arguments seem.
[/QUOTE]

You’re just not listening to how ridiculous and intentionally dense you’re sounding.

174

[QUOTE=Liberal]
There was no reference to me as either a second or third person singular.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not interested in yet another attempt by the losing side to sidetrack the argument into a five page wrangle over language.

175

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m not interested in yet another attempt by the losing side to sidetrack the argument into a five page wrangle over language.
[/QUOTE]

I wonder how many pages are wasted over all by semantic silliness and people not just owning up to something and apologizing and moving on. It’s pretty amazing.

176

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I’m not interested in yet another attempt by the losing side to sidetrack the argument into a five page wrangle over language.
[/QUOTE]
Nice Humpty Dumpty mentality there.

177

[QUOTE=9thFloor]
You’re just not listening to how ridiculous and intentionally dense you’re sounding.
[/QUOTE]

Time to ring the closing bell on this thread…

178

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
**
monavis** sin does not mean a violation, it means to miss the mark. When we sin we miss the glory of God, one ‘miss’ is all it takes and we fall short. If the Hammarabi code was a law or code of coduct, much like rules of etiquette it doesn’t matter, one mistake and you didn’t make the mark.
[/QUOTE]

As I have read it, it was not to send people to a good or bad after life but the now;when one steals etc. it hurts society not a God.

I know that is how you see it and you have that right, but I would go more for the type of Christian religion of Poly, ot Tomdebb To me they make more sense. Your type of Christianity seems to favor a stronger evil. Satan as I understand you is more(or as ) powerful than God.

Monavis

179

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Nice Humpty Dumpty mentality there.
[/QUOTE]
No, I’m simply not interested in your favored tactic of trying to cover the baselessness and silliness of your beliefs with word games. And your other attempted diversions. The majority of your “answers” to me have been attempts to do anything BUT answer me.

180

[QUOTE=monavis]
I know that is how you see it and you have that right, but I would go more for the type of Christian religion of Poly, ot Tomdebb To me they make more sense. Your type of Christianity seems to favor a stronger evil. Satan as I understand you is more(or as ) powerful than God.
[/QUOTE]

Not that Satan is more powerful, or as powerful then God, but is more powerful then man. The divine order of power:
God > Angels (including fallen angels/Satan)>man>animals

Thanks to Jesus it was reordered - ‘I give you all authority over the all enemy in my Name’:
God> Holy Angels>Man in the Spirit (operating in the name of Jesus)>all the enemy>man in the flesh (operating on his own)>animals.

So when we do work in our flesh, saved or not, the enemy is stronger. It is only when we operate in the Spirit that we can overcome (or appeal to the throne of God).