Conquer Club

brooksieb wrote:I think we had a little argument on would you defend your' country

i just checked. i never posted in that thread, i voted in your poll, but never did post.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=45209

if the above url is the thread to which you were referring.

hecter wrote:I could be called a "natural atheist". I didn't choose to be an atheist, I just chose to accept what I was and take on the title, know what I mean?

Dude, you've been reading too much homosexual activist propaganda. First, there's a gay gene and now there's an atheist gene! ROFL

DangerBoy wrote:Dude, you've been reading too much homosexual activist propaganda. First, there's a gay gene and now there's an atheist gene! ROFL

homosexual propaganda!

OH NOESSZZZ!1!

btownmeggy wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:Dude, you've been reading too much homosexual activist propaganda. First, there's a gay gene and now there's an atheist gene! ROFL

homosexual propaganda!

OH NOESSZZZ!1!

And we would've gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling republicans.

brooksieb wrote:A saying from the book 3:53 Brooksieb

"You need alot of money to find out the things you believe in, such as the theory of how things came about, you need nothing to believe in god."

Also not all christians or people that believe in god/s are all the way you put them, for example i go to church on important days, not all sundays like you put christians, i go if it's christmas, easter, there is a baptising, conformation, the bishop comes etc, i can take a joke about my religion. Sometimes i tell my wife i'm going 'god bothering' and there is nothing wrong with masterbating in my eyes. The bible are teachings to help you with your' everyday life, If your a monothiest the ten commandments are the rules you MUST follow, all the rest are reccomendations. If you need to do it you need to do it, It's between yourself and that's it, you and nature. HOWEVER if you are crazy for it and do that consistently all day every day, it's not a problem regarding your' religion, its a problem regarding yourself...

This is one confusing post, and I'm not at all sure exactly what it has to do with what I wrote before. According to OA masturbation is a deadly sin which he commits even though the punishment is supposedly hell. I know not every christian believes that, but I was responding to one who does.

MeDeFe wrote:

brooksieb wrote:A saying from the book 3:53 Brooksieb

"You need alot of money to find out the things you believe in, such as the theory of how things came about, you need nothing to believe in god."

Also not all christians or people that believe in god/s are all the way you put them, for example i go to church on important days, not all sundays like you put christians, i go if it's christmas, easter, there is a baptising, conformation, the bishop comes etc, i can take a joke about my religion. Sometimes i tell my wife i'm going 'god bothering' and there is nothing wrong with masterbating in my eyes. The bible are teachings to help you with your' everyday life, If your a monothiest the ten commandments are the rules you MUST follow, all the rest are reccomendations. If you need to do it you need to do it, It's between yourself and that's it, you and nature. HOWEVER if you are crazy for it and do that consistently all day every day, it's not a problem regarding your' religion, its a problem regarding yourself...

This is one confusing post, and I'm not at all sure exactly what it has to do with what I wrote before. According to OA masturbation is a deadly sin which he commits even though the punishment is supposedly hell. I know not every christian believes that, but I was responding to one who does.

Well there have been revisions of christianity, i don't know who you were talking to but he is probably a stricter christian. I don't understand why you can't understand my post, people like reminisco understood, tell me what's so confusing and i'll edit it.

brooksieb wrote: tell me what's so confusing and i'll edit it.

Possibly the fact it doesn't have much to do with the actual discussion taking place.

personally, i think there should be more text about masturbation in this thread.

nothing brings the question of whether or not atheists celebrate christmas to mind quite like a thorough discussion of the finer points of masturbation.


(and of course, now is as good a time as any to drop my favourite Freud quote -- "the only thing morally wrong with masturbation is doing it incorrectly.")

a boo yeah!

Is it not an interesting phenomenon that there has only been one vote for an atheist who does not celebrate Christmas? I'm surprised, myself.

They celebrate the new, commercialized christmas...

Mr_Adams wrote:They celebrate the new, commercialized christmas...

I'm a broke college student... so not really. Nice try, though. Maybe next time you'll be right.

Neoteny wrote:Is it not an interesting phenomenon that there has only been one vote for an atheist who does not celebrate Christmas? I'm surprised, myself.

He masturbates for the duration...purely to protest the oppressive prevalent socio-cultural norm, of course.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:...to love Him and as such to receive love from Him.

That is the only place where true joy may be found...

I would refer you to a little ditty:

He is my lord, He is my saviour
and He rewards my good behavior
My secret soul, I know He's seen it
He says, come here baby and
kiss me like you mean it
He calls me baby, says kiss me like you mean it

He is my life and my salvation
He's always right, He's always patient
I pinch myself It's like I'm dreaming it
He says, come here baby and
kiss me like you mean it
He calls me baby, says kiss me like you mean it

He is my love, He's always been it
He says, come here baby and
kiss me like you mean it
He calls me baby, says kiss me like you mean it

Earlier you said that it's pretty obvious that rejecting god is a sin, but that's only the case because god supposedly says so.

Given that God is omniscient and omnipotent, it follows that anything God knows to be true is true.

Then he gives us free will so we can decide what we do on our own and wants us to love him and says that not loving him is a sin. Does this not strike you as even a little wrong?

Not in particular. Consider it like a marriage. God is often described as a "jealous God," because he is being compared to a spouse. A marriage is based on love, and love must be freely given, hence free will. Nonetheless, it's fairly obvious that a husband would not be particularly happy if his wife was being unfaithful. We are given countless opportunities in our lifetime to reconcile, "graces", if you will. Love and marriage is a two way street after all.

"You can decide what you want to do, but if you decide other than what I tell you to, you will suffer eternal torture, and it's none of my fault because you have free will."

How's about this one? "You can do what you want, and if you decide to do other than what I, the Lord and creator of the Universe, tell you to do, I will extend my love so far as to become a man and die a horrible death for your sake. I will do this as an act of love, but love cannot be forced. I give it freely, but you must accept it freely. If you do not, then there is no love, and you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, for the Kingdom of Heaven is built on the foundation of love."

He can supposedly bend the laws of nature any way he wants, so where's the problem in creating a mountain range spelling out the words "GOD WAS HERE!" for everyone to see?

His existence is obvious to billions of people around the world. He did create a mountain range. He created the earth! He didn't need to spell out the words, "God was here!" he came here in the flesh!

Beyond that, I've discussed the existence of God in plenty of threads and in a far greater number of words than I care to paraphrase here... so.

If you're happy with that, fine, but you do see why others might not be prepared to worship or even just believe in a god, don't you?

I actually generally fail to understand why people wouldn't worship God, assuming He exists. He created you. If you follow Christian theology he suffered for you. Seems worthy enough of praise for me.

Ambrose
I think you summed it up nicely right at the end,the existence of God is simply an assumption so you shouldn't be surprised if many assume otherwise. Must say though I was rather taken aback with your reference to God building mountains, didn't have you down as a creationist

comic boy wrote:Ambrose
I think you summed it up nicely right at the end,the existence of God is simply an assumption so you shouldn't be surprised if many assume otherwise. Must say though I was rather taken aback with your reference to God building mountains, didn't have you down as a creationist

You kind of misunderstood it a bit. Many Roman Catholics (and other Christians as well) see a combination of Creationism and Science in how the Earth came to be. Yes, including the Big Bang Theory as well. Ambrose has also made the point that Science (sorry, but science as a whole is Ambrose's strong point, mine is History) in the end, brings you closer to that of Agnosticism, then flat out Atheism. Because either way you look at it, it requires a leap of faith.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

comic boy wrote:Ambrose
I think you summed it up nicely right at the end,the existence of God is simply an assumption so you shouldn't be surprised if many assume otherwise. Must say though I was rather taken aback with your reference to God building mountains, didn't have you down as a creationist

You kind of misunderstood it a bit. Many Roman Catholics (and other Christians as well) see a combination of Creationism and Science in how the Earth came to be. Yes, including the Big Bang Theory as well. Ambrose has also made the point that Science (sorry, but science as a whole is Ambrose's strong point, mine is History) in the end, brings you closer to that of Agnosticism, then flat out Atheism. Because either way you look at it, it requires a leap of faith.

Unless you look at it the right way.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
How's about this one? "You can do what you want, and if you decide to do other than what I, the Lord and creator of the Universe, tell you to do, I will extend my love so far as to become a man and die a horrible death for your sake. I will do this as an act of love, but love cannot be forced. I give it freely, but you must accept it freely. If you do not, then there is no love, and you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, for the Kingdom of Heaven is built on the foundation of love."

The problem with this argument is love and hate are not binary. There are more than two options, ambivalence forming a third. Because they're not they only two options, God has no reason to flip from one polar extreme to the other. Absolute love, as long as you're doing what God commands, but woe betide you if you decide to step out of line. Why not some kind of generic and slightly boring afterlife for nonbelievers? Paradice for the believers and hell for the murderers and rapists. There, you've covered every major option and destinctly refrained from sending the vast majority of the population of the Earth to eternal damnation for a crime they were unaware they were comitting.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I actually generally fail to understand why people wouldn't worship God, assuming He exists. He created you. If you follow Christian theology he suffered for you. Seems worthy enough of praise for me.

It's mostly the extreme sadism.

Neutrino wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:
How's about this one? "You can do what you want, and if you decide to do other than what I, the Lord and creator of the Universe, tell you to do, I will extend my love so far as to become a man and die a horrible death for your sake. I will do this as an act of love, but love cannot be forced. I give it freely, but you must accept it freely. If you do not, then there is no love, and you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, for the Kingdom of Heaven is built on the foundation of love."

The problem with this argument is love and hate are not binary. There are more than two options, ambivalence forming a third. Because they're not they only two options, God has no reason to flip from one polar extreme to the other. Absolute love, as long as you're doing what God commands, but woe betide you if you decide to step out of line. Why not some kind of generic and slightly boring afterlife for nonbelievers? Paradice for the believers and hell for the murderers and rapists. There, you've covered every major option and destinctly refrained from sending the vast majority of the population of the Earth to eternal damnation for a crime they were unaware they were comitting.

God has only absolute love. Either you can allow yourself to enter into a state of eternal bliss in Heaven after necessary (and painful) catharsis in purgatory or you end up having actively rejected God and suffering from your inability to compatabilize with presence in His sight...

I actually generally fail to understand why people wouldn't worship God, assuming He exists. He created you.

I generally fail to understand why a logical, thinking adult would believe and actually worship mythical creatures of ANY religion.

It only proves to me that the human race is still just a few steps away from the cave...still fearing the lightning, worshiping the sun, and anything else they do not understand.

But if thats what you need to get through the day...more power to you.

johnnyrotten wrote:I'm an atheist but I celebrate it purely for the materialistic aspect.

Same here. Though other emmbers of my family celebrate the religious aspects of it, and I go along with it. But for me, it's a good time to spend some time with the family, drink, eat, and be merry.

agree completely with the post above, for me: Christmas is about the spirit of things, the jollity(is that a word) and presents.....

comic boy wrote:Ambrose
I think you summed it up nicely right at the end,the existence of God is simply an assumption so you shouldn't be surprised if many assume otherwise. Must say though I was rather taken aback with your reference to God building mountains, didn't have you down as a creationist

At the end I "assumed" God exists because I didn't feel like going into that particular debate again. If you want to start a thread to that effect, feel free.

I'm a creationist in the sense that I believe God created the universe. I'm a scientist in that I don't believe that he reached down from the heavens and ripped a mountain out of the ground. Instead he did something far more amazing. He created matter and natural laws which would ultimately result in the formation of such geographic features.

The problem with this argument is love and hate are not binary. There are more than two options, ambivalence forming a third. Because they're not they only two options, God has no reason to flip from one polar extreme to the other. Absolute love, as long as you're doing what God commands, but woe betide you if you decide to step out of line. Why not some kind of generic and slightly boring afterlife for nonbelievers? Paradice for the believers and hell for the murderers and rapists. There, you've covered every major option and destinctly refrained from sending the vast majority of the population of the Earth to eternal damnation for a crime they were unaware they were comitting.

It's love and not love. Those are the two options, really.

What do you mean woe betide you if you step out of line? The entire story of humanity involves stepping out of line and God forgiving us.

You're getting wrapped up in the whole "if you do this you're going to hell," thing. That's not what Christianity is about. Change your focus. Christianity is about the "You don't have to do anything, it's already been done for you, except one thing which you must do on your own: accept God's love!" It's a two way street!

I'm not sure if you've read Dante's Inferno, but the theology which it promotes (and it is a theology which I buy into entirely) is the concept of "limbo." Not the sort of limbo which was the topic of so much media attention just a few months ago, I'm talking about a limbo which is exactly what you describe: a slightly boring place for "virtuous nonbelievers," as I believe Dante called them. Aristotle and the like were there in his book.

Admittedly im a skimmer in this thread so ill just talk about hell for a moment. I think ive heard a number of times that what hell has been understood to be is separation from God. It seems a bit silly at times for non-believers to get so stressed out about this, because if your actively or inactively i suppose "rejecting" God during your life, whats the fuss about doing it after death.

Obviously the hell imagery proposed in some of the new testament and expanded on much more in medieval christian imagery is where the dilema lies. That version of hell does sound pretty awful. Certainly much more than seperation from God.

got tonkaed wrote:Admittedly im a skimmer in this thread so ill just talk about hell for a moment. I think ive heard a number of times that what hell has been understood to be is separation from God. It seems a bit silly at times for non-believers to get so stressed out about this, because if your actively or inactively i suppose "rejecting" God during your life, whats the fuss about doing it after death.

Obviously the hell imagery proposed in some of the new testament and expanded on much more in medieval christian imagery is where the dilema lies. That version of hell does sound pretty awful. Certainly much more than seperation from God.

Theologically, the idea is that metaphysical union with God is the ultimate purpose of Man, and that those who reject it have souls doomed to wander the afterlife purposelessly in a state of torment.