Religion is evil

[musicman]

Well I hope everyone has got him out of their systems now. :teeth:

LOL - much like a particularly foul and better-forgotten gruel breakfast!

 

[Annie]

LOL - much like a particularly foul and better-forgotten gruel breakfast!

Well, if he is going to be a useful troll, he had to move off those two threads. He didn't.

 

[5stringJeff]

Maybe…

What would the world be like if there wasn’t religious indoctrination of the young, no matter the religion.

Oh I know, my (religion) is right, yours is wrong, just like my Congressman is good but yours sux, right?

So…..what would it be like, peaceful maybe?

P, your thread got hijacked by Iraq and atheism. However, to answer your original post, I would say that if parents didn't teach their children about their religious beliefs (what you call "religious indoctrination"), then:

1. Children would be indoctrinated by atheists, as they are in public schools already.

2. We would have a country full of people like Kal-El.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child about your religious beliefs.

 

[Mr. P]

P, your thread got hijacked by Iraq and atheism. However, to answer your original post, I would say that if parents didn't teach their children about their religious beliefs (what you call "religious indoctrination"), then:

1. Children would be indoctrinated by atheists, as they are in public schools already.

2. We would have a country full of people like Kal-El.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child about your religious beliefs.

I noticed, it (hijack) seems to happen frequently in the religious section.
I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child about your religious beliefs either, but there is a difference in teaching and indoctrination.

Thanks for your input, Jeff.

 

[kal-el]

Oh--I get it--you're mad because God doesn't do everything like you think he should. Your like a kid who doesn't understand why he should eat his vegetables.

Nope, it's not so much that I think he should. Isn't it morally wrong to not do anything if you have the power to do something?

 

[dmp]

Isn't it morally wrong to not do anything if you have the power to do something?

No. Context young man...context.

To quote Garth Brooks, "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers"

 

[kal-el]

THAT's your argument? THAT'S your rebuttal? O.K. - I understand now. When faced with logic against which you cannot mount a decent argument, you simply dismiss that logic as "stupid asinine linguistics". You ought to go in to politics, man - you're a natural. You're going to be petulant, argumentative, and miserable - and nobody's going to talk you out of it. Fine - enjoy.

Logic? There was no logic in what he said. If he what he spouted off beared any resemblence of truth in it, don't you think every single church, and the Pontiff would shove this "proof" down our throats? They relish in spoonfeeding an open-mouthed public. Here's some logic for you- god is omnipotent, right, he can do anything? And he's omnipresent, that is everywhere, correct? First off, can he pass gas? He can do anything. Can he leave the room if it starts to stink, yup he can do anything. If he leaves the room, he's not omnipresent. Dude, I can do this all day.

Your assertion, then, is that all existence is provable. Prove it.

Ok, it's a simple observation really. I can observe my actions, your actions, etc. I can observe human beings. There's constantly blood flowing throughout our bodies. I know human beings exist. I do not know a god exists. I can't observe such an entity. There's been no empiracal evidence suggesting a god exists. It's all blind faith.

 

[kal-el]

"Saint Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. He is best known for the celebrated "ontological argument" for the existence of God in chapter two of the Proslogion, but his contributions to philosophical theology (and indeed to philosophy more generally) go well beyond the ontological argument. In what follows I examine Anselm's theistic proofs, his conception of the divine nature, and his account of human freedom, sin, and redemption."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/

Dude, that's just Christian hearsay. For one, he was born over a thousand years after Jesus's death. All proof of Jesus either comes from the bible, or from peeps claiming that they heard of Jesus, and evidence of Christians is not evidence of Jesus. I'm sorry but how can this fellow know god exists? Did they go camping together or something? What you submitted was not proof of anything, just faith, and faith thrives on ignorance.

If I were to produce a photograph of God, you would simply counter that it was a fake.

If you were to produce a pic of god, I would want you committed.

I'll assume that you don't have an informed argument that refutes what I said (several times).... so, if you have a position, read up on it, or admit defeat.

What is this claptrap nonsense? Don't be so arrogant.

To address your claim that this doesn't prove anything. Apparently, you aren't familiar with mathematical proofs. This is how they are proven.

Once again, what you attempted to prove, is not provable. If you say you can prove it, you are being less than honest. God dosen't like that.

SEVEN THINGS GOD HATES
haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies, and a man who stirs up dissention among brothers. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

First, you define what you are proving (I did).

Uhh, negative buddy. You have yet to prove anything. Once again, a Christian phlospher is proof of nothing. Evidence of Christians is not proof of god, ok.

Then, take a step by step process to arrive at your conclusion (I did). I have given you proof that God exists, now I challenge you to do the same to defend your position.

No you haven't. That claim is false. You are spouting ignorant belief with no bearing in fact.

Frankly, good luck, it is much easier to prove the existence of something rather than its non-existence.

Is that so? Ok Mozart, prove Santa exists.

 

[kal-el]

No. Context young man...context.

To quote Garth Brooks, "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers"

What is this incoherent gibberish? You don't make any sense.

 

[musicman]

Logic? There was no logic in what he said. If he what he spouted off beared any resemblence of truth in it, don't you think every single church, and the Pontiff would shove this "proof" down our throats? They relish in spoonfeeding an open-mouthed public. Here's some logic for you- god is omnipotent, right, he can do anything? And he's omnipresent, that is everywhere, correct? First off, can he pass gas? He can do anything. Can he leave the room if it starts to stink, yup he can do anything. If he leaves the room, he's not omnipresent. Dude, I can do this all day.

I don't doubt it; more's the pity. You expose yourself as a petulant child. God hasn't established his existence within the parameters that would satisfy YOU - therefore, he must not exist. You are, after all, the center of the universe. Sad.

Ok, it's a simple observation really. I can observe my actions, your actions, etc. I can observe human beings. There's constantly blood flowing throughout our bodies. I know human beings exist. I do not know a god exists. I can't observe such an entity. There's been no empiracal evidence suggesting a god exists. It's all blind faith.

Again, you aver that all reality is provable; observable. Again, I say: prove it.

 

[kal-el]

P, your thread got hijacked by Iraq and atheism. However, to answer your original post, I would say that if parents didn't teach their children about their religious beliefs (what you call "religious indoctrination"), then:

1. Children would be indoctrinated by atheists, as they are in public schools already.

And that's a bad thing? If people do not believe in an afterlife, and a fairy entity sitting on a cloud, they aren't willing to strap bombs to their chests to acess some fictional place.

2. We would have a country full of people like Kal-El.

Last time I checked, atheists weren't the ones cutting eacthother up, or starting wars.

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with teaching your child about your religious beliefs.

Thats the problem, these people that have the whool pulled over their eyes by religions, have kids, and they brainwash them into blindly believeing the exact same lies and absurdities as them.

 

[KarlMarx]

Logic? There was no logic in what he said. If he what he spouted off beared any resemblence of truth in it, don't you think every single church, and the Pontiff would shove this "proof" down our throats? They relish in spoonfeeding an open-mouthed public. Here's some logic for you- god is omnipotent, right, he can do anything? And he's omnipresent, that is everywhere, correct? First off, can he pass gas? He can do anything. Can he leave the room if it starts to stink, yup he can do anything. If he leaves the room, he's not omnipresent. Dude, I can do this all day.

If that is what passes for logic in your book, perhaps you ought to stick to passing gas. In a way, you have been.

I've presented several proofs of God's existence. You claim they aren't satisfactory. It doesn't matter that the proofs were advanced by Descartes, Thomas Aquinas and others.

The challenge was to prove that God exists. You have turned that challenge into prove that God exists to your satisfaction (which, like the logarithm of zero, does not exist). Since you haven't come up with a refutation, so I'll assume that you've are admitting defeat.

I'm through arguing here. In cases such as this, it is useful to observe the following rule.

"Never argue with a fool. Others may not be able to tell the difference. "

 

[dmp]

What is this incoherent gibberish? You don't make any sense.

If how I replied doesn't make sense to you, you've just provided emperical evidence that you are an idiot.

 

[kal-el]

I don't doubt it; more's the pity. You expose yourself as a petulant child. God hasn't established his existence within the parameters that would satisfy YOU - therefore, he must not exist. You are, after all, the center of the universe. Sad.

No, I'll tell ya what's sad. Blindly believing totally irrational stories because a book says so. What if thousands of years from now, people find Tom Clancy novels? Would they know they are fiction?

Again, you aver that all reality is provable; observable. Again, I say: prove it.

What are you exactly asserting here? Reality? O yea, I told you, it's an observable fact. I know the sun will rise in the morning, and set at the night- it's a proven fact. I know wind exists even though I cannot see it. I can feel the effects of the wind. Gravity exists because like I said, what hold us to the ground, iof it didn't, we would float up to the sky. Do you even know what you are arguing? I would suggest to read up a bit on this stuff before you post, so you don't seem so stupid, thanks.

 

[musicman]

If how I replied doesn't make sense to you, you've just provided emperical evidence that you are an idiot.

Ah, but he is the idiot around whom the universe revolves; therefore, if he doesn't understand you, YOU'RE not making sense!

Gotta be a Democrat...

 

[musicman]

No, I'll tell ya what's sad. Blindly believing totally irrational stories because a book says so. What if thousands of years from now, people find Tom Clancy novels? Would they know they are fiction?



What are you exactly asserting here? Reality? O yea, I told you, it's an observable fact. I know the sun will rise in the morning, and set at the night- it's a proven fact. I know wind exists even though I cannot see it. I can feel the effects of the wind. Gravity exists because like I said, what hold us to the ground, iof it didn't, we would float up to the sky. Do you even know what you are arguing? I would suggest to read up a bit on this stuff before you post, so you don't seem so stupid, thanks.

You imagine that you're making a point because you've filled the air with words. I say yet AGAIN - prove that all reality is provable.

 

[dmp]

You imagine that you're making a point because you've filled the air with words. I say yet AGAIN - prove that all reality is provable.

See? He simply is unable to reason. He claims what he sees is reality. Therefore he must believe there really WAS a Giant Ape used in King Kong...I mean, he SEES the ape, right?

We have a case of a child-like reasoning ability mixed with an immature thought-process and broadband internet.

 

[musicman]

See? He simply is unable to reason. He claims what he sees is reality. Therefore he must believe there really WAS a Giant Ape used in King Kong...I mean, he SEES the ape, right?

We have a case of a child-like reasoning ability mixed with an immature thought-process and broadband internet.

I despair for the future of this country.

 

[kal-el]

If that is what passes for logic in your book, perhaps you ought to stick to passing gas. In a way, you have been.

O man, nice. A whole lots of opinion.

I've presented several proofs of God's existence.

For the last time, You have provided nothing even remotely considered proof, stop being dishonest. This blatant dishonesty is really starting to disgust me.

You claim they aren't satisfactory. It doesn't matter that the proofs were advanced by Descartes, Thomas Aquinas and others.

Please, if their were proof of a god, atheism would be redundant, and we wouldn't be having this conversaion. Next argument please.

The challenge was to prove that God exists.

Yes, and you only made yourself look stupid by quoting a Christian philospher. Again, evidence of Christians is not evidence of god, I know you are a mental derelect, but enough is enough already.

You have turned that challenge into prove that God exists to your satisfaction (which, like the logarithm of zero, does not exist).

No, not my satisfaction. You keep parroting that because you don't have an argument? Do you avoid facts because it's too complicated?

Since you haven't come up with a refutation, so I'll assume that you've are admitting defeat.

Assume nothing. A refutation for lies? You are quite the dishonest person, you claim that what can't be proven is possible.

I'm through arguing here. In cases such as this, it is useful to observe the following rule.

Bya-bye.

"Never argue with a fool. Others may not be able to tell the difference. "

I see. So by that definition I am a fool on the simple fact that I don't subscribe to your sky pixie?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Most wars, but not all.




Uhh, not beleiving something is the default position. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. I simply don't subscribe to the idea of a giant sky ape simply because of the overwhelming lack of evidence for such an entity.

You just want people to be taught your human worshipping arrogance so they will institute your evil socialist plan and still have a clean conscious. Socialism is stealing. And god says not to steal. Right off the bat, god is an enemy of the commies like you.