Debate Wierd guy

How ironic. The reason you're in school and he's probably not is because he's done with school - therefore he's smarter.

But yes of course, all us religious people are IDIOTS - thank you. I'm sorry to say you basically just called more than 80% of the Earth's population an idiot. Good job.

 

1. I'm not in school.
2. The fact the one person has progressed through a system and another hasn't does not make the one who has immediately more intelligent.
3. I didn't call anyone an idiot.

 

The problem with that statement is that your trying to prove the validity of religion through numbers (unless you were genuinely congratulating someone for calling you an idiot). "If 80% of the world is religious than religion is obviously right". So if 20% of the world's population believed religion A and 30% believed in religion B would that mean that religion B is more valid than religion A (50% more valid?).

It's actually closer to 75% (that is religious), so your statement, once again, has you quoting incorrect information.

And insulting people for going to school? For learning? Please, keep it civil.

 

It was a general statement, indirectly addressed towards Dow.

That's flawed logic. Because I finished school I will obviously know more than someone who hasn't, at least on the topics the school teaches.

If I'm not mistaken, calling someone stupid is similar to idiot.

Argument solved.

 

If it's a general statement, please don't quote a post as that indicates that

That's flawed logic with an entrancing blend of ignorance... Learn to learn.

Similar. Well done, not the same, however.

 

Most 14 year olds go to school.

You provide no reason why.

Thanks for stating the obvious.



My whole point of posting in this thread was to tell you, dow, that this thread is useless and belongs nowhere. Your religious ramblings you can keep to yourself, and while someone may congratulate you, having a theist approach you at a public school is no rare event. If any of you wish to continue this silly debate, feel free to do it somewhere else, not in this thread. All this thread does is insult theists like myself and you're making a vast generalizations of many religions. This thread serves on purpose but to be a flame fest.

 

Once again... That doesn't mean all do.

Nor do you.

You're welcome.

 

Just roll your eyes back stick out your tounge and tell him to suck lolipops in hell and most of the time they will leave. If he continues to bother you tourch him and roast marshmellows over the fire :]

 

You just helped me prove my point that people that graduate school are naturally more intelligent than people who haven't.

I at least provided logic, plus even if I didn't have evidence gives you no excuse not to show your's.

Very basic logic. How you missed it, I don't know.

 

a 30 year old stranger in a red vaxhaul asked someone i know if they wanted to come back to his house after school. my friend got his keys out, scratched "pedo" into his door, and ran off xD

 

**** move

 

I agree that this thread has gotten a little too personal in some cases, and general in others in terms of what people are saying about theists. But that does not make the point raised by this event meaningless, and I actually think that you can object to someone trying to convert you without it becoming a personal attack on either them or their beliefs.

Now, I noticed that one of the major points of contention here was Dow's use of the word 'arrogant' in describing this guy. Now aMoeba, you may object to the personal implications that this holds, but tbh I'm inclined to agree with Dow here. As as I see it, arrogance generally does not imply conscious action or attitude, but rather it directly implies that this person does not even consider the possibility that they are wrong. It's not malicious, but a lack of perspective. In this way, I would say that the guy being discussed here was being arrogant.

I don't criticise his beliefs, or anyone else's, in fact I don't even place them above my own. I've chosen my path of reasoning to attempt to understand the universe based on my experiences and what makes sense to me, and others have done the same. I may disagree, but I don't put my view forward as fundamentally better than theirs, or make any pretence that I am in some magical, trans-human position where I have any more perspective on what is truly 'right' (in terms of truthful 'right', not right as in moral terms). But that is exactly what people are doing when they come up to you and try and push conversion on you, or even just push their viewpoint on you.

I completely support the principle of engaged discussion, it helps people understand one another more, and the perspective of others can often help someone understand themselves more. But the proper way to go about this would be to just ask people if they'd like to talk about your perspective on religion, why you think it's a good thing and why you think they might benefit from it. But asking isn't the same as simply going up to someone, or even a group of people, and just talking at them, not letting your point drop because you have some self righteous belief that they should listen to what you say. The epitome of this is those people who just stand around with a megaphone and basically preach to crowds of people who couldn't care less, trying to convert them, they're pretty common on Oxford Street and around there if you're in London, but I'm sure they're all over the place. This is not discussion, this is invading people's personal rights to think what they think and not have someone literally shouting 'you are wrong, you will burn in hell' at them when they are walking along the street.

Now I know that's not what this guy was doing, but he still missed the mark in terms of discussion, the key aspect of which is that it has to be voluntary on both sides for any purpose to be served. Going up to people and forcing them to talk about things in which they have no interest, nor should they be forced to listen to if they don't want, is unfair in my eyes. Nor is lunch time at a school the appropriate place in my opinion, it is an invasion of a dedicated learning and social space which is unwarranted and unfair imo.

I've actually had multiple long, interesting and enjoyable discussions with people who were, for want of a better term, trying to convert me. But these all relied on a certain amount of empathy and perspective from the people I was talking to. They did not put their beliefs above my own, they genuinely wanted to talk and discuss their perspective in relation to mine, and I enjoyed it a lot even though we never really made any headway in persuading one another, we understood one another a lot better by the end without fail. But I wanted to participate in this, and I take personal issue with people who thrust their perspective and beliefs on you. You can pass it off as 'let them do what they want and believe in' all you like aMoeba, but they're invading my personal space and rights, something which makes me feel a little hard done by, and often makes others feel very awkward, something which they have no right to do.

Why is it considered OK for someone to go around trying to convert people to christianity, telling them that they're going to burn in hell and that this person is trying to save them? Yet it it is not OK for me to go to a church meeting and go around telling people that they are wasting their lives? The former is seen as conversion, a noble and selfless act at best, yet the latter is seen as insulting people's faith. True that, from their perspective and belief, I genuinely am going to burn in hell for my disbelief, but from my perspective they genuinely are wasting their lives. And yet it's never considered that thrusting religion on people could be considered alongside thrusting atheism on them, one is insulting, but the other isn't classed as such just because we don't have a God who takes issue with it. But still, as a group it's insulting in just the same way as it would be if someone came up to you and started pushing it on your how you were wasting your entire life. It can be done from the same motive, from a desire to show people what seems the obvious answer to you, but how would you feel, honestly?

Religious or theist discussion is a great thing, but only when two parties come willing and eager to discuss, not when one person is going around trying to thrust their perspective on people who have no interest in participating. That constitutes harassment, even if the motives aren't malicious. And that's the next thing I wanted to get on to, in that I actually agree with you on this one aMoeba. I can honestly see how wanting to convince people of what you see to be eternal salvation is hardly a malicious intent. From your perspective (not literally you, but a person trying to convert others, for argument's sake), you have found the ultimate answer and you're just trying to tell it to others, it would even by mystifying why they wouldn't want to hear it. I therefore see the genuine good will in such attempts (in general anyway, some people are just bloody minded and wish to talk at others and not even listen, not saying this discredits the principle of conversion in itself, but it is the case some times), but that does not make it fair. Good intentions do not justify unfair action in my eyes, much as they should be seen as the good intentions they are, the person also has a responsibility to look at what they are doing and whether it is fair or not.

And to your later point, aMeoba, about the atheist nature of schools, are you surprised? Schools are the institutions set up to teach children the necessary tools and information for interaction and survival within society, they teach humanity more than anything. Churches are schools of religion, that's the point, and the only reason they aren't compulsory in the same way that schools are is because they teach a philosophical view on the universe, not practical knowledge, thus are not essential for a developing person. People should indeed partake in lessons on such philosophical view points, be they scientific or religious in nature, but the nature of schools is not quite like that, they're practical education institutions.

Now, I know what you're gonna say, and in a way you've already said it. That theories such as evolution and the big bang are taught in science classes, whilst these do relate in scientific terms to the larger context of understanding that could be classed as 'practical knowledge', there is little chance that the majority of students taught this will ever use the knowledge in any practical sense whatsoever. But teaching creationism in science classes is one of the propositions that has angered me the most out of what I've seen and heard during my whole life. Religion is not science, and science is not religion. I for one had Religious Education classes at my school (which, by the way, were multi-theistic in nature, need I point out the pompousness of any one religion saying that their creation theory should be taught in schools alongside scientific theories, when there are friggin' loads of them out there. I know, let's teach them all! And have no time left for anything else, woot...), which played off against the science classes discussion big bang/evolution theories nicely. But that's how it should be, and if you're proposing that creationism be taught in science classes, then just think how dumb it would be teaching evolution in a Religious Education class.

Rant I know, but seriously, this stuff pisses me the hell off. I don't put my views on a higher level than others, don't think myself superior in any way because of what I believe, nor do I think my beliefs themselves superior. So when other people do exactly that, miss comparisons and basically rely on 'yeah, but I'm right', then I take issue with it. And that does not mean I am flaming religion aMeoba, discussion can go on without it getting personal or off topic, but I think this is a pertinent point illustrated well by Dow's example, so I wouldn't shrug this thread off as pointless if I were you.

 

Ah.. everytime you post its a wall. Nonetheless, I read the entire thing.

See, I'm an avid supporter of open mindedness. And personally, though it may be surprising, I don't exactly support creationism teaching in school ( on its own) I think if a school were to teach origin of life they should do it correctly and in an unbiased manner. However if you'd like to hear my views completely I firmly believe that teaching the origin of life is irrelevant. There is no need to look back upon what happened - that just sparks debates. And while I am willing to stand up for what I believe, sometimes what that belief is causes nonsense arguments and discord.

Also, the thing I find with your 7th paragraph is that we are taught to "go out into all the world, and make disciples". Even if atheists are good people (I don't believe in a such thing as miserable atheists, or any other religion for that matter) there is no codebook they abide by which tells them "Lo, and go into all the churches, and call them a mockery, for it is what you have been commanded to do."

Now, another problem I don't really feel I've ever directly addressed is hypocrisy. Yes, I said it. The plain thing with hypocrisy is that there are far too many religious people out there that abide by man made law who also claim themselves to be "divinely appointed by God." I'm sure you or someone you know has had a 'Jehovah's Witness' knock at your door. That's not exactly what we support. Although we try to get our word out, if you honestly don't want to hear it, be polite (you could say this for all things). And also, like you stated, the whole "turn or burn" thing isn't something any Christian supports. Now before I am argued with I want people to realize one thing: If I say a Christian, I mean the real definition of one. The common misconception is the generalization of theists and atheists like. I for one do not uphold to such generalizations, as I believe they're foolish.

In the way if someone believes I'm wasting my life, I look at it from my own perspective, as you had aforementioned. I know I'm not wasting my life, because that's what I believe in, and I stand up for my beliefs. I prefer not to be a fool who falls for the whole "repent or burn" I hate that crap. I honestly am sick of it. The true way (now this may not apply to you, but this is a direct example of what a Christian should be like) to win people over for my beliefs is to show them love and care, the way many street preachers with their hell and eternal damnation signs aren't a way of showing love, they only generalize the reason to convert, and they never show a benefit of that religion, other than the afterlife.

 

Jesus still loves you

 

1: Religious people are not stupid. They are just as smart as anybody else- but their beliefs are stupid. This is not a generalization, and not a statement of ignorance. I have shown you already in the god thread that you have no evidence of your beliefs. Atheists see your belief in god as being as ridiculous as you may see somebody's belief in Scientology (or somebody else's belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster!)

2: I would believe that man A must have murdered man B. Now, if the 75 people say that man A also had the ability to fly and shot laser beams from his eyes, cutting man B in half, I would be much more skeptical, because the claims being made were much less likely. Same goes for religion.

3: Although this wasn't directed towards me, I'll still respond. I have no problem with burnings of the American flag, and I think many atheists would agree. Blind belief in your country is not a good thing - America has flaws (lots), and I currently see no reason to be overly proud of my country.

 

My View

1. It is not unconstitutional to do religious things via public administration. The only thing the constitution forbids regarding that is forced religion. That whole separation of church and state thing actually just a misinterpretation of our constitution. Look it up, this surprised me as much as it probably will you.

2.Needed saving, I don't like this guy [not hate, just not love]. He is one of the people that makes Christianity look bad to people like Dow.

Dow, unfortunately has a bad view of religion thanks to many corruptions within correct, and incorrect, religion.

Their is Catholicism which can be solely blamed for wars started by Christianity, if you want classify Catholicism that way. They used to burn people for reading the Bible, teach the killing of infidels, etc.. I ain't Behind them here.

Islam, which is extremely encouraging when it comes to the killing of infidels, says the only promised way to salvation of a Muslim is to die while killing, or fighting to kill, a nonbeliever.

Other Non-Biblical corruptions of Christianity, like the "Word of Faith" movement, the "Charismatic" movement, etc.. All of them make Religious people look stupid. They are like sponsors of the movie Religulous without even knowing it.

3. This Guy was not an angel, that's just teasing. He didn't have any reason to start preaching, any prepared apologetic, said he hated, seems creepy, and his own faith is easily doubt able.

This guy seems like a Charismatic, Dow, did he say anything about speaking in tongues, an amazing feeling, or some kind of prosperity given to him by God? If he did, he is indeed Charismatic, and PLEASE, don't base your view of religion off of people like this guy. We are not ignorant in our beliefs. Christianity should never be accepted by blind faith, we don't ignore the other beliefs and viewpoints of the world. If we are scared, or our faith is threatened by hearing another viewpoint, it really isn't faith is it?

The arrogance is strong with this one....Sorry in a Star Wars mood. Anyway, this statement was made with the assumption that your right, we are wrong, and we accept our beliefs via blind faith, I handled this in the #3.

Why is it that teaching evolution as the world origin in schools isn't considered at least a lose form of religious teaching? Evolution has less supporting evidence than Christianity does...why is it considered sticking to the facts?

Fun Fact: At San Fransisco State University, the biology department voted 27 to 5 that evolution is admissible in biology--and that reference to an intelligent cause of life is unscientific.

WE DON"T NEED SCIENCE TO FIND FACT! ALL WE NEED IS A BALLOT BOX!

[Sarcasm]

We should teach facts, not choose a bias side for teaching, not evolution, not Jesus' deity, but adaption, and Jesus claim to be God.

[Evolution is to adaption as Jeus' Divinity is to his claim]

School is a lot harder now than it was a while ago, we know more, and therefore teach more. aMeoba was referring to a fair comparison I'm sure. As in, two people taking the same classes starting at the same time both stay in school and learn the same amount at the same pace to 9th grade, on drops out and the other continues to college---who knows more?

Obviously a perfect situation like that will never exist, so a lot of variation won't hurt the logic, but [guessing] 20 years is more than enough of variation from the perfect scenario to ruin the logic.

P.S. aMeoba, Your link to my X-Box profile in your sig is probably the kindest thing anyone has ever done for me [that I don't acutally know]. Thankyou.

 

I have already asked you this before, I will ask you again. Give me a single piece of solid evidence that Christianity is correct. I'm not asking for much- if Christianity has more evidence that evolution does than it should be a very, very easy task.

 

Haha, thanks, but you must realize, that works for everyone. Its a fun prank I like to pull. If I click it and sign in, it goes to my profile.

Sorry to let you down