Blasphemous?
- Started
- Last post
- 282 Responses
- flagellum0
haha, I think brookoi might be kuz in disguise!
capsize: that's why you don't follow fallible men, like Martin Luther.
- blaw0
Is it really that hard to understand that people, specifically intellectual people, find organized religion absurd?
Seems to me it's harder to believe the declarations of any given religion than not.
I'm just not sure what you are trying to accomplish with these long-winded arguments supporting your religion of choice. I've been a church-on-sunday kind of guy since I was born and you annoy me to no end with your endless 'witnessing'.
*note: you = plural, as in yous, yinz, y'all.
- mrdobolina0
flagellum, those are not evidence of a creator, sorry.
- gramme0
You're just spouting hate Brookoi. Why exactly are you so angry at people who have done you no harm?
You've made it abundantly clear in the past that you can't and won't be swayed by any argument for any deity but one of your own devising.
It's clear as crystal, from the majority of your posts, that you are your own Alpha and Omega.
*Sings* All hail the power of Brookoi's name, let angels prostrate fall...
- PonyBoy0
The Big Bang = Human theory - not even remotely proved/exceptionally disproved
The Anthropic Principle- LOLOLOL!!!! The damn thing disproves itself and rewords itself to make room for that which DISPROVES IT...
'Fine-tuning' of the Cosmological Constants...
... if they're 'constant'... how the hell do you fine-tune them?... constant things don't require adjusting... ;) ... oh wait... THEORY!!!!!
DNA - ah ha!!!... the thing got unraveled only 10 years ago... how does human DNA disprove the existence of a Grand Creator of sorts... seems to me that DNA would almost prove the existence of intelligent creativity...
... c'mon... keep dribblin' all that junk/philosophy you read in books... I guarantee a new book will be out next week w/the absolute opposite theory/reasoning...
... one thing that is 'constant' in human history... we've always believed in 'God'...
... isn't there something to that fact alone worth looking into? (outside of the argument that it's for the feeble-minded).
- Brookoioioi0
your memory is as piss poor as your arguments i see...
"You've made it abundantly clear in the past that you can't and won't be swayed by any argument for any deity but one of your own devising."
I have told you what evidence it would take to convince me and considering your sky-faerie's supposed power how easy that should be. Remember?
- Kirshar0
Most of the movers-and-shakers in the Reformation were not violent in any way nor did they support violence against anyone, not even against Roman Catholics. These primary reformers that I mention are Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and the majority of the Puritans. They were all peaceful. The worse thing that any of these men did during the reformation was on the part of Knox, who stood on a hill as Mary queen of Scots rode by and screamed down at her to repent her blasphemies, calling her a papist whore, etc. etc....
There is no one alive who considers that to be one of Knox's shining moments, in spite of the fact that queen Mary was a rampant whore.
The violent reformer to whom I think you primarily refer to is Oliver Cromwell. He was not a minister nor a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, just an angry violent man who took an opportunity to retrofit the Reformation doctrine into his desire for domination.
The rest of the Puritans actually fled from violence as they were being killed by the Pope's men. They were not exactly proud of Cromwell.
gramme
(Oct 25 07, 06:35)isn't that how it usually works with religion? The majority are peaceful, while a few contort it for their own ends, and, and add a half cup of violence, bring to a boil, soon having a negative outlook on the movement as a whole.
- mrdobolina0
he said evidence, kevin...
- gramme0
blaw: what exactly is the correlation between intellectualism and a mistrust of organized religion?
Would you consider C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Aquinas, Jonathan Edwards and Martin Luther to be devoid of intellect?
Faith or a lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with one's intellectual prowess. That should be abundantly obvious based on the many people of faith (and I don't refer exclusively to Christians) who run the gamut from grunting idiocy to genius.
- blaw0
I did not say intellectuals would not believe in organized religion. I'm saying it would be harder for them to.
For fucks sake, I don't know why I bother.
- flagellum0
flagellum, those are not evidence of a creator, sorry.
mrdobolina
(Oct 25 07, 06:56)lol!!!!!!!!!
- flagellum0
ponyboy: read a book.
- mrdobolina0
they aren't. what don't you get? dso you think people who believe in evolution are just trying to crush your religious beliefs? or do you think they are just misguided?
- gramme0
I have told you what evidence it would take to convince me and considering your sky-faerie's supposed power how easy that should be. Remember?
Brookoioioi
(Oct 25 07, 07:00)I answered you before and your reponse merely proved my point about your predisposition. God proves himself on his terms not yours. You want God delivered in a convenient package that makes sense to you. You can't fathom God revealing himself to you in a way that you yourself cannot attain. He defines himself on his own terms because he is sovereign and you and I are not.
- flagellum0
mrdobolina: You can't be reasoned with. It's like shooting beebees at the rock of Gibralter. You don't even understand what evidence is. It's exhausting. Sorry.
- mrdobolina0
but it isnt proof, gramme.
wtf do you guys not understand about this?
- PonyBoy0
that 'fine-tuning' i'm talking about is in regards to the theories of man, brookoioi..
... you understand what 'fine-tuning' means in science...right?
... it means 'adjusting the theory to fit your observations'...
... You see... if you theorize or experiment w/something scientifically - 'johnny science' can wake up tomorrow and publish the absolute opposite of what you just found...
... you can't apply his theory to yours and then call that science or fact (which is what 'fine-tuning' is in science)...
... where are the facts?
You can belittle and attack christians/other religious beliefs...
...But I've yet to see someone disprove the existence of intelligent design...
...all I've seen is scientists doing what they can to prove their own little theories - only to have them debunked by another scientist tomorrow...
... my point is that you can call Religious people weak-minded for having Faith in what they perceive to be truth based on their own life-experience... but the fact is if you subscribe to one human theory or the 'idea' (even from a scientific approach)... well you're just as feeble-minded for putting your faith in some silly man who's about to get his scientific ass handed to him when Johnny Science, III Esq. publishes his paper next week.
- gramme0
isn't that how it usually works with religion? The majority are peaceful, while a few contort it for their own ends, and, and add a half cup of violence, bring to a boil, soon having a negative outlook on the movement as a whole.
Kirshar
(Oct 25 07, 07:00)Yep, thus goes the bent of the world. You're totally right. Makes me want to dig up Cromwell, Falwell, all the wells and smack them in the face for shatting up the program for those of us who prefer to steer clear of violence and/or legalism.
- mrdobolina0
oh brother...
- flagellum0
What is irrational is the faith of atheists: believing that blind matter can produce programming code, intricate functional machinery, physical constants to support life, etc...
I simply don't have that kind of faith. My faith has to have evidence to support it.