Jack House
Regular Member
I'll remember this next time I'm in a strip club. I wondered why I kept getting dirty looks. :uhoh:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why I quote Bible Scripture re. firearm ownership and self defence.
- Thread starter Haz.
- Start date
Haz.
Regular Member
Ha ha, no worries , Haz.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
I thought it was because you kept trying to swipe your credit card each time that woman turned her back to you.
The look on her face was priceless.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
So now the simplicity of a "belief" constitutes a "religion"?
Again, until you actually get it in your lack of simple, basic comprehension.
Atheism is not a religion as it has no structure. It is based primarily on a lack of evidence, and the presence of evidence contradicting Creationism.
Hypothetically, and as an analogy.
Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.
Maybe one day you will get this. You can even get away with saying "belief", but you may in no way infer that Atheism is a religion.
This is one of these things that ignorant religious people fart out of their mouth in an attempt to equate Atheism/Agnosticism with religion.
The problem is that it fails the critical thinking test on all fronts and is completely illogical.
Lust isn't a sin either, the bible warns against lust, because it can lead to sin(ex. Samson and Delilah).
But if you really wanna play that game, lets. Prove to me that sex does not contain lust as a primary driving force in most instances. I'll wait.
Exodus 20:14,17: "You shall not commit adultery."
Matthew 5:28: "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The reason you're clearly lacking your big-boy pants here is because you just tried to equate lust in a married relationship with the sin of lust OUT of a married relationship, which are distinctly different as far as the Bible is concerned.
One cannot commit adultery with ones own wife.
The cheesy, watered down version of modern Christianity is laughably bad. Christians during the early period of the religion were far more resolute and literal in their lifestyle guidance when it came to the Bible. Some more reasonable types even recognized the clear dichotomy of the Pentateuch's "God" when contrasted against the clearly different "God" of the New Testament canon. Instead of applying the commandments of Levitical Holiness Code directly, you must wholly avoid Matthew 5:17, and somehow declare that Christ "abolished" the Old Law so that it doesn't apply anymore.
This is why you think its "ok" to go to strip clubs in the first place. Nothing more, nothing less.
One excuse after another buddy.
Please come armed next time.
This is an Open Carry forum after all and I would have expected you to have enough situational awareness to actually bring the appropriate tools to the argument.
Waiting for your next batch of excuses and incompetence.
Love, hugs and kisses,
Jason
Last edited:
Jack House
Regular Member
You mean that's not how you pay with credit cards?
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
You mean that's not how you pay with credit cards?
No, but I clearly understand the confusion. At least you were not the guy trying to make a cash withdraw with an ATM card that way.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This is a little bit of an over-generalization.
While some religions do require faith in something. Not all do, nor do the others require faith in all aspects of the religion doctrine or practices.
An example of a religious activity that does not require faith is the Tibetan holy man who spends years meditating in a cave. He is seeking. He is trying to observe, analyze, and conclude. He most definitely is not taking it on faith.
Also, there are spiritual phenomena observeable to many people. Just because something is not observeable to one or some, does not exclude its existence or the ability of some to perceive it.
Personally, I disagree a little bit with any requirements of having faith in something. "You must believe in (insert holy entity here)." It violates a fundamental of human nature. People can accept and believe what they can observe much more readily. If they observe something, it is real to them. The more observation, the more real. Requiring someone to accept and believe in something they cannot or have not observed just breaks that fundamental all to pieces. Which leads right into an interesting question. Why would the Creator create Man with such a nature, and then require it be violated in His own service? We're talking here about an aspect of human nature that goes right to the very core of a person's thinking and how he relates to everything outside himself, and even to himself. It directly impacts free will, too.
What Creator would set that up as a fundamental of human nature, and then require its violation?
Or, is it a man-made requirement, required by men who do not understand themselves or others enough to see the violation?
Regarding the OP: Whatever obtains agreement. Some people will accept religion-based arguments. Some will accept "the Founders." Some will accept historical data, for example, the estimated 20 million killed by their own government in the 20th century. Some will accept just plain old logic. Whatever works for the person to whom you are talking--use that.
Last edited:
nonameisgood
Regular Member
The problem is that people create a story to fill in the gaps in knowledge. Rather than accepting it as unknown and wondering or questioning or testing. Everyone does this with memory and vision - we fill in the gaps with "logical" stuff from other times and places, like last time you saw the object or one like it.
It's not just with religion, but I see it frequently with science. A researcher sees A, and sees C, and assumes that there is a B in between, without testing that theory. There are many logical errors, but this is the one that gets us "the sun comes up and the sun goes down, so there must be some fellow in a chariot towing it across the sky". This is simply a story to explain it based on what we know, that is, if something is moving across the sky, it must be towed. Ironically, the people creating the myth knew it was allegorical rather than literal, but those who followed didn't hear that part.
It's not just with religion, but I see it frequently with science. A researcher sees A, and sees C, and assumes that there is a B in between, without testing that theory. There are many logical errors, but this is the one that gets us "the sun comes up and the sun goes down, so there must be some fellow in a chariot towing it across the sky". This is simply a story to explain it based on what we know, that is, if something is moving across the sky, it must be towed. Ironically, the people creating the myth knew it was allegorical rather than literal, but those who followed didn't hear that part.
nonameisgood
Regular Member
And the bible isn't a book of quotations, you lazy, fat git, quit taking passages out of context. It is entirely about context.
(with credit to Ricky Gervais for the inspiration for that line)
(with credit to Ricky Gervais for the inspiration for that line)
OC for ME
Regular Member
Prove that God does/does not exist......argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Atheists believe that God does not exist, without proof to support their contention. Just as I believe that God does exist without proof to support my contention.
I figure that God picked a number of people to be non-believers, atheists, so he could have a little fun with his creations. This thread is evidence of his work.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
georg jetson
Regular Member
By 'georg" I think he's got it!!
Yes, according to the definition of "religion", atheism IS a religion.
What you are arguing here is that atheism is not an ORGANIZED religion. You may have a point with this... though there are reasonable arguments to the contrary.
Ya know... I thought you were joking when you originally used this ridiculous analogy, so I ignored it. Do I really have to explain why this doesn't apply?
By definition it's a religion. Why does it hurt your feeling so... ?
The definition of religion is pretty clear. Read it, learn it, like it.
Tawnos
Regular Member
Why are you limiting it to one god? I don't believe in any gods, not just your god. Depending on the formulation of how you describe your god, I may be agnostic about it as well, but regardless, I still remain atheistic. That is, I remain without theism.
You're confusing antitheism with atheism. The two have been quite muddled, but the prefixes do mean different things. Using a- means "without", where "anti-" means "against". An atheist is "without belief in god or gods" where an antitheist is "against belief in god or gods".
The thing is, I don't need proof not to believe in something. That's the default position. You don't believe in dragons in my garage, invisible pink unicorns, or a flying spaghetti monster. And it doesn't require you to have proof they don't exist. Instead, if someone makes a claim such beings exist, you would be wise to say "can you show me some evidence for that?" Why does the burden of proof change when it involves a god you spell with a capital G?
Tawnos
Regular Member
I have a cool hobby. It's not collecting stamps. I also have the hobby of not doing crochet, not skydiving, and I don't engage in the practice of basket weaving.
Not having a hobby or hobbies is a hobby, right?
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I can't think of a more frivolous argument of schematics then whether atheism is a religion or not... But since I'm bored....
Is believing there is no god the same as not believing there is a god?
Is believing there is no god the same as not believing there is a god?
OC for ME
Regular Member
Actually, there is only one God.....believe it or not.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Well....? Don't keep us in suspense!
georg jetson
Regular Member
More "failed" analogy. You have a system of beliefs. That is your religion. Are you suggesting you believe nothing?
Tawnos
Regular Member
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
Quit misusing terms because you want to make a piss-poor point.
There is no set of beliefs I hold, which is different than believing nothing (e.g. I believe I exist, a la Descartes "I think therefore I am"). Especially, I have no belief in any superhuman agencies, nor do I think there's a purpose to the universe. That's not religion, despite your attempts at equivocation (attempts to mislead or hedge by trying to apply an ambiguous meaning to "religion" such that any set of beliefs is a religion, rather than its commonly accepted as well as dictionary-defined meaning specifying a set of beliefs particularly associated with superhuman agencies and fundamental practices and beliefs agreed by a number of people).
There are many things I think, and those things change when evidence convinces me that my previous thoughts were incorrect.
Again, you're claiming that not adhering to a set of beliefs is the same as adhering to a set of beliefs. It's the same as claiming not having a hobby is the same as having a hobby. It's BS.