Westboro Baptist Church planning on protesting game 5 in OKC

[mindcrime]

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof, but when you have to resort to asking your opponents to prove the negative, you've lost the argument....

I'm not resorting to anything nor am I arguing. Its called 'faith' for a reason. There is no proof, you just believe. If you don't believe that's fine, honestly nobody really cares.

[ambchang]

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof, but when you have to resort to asking your opponents to prove the negative, you've lost the argument....

I am having trouble why one side asking for proof of existence, and the other asking for proof of non-existence means that the one asking for the proof of existence has won the argument.

[Blake]

What is wrong with that? Homosexuality has not been accepted until recent times, and no, Christians and most religious organizations still do not condone homosexuality.

I am not exactly sure what this is about, because breaking it down logically, if a Christian was the read that phrase, it wouldn't offend, because most Christians do no agree with homosexuality, if a non-believer read that phrase, it's not a big deal because s/he doesn't believe in the Bible anyways.

Why do you agree with me that the Bible says it's an abomination, but you want to disregard the part that says "they shall surely be put to death".

You're picking and choosing what's important and what isn't.

[Monster1776]

I'm not resorting to anything nor am I arguing. Its called 'faith' for a reason. There is no proof, you just believe. If you don't believe that's fine, honestly nobody really cares.

Except God, God cares.

[mindcrime]

I am having trouble why one side asking for proof of existence, and the other asking for proof of non-existence means that the one asking for the proof of existence has won the argument.

Probably based on the 'innocent until proven guilty' argument. God doesn't exist until it is proven that he does.

[Blake]

I am having trouble why one side asking for proof of existence, and the other asking for proof of non-existence means that the one asking for the proof of existence has won the argument.

spaghetti monster1776

[I. Hustle]

Why do you agree with me that the Bible says it's an abomination, but you want to disregard the part that says "they shall surely be put to death".

You're picking and choosing what's important and what isn't.

Aren't we all being put to death? One day at a time

[mindcrime]

Except God, God cares.

Absolutely, agreed. I was strictly referring to this message board.

[mindcrime]

Except God, God cares.

Honestly, I'm a little relieved Clipper Nation is not a believer. He'd come in here every other day flip-flopping, changing his mind on whether he believes or not. Similar to what he does when the Clippers win or lose.

[ambchang]

Why do you agree with me that the Bible says it's an abomination, but you want to disregard the part that says "they shall surely be put to death".

You're picking and choosing what's important and what isn't.

No I didn't. The abomination still relates to overall issue with pagan rituals, but my particular problem is that you are now saying that the Bible saying a particular act is an abomination is not acceptable. Why?

[Clipper Nation]

Honestly, I'm a little relieved Clipper Nation is not a believer. He'd come in here every other day flip-flopping, changing his mind on whether he believes or not. Similar to what he does when the Clippers win or lose.
:lol

[mindcrime]

:lol

:lol

Changing topics, Quick better get his head out of his ass if the Kings are going to win this series. He's playing better as of late but man, you can't make mistakes like that. Not in the playoffs. My prediction is Kings take the next 4 games and backdoor sweep.

[Woo Bum-kon]

This kind of reminds me of what I'm going through with my car dealership. The A/C in my car is losing refrigerant and the dealership cannot figure out why. Their exact words "We cannot prove that its a warranty issue therefore you are liable for the charges". That's funny, you cannot prove that its not a warranty issue either. Why am I getting the shaft?

Back to the topic. Prove to me that he doesn't exist and I will become an atheist just like yourself.

First of all, reread the first sentence of my post again. Second, I don't have the burden of proof. Finally, the reason that you are a believer isn't because God's existence hasn't been disproven. If that was the case, you'd also believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, etc. So, don't pretend that that's what keeps you a believer.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Not sure how it was lazy. Funny thing is, you pull up that logical and objective card, and yet you are one of the least logical and objective person in this thread. Pretty much a religious fanatic version of an atheist. In other words, you are the person you claim to hate.

Wrong. And you still keep dodging my questions about context like the coward you are.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I am having trouble why one side asking for proof of existence, and the other asking for proof of non-existence means that the one asking for the proof of existence has won the argument.

Of course, you do.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol

Changing topics, Quick better get his head out of his ass if the Kings are going to win this series. He's playing better as of late but man, you can't make mistakes like that. Not in the playoffs. My prediction is Kings take the next 4 games and backdoor sweep.
Still have confidence in the Kings to get it done, tbh.... Blues are a solid team though, gotta give props...

Too bad the Isles couldn't at least keep it close with the Penguins, tbh.... that series is shaping up to be a total shitfest...

[mindcrime]

Still have confidence in the Kings to get it done, tbh.... Blues are a solid team though, gotta give props...

Too bad the Isles couldn't at least keep it close with the Penguins, tbh.... that series is shaping up to be a total shitfest...

Blues are very evenly matched with the Kings. Both dominant defensive teams. The Isles should just wave the white flag and save themselves some embarrassment.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Except God, God cares.

If God cared, there would be a significantly larger amount of Christians.

[mindcrime]

First of all, reread the first sentence of my post again. Second, I don't have the burden of proof. Finally, the reason that you are a believer isn't because God's existence hasn't been disproven. If that was the case, you'd also believe in Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, etc. So, don't pretend that that's what keeps you a believer.

Zeus, Poseidon etc. have not been disproven as gods. The Christian faith regards them as false gods but they have not been disproven. Once again, how do you disprove something that is based entirely on faith? I choose to believe in the biblical God. As far as who has the burden of proof, I could care less. I'm not trying to persuade you to believe. Its you who are in this board trying your best to push your Atheist agenda. You are the Westboro Baptist Church of this board.

[Blake]

Aren't we all being put to death? One day at a time

I'd say it means that they should be immediately executed, but for the sake of argument, why would God even bother telling gays they will die some day.......like everyone else!

[Blake]

No I didn't. The abomination still relates to overall issue with pagan rituals, but my particular problem is that you are now saying that the Bible saying a particular act is an abomination is not acceptable. Why?

the Bible says a particular act is an abomination. In this case it's man laying with man. God wants the gays dead immediately. Sodom and Gomorrah make this crystal clear.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[capek]

:lol:toast

I'm glad to know somebody did something. Those people are so hateful the are the antithesis of Christianity.

With just a moderate knowledge of history, this proves out as an extraordinarily untrue statement. From right out of the gate, starting in the 3rd century AD as Christianity gained political power in the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman empire, the fanaticism produced by the certainty they were right by divine knowledge while everyone else was wrong, and wrong in the most significant way possible, where the fate of the soul and existence were concerned, justified the Christians to act in unimaginably cruel ways, turturing and murdering countless thousands of people in the subsequent centuries. To run down some specifics, Christian "values" justified the enslavement and massacre of the brown people in the New World, for instance in the rubber plantations in South America. It was used to justify the massacre of Native Americans in North America. It was used to justify a century of enslavement of Africans.

In fact and reality, the only reason someone like yourself is able to blithely talk about "hatefulness" as being the "antithesis of Christianity" is because of the centuries of work that non-theologically-minded people have devoted to civilizing the Christians, by convincing them of the necessity of doubt and humility, and most of all of tolerance. For the vast majority of it's history, Christianity had nothing to do with those concepts, and in fact and reality was no different that the Muslim fanatics of our present day.

I so rarely bother letting myself get pulled into this type of "discussion" on an internet message board, because people so often lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events, but I guess sharing is caring and what not... :wakeup

[Blake]

Zeus, Poseidon etc. have not been disproven as gods. The Christian faith regards them as false gods but they have not been disproven. Once again, how do you disprove something that is based entirely on faith? I choose to believe in the biblical God. As far as who has the burden of proof, I could care less. I'm not trying to persuade you to believe. Its you who are in this board trying your best to push your Atheist agenda. You are the Westboro Baptist Church of this board.

let me know when the Westboro Atheist Church shows up to hate on gays. K thanks.

[Blake]

Except God, God cares.

So does the Spaghetti Monster1776

[capek]

Nice attempt to shift the burden of proof, but when you have to resort to asking your opponents to prove the negative, you've lost the argument....

Clipper Nation with the solid knowledge of Logic? :wow

Did not see that coming. ;)

[urunobili]

wow they were 10 and even got press? Broussard sharing contacts TBH

[I. Hustle]

I'd say it means that they should be immediately executed, but for the sake of argument, why would God even bother telling gays they will die some day.......like everyone else!

Oh ok, so you know EXACTLY what it means. Did you go to school for that? I'm just asking because I don't see where it is telling people to kill them. I'm not a translator though so I could be wrong.

[ambchang]

Wrong. And you still keep dodging my questions about context like the coward you are.

I already did. Read the part about punishment of striking a slave. You just refused to read it, and then immediately said I didn't answer you question while you quoted me. What am I supposed to do? Stuff it down your brain?

And yes, a good insult is a surefire way to get a debate going.



Of course, you do.

What was that supposed to mean? That proof of non-existence is supposed to be the default position and a proof of existence is required first?

[ambchang]

Wrong. And you still keep dodging my questions about context like the coward you are.


the Bible says a particular act is an abomination. In this case it's man laying with man. God wants the gays dead immediately. Sodom and Gomorrah make this crystal clear.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

S&G was wiped off based on their overall evils and possible influence. It was not specifically destroyed due to homosexual acts.

[ambchang]

If God cared, there would be a significantly larger amount of Christians.

Please explain logically.

[Blake]

Oh ok, so you know EXACTLY what it means. Did you go to school for that? I'm just asking because I don't see where it is telling people to kill them. I'm not a translator though so I could be wrong.

considering the Bible has been ridiculously mistranslated by King James' ordained crew among many other translations, I'd say my translation is a good as any.

Here's the literal translation from Young's literal Bible:

Leviticus 20:13

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood on them.<<<


We can go round and round what "put to death" and "their blood is on [i] them means, but I think it's pretty clear.

......unless you're desperately trying to hold on to your Christian belief system in which case you can make it as murky as you need to.

[Blake]

Please explain logically.

Actually if God cared, he would have skipped the earth part and had us all in Heaven from day 1.

the best part is that loving caring God also created an eternal fiery torture chamber.

If that isn't caring, I don't know what is!

[Blake]

I already did. Read the part about punishment of striking a slave. You just refused to read it, and then immediately said I didn't answer you question while you quoted me. What am I supposed to do? Stuff it down your brain?

Did I miss the part where you explained why God condones slavery?

[mindcrime]

let me know when the Westboro Atheist Church shows up to hate on gays. K thanks.

Let me know when you post something worth reading. I just wasted a few seconds. K thanks.

[Blake]

Let me know when you post something worth reading. I just wasted a few seconds. K thanks.

No, I don't think I will because I don't care about you. Sorry.

[mindcrime]

No, I don't think I will because I don't care about you. Sorry.

:(

[EVAY]

With just a moderate knowledge of history, this proves out as an extraordinarily untrue statement. From right out of the gate, starting in the 3rd century AD as Christianity gained political power in the vacuum left by the fall of the Roman empire, the fanaticism produced by the certainty they were right by divine knowledge while everyone else was wrong, and wrong in the most significant way possible, where the fate of the soul and existence were concerned, justified the Christians to act in unimaginably cruel ways, turturing and murdering countless thousands of people in the subsequent centuries. To run down some specifics, Christian "values" justified the enslavement and massacre of the brown people in the New World, for instance in the rubber plantations in South America. It was used to justify the massacre of Native Americans in North America. It was used to justify a century of enslavement of Africans.

In fact and reality, the only reason someone like yourself is able to blithely talk about "hatefulness" as being the "antithesis of Christianity" is because of the centuries of work that non-theologically-minded people have devoted to civilizing the Christians, by convincing them of the necessity of doubt and humility, and most of all of tolerance. For the vast majority of it's history, Christianity had nothing to do with those concepts, and in fact and reality was no different that the Muslim fanatics of our present day.

I so rarely bother letting myself get pulled into this type of "discussion" on an internet message board, because people so often lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events, but I guess sharing is caring and what not... :wakeup

Sorry, but after 16 years of Roman Catholic education and an undergraduate minor in biblical theology, I do not accept the fact that I lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events.

I do not disagree with any of your factual examples of when Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism was used to justify hateful and inhuman acts against not only people who were not Christians, as you pointed out, but toward other Christians as well. For example, the wars between the religious factions of Christianity that were waged during the years following Martin Luther's reformation, the hideous acts of barbarism by the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. etc. etc.

All of these things, as well as all of the things that you mentioned, were done in the name of Christianity.

So is what Westboro does.


My point is that regardless of whether or not the people of Westboro or the Inquisition or the Religious wars of Europe in the 1600's and 1700's call themselves Christian, they are the antithesis of the Christian doctrine.

I sometimes think that the Roman Church is guiltier than any other organization in the history of man for the degradation and brutalizing of human beings, particularly women.

That does not make Christianity horrible. It makes those who practice a corruption of Christianity horrible. I do make a distinction.

[I. Hustle]

considering the Bible has been ridiculously mistranslated by King James' ordained crew among many other translations, I'd say my translation is a good as any.

Here's the literal translation from Young's literal Bible:

Leviticus 20:13

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)13*`And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood on them.<<<


We can go round and round what "put to death" and "their blood is on [i] them means, but I think it's pretty clear.

......unless you're desperately trying to hold on to your Christian belief system in which case you can make it as murky as you need to.

LOL I have no problem with the gays. I'm talking about translation homie. Believe it or not there are some Christians that actually live 2 Timothy 2:15 and don't just read it blindly and say oh ok let's kill the gays. There are words that have been translated differently that really alter meanings. For example your dueteronomy reference, one way it is interpreted is homosexual when some people say that the actual verse talks about abusive sexual acts.

As for your youngs translation, another way it has been translated is "A man shall not lie with another in the bed of his wife, for this is an abomination..."

It depends on how the words were translated by the group translating it. Just like we have words that are spelled the same and mean different things they did back then too.

In all honestly I don't even care that much. It just annoys me how both groups Super Christians and Super Atheists argue and hate each other without even researching or knowing what they are talking about. You both sound like idiots.

[Blake]

That does not make Christianity horrible. It makes those who practice a corruption of Christianity horrible. I do make a distinction.

I honestly don't know much about them except that they are obnoxious picketers. Exactly have they done that is corrupt?

Tie in a Bible verse to back it up, please.

[Blake]

LOL I have no problem with the gays. I'm talking about translation homie. Believe it or not there are some Christians that actually live 2 Timothy 2:15 and don't just read it blindly and say oh ok let's kill the gays. There are words that have been translated differently that really alter meanings. For example your dueteronomy reference, one way it is interpreted is homosexual when some people say that the actual verse talks about abusive sexual acts.

As for your youngs translation, another way it has been translated is "A man shall not lie with another in the bed of his wife, for this is an abomination..."

It depends on how the words were translated by the group translating it. Just like we have words that are spelled the same and mean different things they did back then too.

In all honestly I don't even care that much. It just annoys me how both groups Super Christians and Super Atheists argue and hate each other without even researching or knowing what they are talking about. You both sound like idiots.

I shouldn't have to be an expert. All powerful, all caring, unchanging God should be able to make these rules timeless and easy to understand.

Common sense says mankind made the Bible up.

[capek]

Sorry, but after 16 years of Roman Catholic education and an undergraduate minor in biblical theology, I do not accept the fact that I lack a fundamental knowledge of actual events.

I do not disagree with any of your factual examples of when Christianity and particularly Roman Catholicism was used to justify hateful and inhuman acts against not only people who were not Christians, as you pointed out, but toward other Christians as well. For example, the wars between the religious factions of Christianity that were waged during the years following Martin Luther's reformation, the hideous acts of barbarism by the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. etc. etc.

All of these things, as well as all of the things that you mentioned, were done in the name of Christianity.

So is what Westboro does.


My point is that regardless of whether or not the people of Westboro or the Inquisition or the Religious wars of Europe in the 1600's and 1700's call themselves Christian, they are the antithesis of the Christian doctrine.

I sometimes think that the Roman Church is guiltier than any other organization in the history of man for the degradation and brutalizing of human beings, particularly women.

That does not make Christianity horrible. It makes those who practice a corruption of Christianity horrible. I do make a distinction.

Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes homosexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past. :tu

[SpursRock20]

Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes homosexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past. :tu

Sorry to butt in, but I felt my opinion might be worthwhile to share. I don't believe that a belief should be maintained because of its perceived effect of not allowing a person to do "horrible things". In my mind, a belief should be identifiable to the individual and can only be shared if the members fully understand and follow the faith's rules and guidelines. So in regards to Christianity, the followers of this foundational belief system should follow the faith's rules and guidelines. Period. One of the largest underlying principles of the Christian religion is to not judge others. Anyone who does and feels that they must do "God's work" by killing, torturing, beating, and in this case - picketing in front of the Thunder's stadium in response against Jason Collins coming out, are not Christians. I'm not saying they are not true Christians, they aren't Christians at all.

[Blake]

Fair enough. It is good to know that you are in fact we'll versed on these topics. The history of Western culture has always been very interesting to me, and of course Christianity plays a central role in that. And I can appreciate the distinction you make; while I've acknowledge myself as an Atheist for several years now, I was raised Protestant, and can still engender in myself an aesthetic appreciation for Christianity in some form that's abstracted from much of the pain and suffering that people acting in the name of that religion have, and continue, to bring into the world. You mention many such historical examples, but there are many contemporary horrors we could point out, like the American evangelists who were decisive in getting the anti-gay bill passed in Uganda which makes homosexuality punishable by death. So while that distinction you make is one that can be made, some people might question whether it's a distinction worth making. The problem, of course, is that you're using the same line of reasoning as every single one of those historical and contemporary brutalizers, namely that you know the real Christianity. They would have said, and say, the same thing as you, so it's obviously not the identification of oneself as "Christian" that guarantees a person will be "good," let alone not inhumanly bad. Which begs the question, why maintain a foundational belief system at all, if the foundational belief system in question has never guaranteed that a person won't do horrible things. But that's a question every individual must answer for themselves; what's most important is to avoid a disavowal of actual events for a fantasy narrative that justifies one's beliefs. You've obviously avoided that, so what I'm left with is an appreciation for our shared struggle, as humans, to understand life and live together with a knowledge of our actual shared past. :tu

Well said.

[Blake]

... follow the faith's rules and guidelines. So in regards to Christianity, the followers of this foundational belief system should follow the faith's rules and guidelines. Period.

Christians worship God.

God's rule is to kill the gay amongst a great number of crazy fucked up Old Testament rules. Period.

Round and round.

[xellos88330]

So does the Spaghetti Monster1776

What is the deal with atheists and their obsession with a spaghetti monster?

[SpursRock20]

It is known that Jesus abolished many of the laws of the Old Testament by fulfilling the prophecy of his coming. This has been discussed.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The next verse: 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The law was not to be changed until he fulfilled it. Christians believe that He fulfilled it upon his death.

[capek]

What is the deal with atheists and their obsession with a spaghetti monster?

:lol It's just a nod to the tenets of logic. There is no more evidence for the existence of god than there is for the existence of a spaghetti monster. It's not an obsession, just a matter of language usage.

[xellos88330]

:lol It's just a nod to the tenets of logic. There is no more evidence for the existence of god than there is for the existence of a spaghetti monster. It's not an obsession, just a matter of language usage.

You know what would be funny? If somewhere in the universe there really is a spaghetti monster that was all powerful. Wouldn't that be a trip? :Lmao

[Woo Bum-kon]

Zeus, Poseidon etc. have not been disproven as gods. The Christian faith regards them as false gods but they have not been disproven. Once again, how do you disprove something that is based entirely on faith? I choose to believe in the biblical God. As far as who has the burden of proof, I could care less. I'm not trying to persuade you to believe. Its you who are in this board trying your best to push your Atheist agenda. You are the Westboro Baptist Church of this board.

:lol What a retard.
:lol Believing stupid shit for no reason.
:lol Equating arguing on the Internet with picketing funerals and telling people that they deserve to suffer for all eternity.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I already did. Read the part about punishment of striking a slave. You just refused to read it, and then immediately said I didn't answer you question while you quoted me. What am I supposed to do? Stuff it down your brain?

I am talking about the context of the teachings on rape and murder in the Bible, not just slavery.

And your excuse on the slavery issue is pathetic.

They should not be punished = They should not be punished.

And the fact that God would allow prisoners of war to be enslaved is sickening in itself.

Now, coward, please give me the proper context in which homosexuals should be put to death. And the proper context in which an unruly should be put to death. Stop dodging my requests.


And yes, a good insult is a surefire way to get a debate going.

I'll call a coward like you a coward when you keep acting cowardly.


What was that supposed to mean? That proof of non-existence is supposed to be the default position and a proof of existence is required first?

No, coward. The default position is non-belief. Something should be beloved only when it has met it's burden of proof. Your God has not met the burden of proof. Therefore, your God should not be believed in by any reasonable person.


Please explain logically.

God wants us to believe in him and follow his teachings.
God has infinite power.
God should therefore use his infinite power to convince us (not force us) that he exists.

He hasn't done that, so he doesn't care. Hell, God can't even get his word out effectively, for a supreme being. There is no logical reason why God hasn't convinced us that he exists, if he wanted us to believe. He could no doubt make a far more compelling argument for his existence than you ever could, but he doesn't.

It doesn't make sense.

[I. Hustle]

I shouldn't have to be an expert. All powerful, all caring, unchanging God should be able to make these rules timeless and easy to understand.

Common sense says mankind made the Bible up.

My argument was never about the existence of God but your lack of knowledge. I just think people like you shouldn't talk so passionately about something you know nothing about. Having said that, I lump you and most "Christians" in the same group.

[Woo Bum-kon]

My argument was never about the existence of God but your lack of knowledge. I just think people like you shouldn't talk so passionately about something you know nothing about. Having said that, I lump you and most "Christians" in the same group.

Really? Does Blake believe in a supernatural being for no reason? No. That alone makes him different than a Christian.

[Blake]

My argument was never about the existence of God but your lack of knowledge. I just think people like you shouldn't talk so passionately about something you know nothing about. Having said that, I lump you and most "Christians" in the same group.


Keep assuming you know about me. :tu

lol lumping

[I. Hustle]

Really? Does Blake believe in a supernatural being for no reason? No. That alone makes him different than a Christian.

I don't know who you are but you must not know how to read either. I am not talking about whether he believes or not. I am talking about him being a moron for talking about something when he knows nothing about it.


Keep assuming you know about me. :tu

lol lumping

There are no assumptions. You have contributed numerous posts to these religion threads. All I have to do is read your posts to know that you have no idea what you are talking about. You take things that you have heard others say or that you have read on the internets and that's it.
If it means that much to you that people who believe in religions are wrong then maybe you should take a class or two and learn about the history of whatever you are arguing against. Not everyone that believes in Christianity or Buddhism or whatever just blindly does what they are told. Of course there are tons that do but, from your example, there are atheists who just blindly listen to what others have said and follow that as well.
So, like I said, if it means that much to you then maybe you should crack open a book or shell out some money to take some classes. That way next time you try to use a scripture or two you can have some back up. Otherwise, maybe you should just stay out of the religion threads because you might just bump into someone who knows what they are talking about.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I don't know who you are but you must not know how to read either. I am not talking about whether he believes or not. I am talking about him being a moron for talking about something when he knows nothing about it.



There are no assumptions. You have contributed numerous posts to these religion threads. All I have to do is read your posts to know that you have no idea what you are talking about. You take things that you have heard others say or that you have read on the internets and that's it.
If it means that much to you that people who believe in religions are wrong then maybe you should take a class or two and learn about the history of whatever you are arguing against. Not everyone that believes in Christianity or Buddhism or whatever just blindly does what they are told. Of course there are tons that do but, from your example, there are atheists who just blindly listen to what others have said and follow that as well.
So, like I said, if it means that much to you then maybe you should crack open a book or shell out some money to take some classes. That way next time you try to use a scripture or two you can have some back up. Otherwise, maybe you should just stay out of the religion threads because you might just bump into someone who knows what they are talking about.


Your gripe is bullshit. Just another moron crying about context.

Again, there is no context in which killing an unruly child is okay. Period. I don't have to be a Biblical scholar to come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is an asshole. Nobody does. Based on the premise that God is a perfect being, his laws should therefore be perfect. If the laws are perfect, they don't need to be changed. Therefore, God still wants people to kill homosexuals and non-believers.

What objection do you have to that line of reasoning? All my sources are in the Bible. Christians try their best to spin what is in their holy book with cries about "Context!" There is no context in which killing a child who curses their parents is okay. That's all there is to it.

[ambchang]

Actually if God cared, he would have skipped the earth part and had us all in Heaven from day 1.

the best part is that loving caring God also created an eternal fiery torture chamber.

If that isn't caring, I don't know what is!

So you are saying that the way works should be exactly the same as how you think it should? OK.

There was also the garden of Eden, which was created exactly for that purpose, but then people sinned, and had to face the consequences.

As for the hell part, it's the nature of sin. If you stick hand on the power lines, you will be electrocuted, but the electricity isn't mean, the people who created the electrical grid isn't mean. You have been given enough warnings for it, and you chose to ignore it, thus you reap the consequences. Pretty logical to me.



Did I miss the part where you explained why God condones slavery?

Of course you did. I wrote that in a few quotes dispelling the myth. Just choose to ignore it.

[ambchang]

I am talking about the context of the teachings on rape and murder in the Bible, not just slavery.

I have already explained the slavery issue, and the rape and murder parts are similar. The Bible is a pretty thick book, and you can go and pick one of two verses out and continue to play this game, but it's repetitive and a useless exercise, because at the end of it, you will not listen as you have already stated earlier, so what's the point?

A highly logical individual like yourself should understand that there is no point for us to continue this conversation, especially when there are reams of information on the web that answers directly for a hardworking, truth-seeking individual like yourself.


And your excuse on the slavery issue is pathetic.

They should not be punished = They should not be punished.

And the fact that God would allow prisoners of war to be enslaved is sickening in itself.

Punished referred directly to earlier verses and chapters about the punishment for murder. You don't want to read it, fine.


Now, coward, please give me the proper context in which homosexuals should be put to death. And the proper context in which an unruly should be put to death. Stop dodging my requests.

I have already stated that the death was not for the homosexual acts itself, but for the acts of following pagan rituals, of which homosexual acts was one of them. The Bible also forbids people from getting tattoos and shaving their heads because those are pagan rituals. That's why I said go read the book, it's pretty clear when you read the entire context.




I'll call a coward like you a coward when you keep acting cowardly.

Vs. a brave and person like you who come to basketball forums to discuss religion?

I mean, I can already see you going to accomplished theists and challenging them on their believes, instead of going to a basketball forum to talk about religion like a real logical person.

Answer me this, why would a logical person go to a basketball forum to talk religion? Going by your own standards, if you can't answer it, you are a coward.



No, coward. The default position is non-belief. Something should be beloved only when it has met it's burden of proof. Your God has not met the burden of proof. Therefore, your God should not be believed in by any reasonable person.



God wants us to believe in him and follow his teachings.
God has infinite power.
God should therefore use his infinite power to convince us (not force us) that he exists.

He hasn't done that, so he doesn't care. Hell, God can't even get his word out effectively, for a supreme being. There is no logical reason why God hasn't convinced us that he exists, if he wanted us to believe. He could no doubt make a far more compelling argument for his existence than you ever could, but he doesn't.

It doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

[Woo Bum-kon]

So you are saying that the way works should be exactly the same as how you think it should? OK.

No, things should be logical. God isn't logical.


There was also the garden of Eden, which was created exactly for that purpose, but then people sinned, and had to face the consequences.

Oh, you mean when EVERYBODY suffered when God put a temptation in the Garden of Eden for no conceivable reason? Seems pretty illogical to me, especially considering the fact that God is supposed to be all loving. Eternal damnation directly contradicts that claim.


As for the hell part, it's the nature of sin. If you stick hand on the power lines, you will be electrocuted, but the electricity isn't mean, the people who created the electrical grid isn't mean. You have been given enough warnings for it, and you chose to ignore it, thus you reap the consequences. Pretty logical to me.

lol all loving
lol claiming anything that God does is logical


Of course you did. I wrote that in a few quotes dispelling the myth. Just choose to ignore it.

You didn't dispel shit, asshole. You claimed that slavery then was different from modern perceptions of what slavery is, and you claimed (and was proven wrong, by the way) that God prohibited the beating of slaves. Taking prisoners of war and forcing them to work for somebody is SLAVERY. That shit wouldn't fly today, so your rationalization that it wasn't that bad is ridiculous. It's still BAD, and the fact that God not only doesn't speak out against it, but endorses that, is proof that God is a piece of shit.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I have already explained the slavery issue, and the rape and murder parts are similar. The Bible is a pretty thick book, and you can go and pick one of two verses out and continue to play this game, but it's repetitive and a useless exercise, because at the end of it, you will not listen as you have already stated earlier, so what's the point?

Still dodging the question like the coward you are.


A highly logical individual like yourself should understand that there is no point for us to continue this conversation, especially when there are reams of information on the web that answers directly for a hardworking, truth-seeking individual like yourself.

If there are reams of information, why don't you just answer my question, coward?


Punished referred directly to earlier verses and chapters about the punishment for murder. You don't want to read it, fine.

Punished means punished, and your claim that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves remains completely unsupported.


I have already stated that the death was not for the homosexual acts itself, but for the acts of following pagan rituals, of which homosexual acts was one of them. The Bible also forbids people from getting tattoos and shaving their heads because those are pagan rituals. That's why I said go read the book, it's pretty clear when you read the entire context.

:lol So? It's amazing to me that you are trying to rationalize this shit.

"See! God only meant that people should be put to death while practicing homosexuality during pagan rituals."

That's still fucked up and inexcusable, so your lame excuses don't mean shit.


Vs. a brave and person like you who come to basketball forums to discuss religion?

So?


I mean, I can already see you going to accomplished theists and challenging them on their believes, instead of going to a basketball forum to talk about religion like a real logical person.

Again, so?


Answer me this, why would a logical person go to a basketball forum to talk religion? Going by your own standards, if you can't answer it, you are a coward.

:lol Because they want to, cowardly idiot. A logical person doesn't have to discuss something only on a forum for that particular subject, so your point is moot.

And good job failing to quote the rest of my post properly, idiot.

:lol worshipping somebody who allows people to be enslaved
:lol worshipping somebody who condones killing people for homosexual acts
:lol worshipping somebody who believes that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists

[I. Hustle]

Your gripe is bullshit. Just another moron crying about context.

Again, there is no context in which killing an unruly child is okay. Period. I don't have to be a Biblical scholar to come to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is an asshole. Nobody does. Based on the premise that God is a perfect being, his laws should therefore be perfect. If the laws are perfect, they don't need to be changed. Therefore, God still wants people to kill homosexuals and non-believers.

What objection do you have to that line of reasoning? All my sources are in the Bible. Christians try their best to spin what is in their holy book with cries about "Context!" There is no context in which killing a child who curses their parents is okay. That's all there is to it.

LOL
Nice try Bubba. We are using Christianity because that is the argument here. You assume I am Christian because I am arguing with Blake.
We could go all day back and forth where you grab scriptures and I tell you how you are wrong because all you do is read a version of something without taking anything into "context" and blah blah blah.
Bottom line is, I am not in any way trying to sway your opinion or your beliefs. You have the freedom to believe whatever it is you want and that's cool. The thing I don't get is why idiots like you and Blake and even those force their beliefs down your throat "Christians" can't just let people be who they are and believe what they want.
I have friends who are atheist and friends that are Pastors. I even work with both and they get along. I work directly with both and I have never seen an argument between the two and we even go to lunch together without any of these discussions coming up.
The difference between them and the groups I am talking about is that they are comfortable with their beliefs and ideas and don't feel the need to try to call out others to make themselves feel smart.
If you don't believe in the bible then that is ok. As long as laws don't pass that allow people to kill gays or unruly children or whatever other passages you choose to pick out then I don't see the problem. Sure you can use the whole gay marriage thing and that I can somewhat understand but the killing unruly kids?

[Woo Bum-kon]

The thing I don't get is why idiots like you and Blake and even those force their beliefs down your throat "Christians" can't just let people be who they are and believe what they want.

What they believe is terrible, illogical bullshit. And Christians try to force their bullshit beliefs down people's throats, so it's not like they are completely harmless.


I have friends who are atheist and friends that are Pastors. I even work with both and they get along. I work directly with both and I have never seen an argument between the two and we even go to lunch together without any of these discussions coming up.

Who cares?


The difference between them and the groups I am talking about is that they are comfortable with their beliefs and ideas and don't feel the need to try to call out others to make themselves feel smart.
If you don't believe in the bible then that is ok. As long as laws don't pass that allow people to kill gays or unruly children or whatever other passages you choose to pick out then I don't see the problem. Sure you can use the whole gay marriage thing and that I can somewhat understand but the killing unruly kids?

This doesn't even make sense.

I take exception to Christians being critical of Westboro Baptist Church, because it shows a level of hypocrisy. The Bible is in complete agreement with the WBC's teachings, but do Christians realize that it is a book that is not worthy of following? No, they rationalize the bullshit in it. And when they rationalize their illogical belief with more illogical bullshit, I will call them out on it.

[I. Hustle]

What they believe is terrible, illogical bullshit. And Christians try to force their bullshit beliefs down people's throats, so it's not like they are completely harmless.

My response to you is your favorite response. Who cares? I mean so what if they believe something that you think is illogical? It's illogical to think that everyone should believe the same and think the same way. Don't tell me that all Christians force their beliefs down your throat because that's
total BS.







This doesn't even make sense.

It makes sense in that the two groups can get along. You make it seem like it HAS to be one way or the other but that's "illogical".


I take exception to Christians being critical of Westboro Baptist Church, because it shows a level of hypocrisy. The Bible is in complete agreement with the WBC's teachings, but do Christians realize that it is a book that it not worthy of following? No, they rationalize the bullshit in it. And when they rationalize their illogical belief with more illogical bullshit, I will call them out on it.

It depends on their doctrine. You aren't really calling anyone on anything. What you are doing is the same thing you are complaining about. You are trying to tell others that your way of believing is the only way. No matter how it sounds in your head you still come out sounding like a whiney brat.
Were you an only child? Because that would make A TON of sense.

[Blake]

I don't know who you are but you must not know how to read either. I am not talking about whether he believes or not. I am talking about him being a moron for talking about something when he knows nothing about it.



There are no assumptions. You have contributed numerous posts to these religion threads. All I have to do is read your posts to know that you have no idea what you are talking about. You take things that you have heard others say or that you have read on the internets and that's it.
If it means that much to you that people who believe in religions are wrong then maybe you should take a class or two and learn about the history of whatever you are arguing against. Not everyone that believes in Christianity or Buddhism or whatever just blindly does what they are told. Of course there are tons that do but, from your example, there are atheists who just blindly listen to what others have said and follow that as well.
So, like I said, if it means that much to you then maybe you should crack open a book or shell out some money to take some classes. That way next time you try to use a scripture or two you can have some back up. Otherwise, maybe you should just stay out of the religion threads because you might just bump into someone who knows what they are talking about.

Who are you to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about?

Are you the someone I am bumping into that does know what he's talking about regarding the Bible?

[Woo Bum-kon]

My response to you is your favorite response. Who cares? I mean so what if they believe something that you think is illogical? It's illogical to think that everyone should believe the same and think the same way.


No, it isn't. It is not at all illogical to believe that people SHOULD think the same way. It is illogical to believe that that will ever happen, but thinking that one should believe based off logic and reasoning, is not illogical at all.


Don't tell me that all Christians force their beliefs down your throat because that's
total BS.

I'm no going to defend a stance I didn't take.


It makes sense in that the two groups can get along. You make it seem like it HAS to be one way or the other but that's "illogical".

I don't pretend that it HAS to be anyway. I realize that people will keep believing in bullshit for bullshitt reasons. There is a difference in the way things are and the ways things should be. And I am not delusional enough to believe that the ways things should be will become the ways things are.


It depends on their doctrine. You aren't really calling anyone on anything. What you are doing is the same thing you are complaining about. You are trying to tell others that your way of believing is the only way. No matter how it sounds in your head you still come out sounding like a whiney brat.
Were you an only child? Because that would make A TON of sense.

I am nowhere close to being an only child, first of all. Secondly, there is no "my interpretation" of these passages that I have pulled out. These passage aren't completely symbolic and up for interpretation. There's what they say, and there's what Christians want to believe they say. Ironically, the non-Christian is the one who is able to tell which is which.

[Blake]

LOL
Nice try Bubba. We are using Christianity because that is the argument here. You assume I am Christian because I am arguing with Blake.
We could go all day back and forth where you grab scriptures and I tell you how you are wrong because all you do is read a version of something without taking anything into "context" and blah blah blah.
Bottom line is, I am not in any way trying to sway your opinion or your beliefs. You have the freedom to believe whatever it is you want and that's cool. The thing I don't get is why idiots like you and Blake and even those force their beliefs down your throat "Christians" can't just let people be who they are and believe what they want.
I have friends who are atheist and friends that are Pastors. I even work with both and they get along. I work directly with both and I have never seen an argument between the two and we even go to lunch together without any of these discussions coming up.
The difference between them and the groups I am talking about is that they are comfortable with their beliefs and ideas and don't feel the need to try to call out others to make themselves feel smart.
If you don't believe in the bible then that is ok. As long as laws don't pass that allow people to kill gays or unruly children or whatever other passages you choose to pick out then I don't see the problem. Sure you can use the whole gay marriage thing and that I can somewhat understand but the killing unruly kids?

You're confusing me and Woo calling out logical fallacies for forcing atheist views down your throat.

If you're gagging, feel free to leave.

[ambchang]

No, things should be logical. God isn't logical.

That's a bold statement to make. What is the backup? How could you logically say that God is


Oh, you mean when EVERYBODY suffered when God put a temptation in the Garden of Eden for no conceivable reason? Seems pretty illogical to me, especially considering the fact that God is supposed to be all loving. Eternal damnation directly contradicts that claim.



lol all loving
lol claiming anything that God does is logical

Again, continue to misinterpret phrases on purpose to suit your own needs. Which is neither logical nor objective.


You didn't dispel shit, asshole. You claimed that slavery then was different from modern perceptions of what slavery is, and you claimed (and was proven wrong, by the way) that God prohibited the beating of slaves. Taking prisoners of war and forcing them to work for somebody is SLAVERY. That shit wouldn't fly today, so your rationalization that it wasn't that bad is ridiculous. It's still BAD, and the fact that God not only doesn't speak out against it, but endorses that, is proof that God is a piece of shit.

It is different, slaves in the 15th century could be beaten to death with no consequences to owners. And yet there were phrases and phrases in the bible talking about the rights of slaves which you just chose to ignore.

I am not sure if it's your ignorance on modern day slavery or bible that is causing your own confusion.

[Blake]

Of course you did. I wrote that in a few quotes dispelling the myth. Just choose to ignore it.

Myth?

lol just choose to ignore the condoning of slavery in the Bible. You aren't the first/last to do so.

[Blake]

That's a bold statement to make. What is the backup? How could you logically say that God is



Again, continue to misinterpret phrases on purpose to suit your own needs. Which is neither logical nor objective.



It is different, slaves in the 15th century could be beaten to death with no consequences to owners. And yet there were phrases and phrases in the bible talking about the rights of slaves which you just chose to ignore.

I am not sure if it's your ignorance on modern day slavery or bible that is causing your own confusion.

Slavery still one man owning another man.

Why does God condone one man owning another man as property?

[Woo Bum-kon]

That's a bold statement to make. What is the backup? How could you logically say that God is

His actions don't make any logical sense.

A perfect God makes human beings for no reason?
A perfect God has such low self-esteem that he asks human beings to worship him?
A perfect God tempts Adam and Eve by putting the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, which causes a conflict that didn't need to happen in the first place?
A perfect God sacrifices himself to himself to fix a problem that he caused, and we're supposed to feel grateful?

The fact that God doesn't reveal himself to convert non-believers shows how stupid and illogical he is.

Again, continue to misinterpret phrases on purpose to suit your own needs. Which is neither logical nor objective.

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I believe that the phrases mean what they mean. I don't read a shitty book to convince myself that things don't mean what they clearly mean.


It is different, slaves in the 15th century could be beaten to death with no consequences to owners. And yet there were phrases and phrases in the bible talking about the rights of slaves which you just chose to ignore.

It's slavery, asshole. Even if it is a better form of slavery, it's still SLAVERY. And your God is completely fine with SLAVERY. Your attempts to make slavery seem not as bad as it is are pathetic.


I am not sure if it's your ignorance on modern day slavery or bible that is causing your own confusion.

I am not confuse. I believe that slavey is bad. I know that God endorses slavery. Therefore, I believe God is an asshole.

[ambchang]

Still dodging the question like the coward you are.

So in the last book, you just acknowledged that I have responded to the slavery (or at least alluded to it), and I have already explained that the response to rape and murder is the same. What's the point of repeating the same argument over and over?


If there are reams of information, why don't you just answer my question, coward?

Because you can just type it on google and look for it, and I am not in the position to take somebody else's insights and treat it as my own. You see, unlikely you, I am uncomfortable with taking questions that had been around since the 15th century, answered a millionth time, cut and paste it, and treat it as my own questions to confront people.

But if you insist, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery Find me evidence of slave rights in modern day slavery that is remotely comparable to these
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html
Also: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2015&version=NLT


Punished means punished, and your claim that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves remains completely unsupported.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021&version=NLT

Start reading from 21:12


:lol So? It's amazing to me that you are trying to rationalize this shit.

"See! God only meant that people should be put to death while practicing homosexuality during pagan rituals."

That's still fucked up and inexcusable, so your lame excuses don't mean shit.

Treason is a capital punishment in the States, as in many other different countries.


So?

Shows your hypocrisy. I would imagine a logical person like you would have figured this out.


Again, so?

Again, hows your hypocrisy. I would imagine a logical person like you would have figured this out.


:lol Because they want to, cowardly idiot. A logical person doesn't have to discuss something only on a forum for that particular subject, so your point is moot.

A logical person would not go to a basketball forum to discuss religion, because a basketball forum's purpose is to discuss basketball. It is illogical to expect to get reasonable answers to religion on a basketball forum. "I want to" is not a logical answer.


And good job failing to quote the rest of my post properly, idiot.

I quoted the entire post, how was that not properly quoted? And why is that an issue with you? You are perfectly comfortable quoting, and only reading on sentence out of an entire book to draw conclusions.


:lol worshipping somebody who allows people to be enslaved
:lol worshipping somebody who condones killing people for homosexual acts
:lol worshipping somebody who believes that rape victims should be forced to marry their rapists

I mean, you really should learn to argue like Blake and DoK. Have a purpose and a stance, then actually reading what people respond to. While some people choose to ignore valid answers and ask additional questions (which is fine), your act of continuously asking the same questions despite having them answered is not useful, at all.

I really enjoy talking about religious topics, because, as a Christian, I like to challenge my faith. In fact, I asked the same questions that was posted here, and more. I actually asked about inconsistencies in the OT and NT, and tried to understand why that is. It was a frustrating exercise at first, and really got me to a point where I thought I thought this entire religion is hogwash (tip: just take the last 7 words I wrote prior to the opening parenthesis and proclaim victory in your argument, because I know you did that with the Bible), but I kept at it and looked for answers. I know, logically, a religion that lasted for thousands of years and studied to death by scholars MUST have some perfectly logical answers to questions that a person with no practical training in religious study can come up with. Afterall, I am sure Calvin was a million times the philosopher I could ever be.

[ambchang]

His actions don't make any logical sense.

A perfect God makes human beings for no reason?

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-create-us.html


A perfect God has such low self-esteem that he asks human beings to worship him?

The jump from low esteem to worship is a giant, illogical step.


A perfect God tempts Adam and Eve by putting the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden, which causes a conflict that didn't need to happen in the first place?

This is an argument of predestination vs. free will. A rule was made, and it was simple to follow. You break a rule, you suffer the consequences. Without the forbidden fruit, there is no demonstration of free will, and the assumption that Adam and Eve will not break another rule is naive and narrow-minded.


A perfect God sacrifices himself to himself to fix a problem that he caused, and we're supposed to feel grateful?

Why was Adam and Eve breaking a simple rule to introduce sin a problem caused by God? Your mom said no cookies before dinner, or else you will not have dessert for a week. The cookie in and of itself is not a temptation, and is not negative. The consequence of not having desserts for the week is implemented, and yet you still chose to have the cookie. Did you or your mom created the problem?


The fact that God doesn't reveal himself to convert non-believers shows how stupid and illogical he is.

? Whether he revealed Himself and not being recognized, or not revealed at all is up for debate. For a objective person like you, you sure run into a whole lot of assumptions and not think things through before concluding something.


I'm not misinterpreting anything. I believe that the phrases mean what they mean. I don't read a shitty book to convince myself that things don't mean what they clearly mean.

So now it is you believing it, and not the book saying it, and that you acknowledged interpretation, preceding by a statement saying that you did not misinterpreting anything. You just contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.



It's slavery, asshole. Even if it is a better form of slavery, it's still SLAVERY. And your God is completely fine with SLAVERY. Your attempts to make slavery seem not as bad as it is are pathetic.

So now that I have just proven biblical slavery is not modern day slavery, something you refused to acknowledge earlier on, you are changing the goal post to semantics. Lebron James' (I do talk about basketball on a basketball forum afterall) departure from the Cavs drew comparisons to slavery, was Lebron James wronged in that situation?



I am not confuse. I believe that slavey is bad. I know that God endorses slavery. Therefore, I believe God is an asshole.

After showing that slavery is not the same as the same slavery you believed in? A tip for you, slavery is an English term. The Bible was written in Hebrew, before modern day slavery was even invented. Through the years, the meaning of slavery has evolved, and painting everything that was under the umbrella word of slavery to mean the same thing shows your ignorance of the term, the history, or a handle to languages.

[Blake]

Afterall, I am sure Calvin was a million times the philosopher I could ever be.

False. Your instant access to history, science and education from all over the world in todays time gives you a much bigger advantage over Calvin.

[Blake]

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-create-us.html



The jump from low esteem to worship is a giant, illogical step.



This is an argument of predestination vs. free will. A rule was made, and it was simple to follow. You break a rule, you suffer the consequences. Without the forbidden fruit, there is no demonstration of free will, and the assumption that Adam and Eve will not break another rule is naive and narrow-minded.



Why was Adam and Eve breaking a simple rule to introduce sin a problem caused by God? Your mom said no cookies before dinner, or else you will not have dessert for a week. The cookie in and of itself is not a temptation, and is not negative. The consequence of not having desserts for the week is implemented, and yet you still chose to have the cookie. Did you or your mom created the problem?



? Whether he revealed Himself and not being recognized, or not revealed at all is up for debate. For a objective person like you, you sure run into a whole lot of assumptions and not think things through before concluding something.



So now it is you believing it, and not the book saying it, and that you acknowledged interpretation, preceding by a statement saying that you did not misinterpreting anything. You just contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.




So now that I have just proven biblical slavery is not modern day slavery, something you refused to acknowledge earlier on, you are changing the goal post to semantics. Lebron James' (I do talk about basketball on a basketball forum afterall) departure from the Cavs drew comparisons to slavery, was Lebron James wronged in that situation?




After showing that slavery is not the same as the same slavery you believed in? A tip for you, slavery is an English term. The Bible was written in Hebrew, before modern day slavery was even invented. Through the years, the meaning of slavery has evolved, and painting everything that was under the umbrella word of slavery to mean the same thing shows your ignorance of the term, the history, or a handle to languages.

True or false: Hebrews were allowed by God to own other human beings.

[Woo Bum-kon]

So in the last book, you just acknowledged that I have responded to the slavery (or at least alluded to it), and I have already explained that the response to rape and murder is the same. What's the point of repeating the same argument over and over?

If you keep dodging my questions over and over, I will note that you keep dodging them.


Because you can just type it on google and look for it, and I am not in the position to take somebody else's insights and treat it as my own. You see, unlikely you, I am uncomfortable with taking questions that had been around since the 15th century, answered a millionth time, cut and paste it, and treat it as my own questions to confront people.

I don't want to hear some random apologist's explanation why killing unruly children is okay. I want to hear your explanation.


But if you insist, here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery Find me evidence of slave rights in modern day slavery that is remotely comparable to these
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible.slavery.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html)
Also: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2015&version=NLT



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2021&version=NLT

Start reading from 21:12

I already read all of that passage. A lesser form of slavey is still slavery, and your God condones slavery, asshole.


Treason is a capital punishment in the States, as in many other different countries.

So? Not only is paganism not treason, it isn't even comparable. Paganism doesn't even threaten the safety of Americans in the way that treason does, and I don't even condone the execution of those who commit treason.

You are rationalizing murder yet again.


Shows your hypocrisy. I would imagine a logical person like you would have figured this out.

You don't know what hypocrisy means, idiot.


Again, hows your hypocrisy. I would imagine a logical person like you would have figured this out.

No it doesn't, idiot.


A logical person would not go to a basketball forum to discuss religion, because a basketball forum's purpose is to discuss basketball. It is illogical to expect to get reasonable answers to religion on a basketball forum. "I want to" is not a logical answer.

Wrong, moron. It is not unreasonable at all to expect reasonable answers from a basketball forum. Is it more unlikely? Sure. Unreasonable? Not at all. Your line of reasoning fails completely.


I quoted the entire post, how was that not properly quoted?

Well, besides the fact that you failed to quote it properly, you did everything right.


And why is that an issue with you? You are perfectly comfortable quoting, and only reading on sentence out of an entire book to draw conclusions.

:lol I am perfectly comfortable reading a sentence that says, "kill unruly children" and coming to the conclusion that it says, "kill unruly children." You're the one crying that sentences that clearly mean one thing actually mean another. The ultimate irony is that your bullshit rationalizations are still absolutely terrible.


I mean, you really should learn to argue like Blake and DoK. Have a purpose and a stance, then actually reading what people respond to. While some people choose to ignore valid answers and ask additional questions (which is fine), your act of continuously asking the same questions despite having them answered is not useful, at all.

Your answer was bullshit. I don't accept bullshit answers.


I really enjoy talking about religious topics, because, as a Christian, I like to challenge my faith. In fact, I asked the same questions that was posted here, and more. I actually asked about inconsistencies in the OT and NT, and tried to understand why that is. It was a frustrating exercise at first, and really got me to a point where I thought I thought this entire religion is hogwash (tip: just take the last 7 words I wrote prior to the opening parenthesis and proclaim victory in your argument, because I know you did that with the Bible), but I kept at it and looked for answers. I know, logically, a religion that lasted for thousands of years and studied to death by scholars MUST have some perfectly logical answers to questions that a person with no practical training in religious study can come up with. Afterall, I am sure Calvin was a million times the philosopher I could ever be.

:lol No, this religion doesn't have any logical answers. This religion was made up thousands of years ago by sand people. It's ignorant, dumb and intolerant. Apologists like screaming about faith and context to make up for those simple facts.

And the fact that God doesn't answer these question, even though he has every reason to answer them, shows how much of an idiot he is.

[Woo Bum-kon]

http://www.gotquestions.org/why-did-God-create-us.html

A perfect being doesn't need any pleasure. He's perfect. He doesn't lack anything. Failure number one by you.


The jump from low esteem to worship is a giant, illogical step.

No, it isn't. If God constantly needs validation, he lacks self-esteem. A perfect being doesn't need worship. A perfect being doesn't give a shit what non-perfect beings say.


This is an argument of predestination vs. free will. A rule was made, and it was simple to follow. You break a rule, you suffer the consequences. Without the forbidden fruit, there is no demonstration of free will, and the assumption that Adam and Eve will not break another rule is naive and narrow-minded.

No, this is an argument about logic. Why would one purposefully cause conflict where there is no conflict? God didn't have to put the fruit there, but he chose to for no reason.


Why was Adam and Eve breaking a simple rule to introduce sin a problem caused by God?

Because he put the fruit there and caused the conflict in the first place?


Your mom said no cookies before dinner, or else you will not have dessert for a week. The cookie in and of itself is not a temptation, and is not negative. The consequence of not having desserts for the week is implemented, and yet you still chose to have the cookie. Did you or your mom created the problem?

No, God put the cookies there for no reason. The cookies were not to be eaten ever. The only reason they existed was as a temptation. My mom would never bake a batch of cookies just so she can tell me that I should never eat them. Your analogy falls flat completely.


? Whether he revealed Himself and not being recognized, or not revealed at all is up for debate. For a objective person like you, you sure run into a whole lot of assumptions and not think things through before concluding something.

lol. God didn't reveal himself to me. Period. It's not up for debate. You trying to rationalize his complete failure to convince me that he exists, is quite amusing, though. God has an infinite amount of power, so the fact that only a third of humanity believes in him, shows how much of a spectacular failure he is.


So now it is you believing it, and not the book saying it

No, it's the book saying it. I have passages supporting my position.


and that you acknowledged interpretation, preceding by a statement saying that you did not misinterpreting anything. You just contradicted yourself in back to back sentences.

No, I didn't.


So now that I have just proven biblical slavery is not modern day slavery

Even if that is true, it's still slavery.


something you refused to acknowledge earlier on

Link? I said that it was still slavery. Your pathetic attempts to rationalize slavery don't change the fact that it's slavery.


you are changing the goal post to semantics. Lebron James' (I do talk about basketball on a basketball forum afterall) departure from the Cavs drew comparisons to slavery, was Lebron James wronged in that situation?

:lol comparing LeBron's situation to slavery. LeBron wasn't forced to work for anybody. LeBron could not be beaten to death without consequence so long as he didn't die right away.


After showing that slavery is not the same as the same slavery you believed in?

Still slavery, asshole, regardless of whether it is the same extent or not.


A tip for you, slavery is an English term. The Bible was written in Hebrew, before modern day slavery was even invented. Through the years, the meaning of slavery has evolved, and painting everything that was under the umbrella word of slavery to mean the same thing shows your ignorance of the term, the history, or a handle to languages.

And the Hebrew slavery is still forcing people to work for their masters. It's slavery, asshole. Stop rationalizing it.

[jag]

There's a unique type of anger going on with RZ. It's not natural to hate something that much.

[mindcrime]

:lol What a retard.
:lol Believing stupid shit for no reason.
:lol Equating arguing on the Internet with picketing funerals and telling people that they deserve to suffer for all eternity.

:lol Faggot
:lol Rockets fan
:lol Possibly a chink
:lol Tough guy on the internet, faggot pussy atheist in person

[mindcrime]

A perfect being doesn't need any pleasure. He's perfect. He doesn't lack anything. Failure number one by you.



No, it isn't. If God constantly needs validation, he lacks self-esteem. A perfect being doesn't need worship. A perfect being doesn't give a shit what non-perfect beings say.



No, this is an argument about logic. Why would one purposefully cause conflict where there is no conflict? God didn't have to put the fruit there, but he chose to for no reason.



Because he put the fruit there and caused the conflict in the first place?



No, God put the cookies there for no reason. The cookies were not to be eaten ever. The only reason they existed was as a temptation. My mom would never bake a batch of cookies just so she can tell me that I should never eat them. Your analogy falls flat completely.


lol. God didn't reveal himself to me. Period. It's not up for debate. You trying to rationalize his complete failure to convince me that he exists, is quite amusing, though. God has an infinite amount of power, so the fact that only a third of humanity believes in him, shows how much of a spectacular failure he is.



No, it's the book saying it. I have passages supporting my position.



No, I didn't.



Even if that is true, it's still slavery.



Link? I said that it was still slavery. Your pathetic attempts to rationalize slavery don't change the fact that it's slavery.



:lol comparing LeBron's situation to slavery. LeBron wasn't forced to work for anybody. LeBron could not be beaten to death without consequence so long as he didn't die right away.



Still slavery, asshole, regardless of whether it is the same extent or not.



And the Hebrew slavery is still forcing people to work for their masters. It's slavery, asshole. Stop rationalizing it.

Why such hatred towards God? Are you upset he allowed your dad to ass-fuck you when you were young, tbh?

[Blake]

Why such hatred towards God? Are you upset he allowed your dad to ass-fuck you when you were young, tbh?

How Westboro of you

[Blake]

There's a unique type of anger going on with RZ. It's not natural to hate something that much.

Dunno. God seemed to set precedent of hate with a giant butthurt flood.

:cry they aren't listening to me so I'll kill them :cry

[mindcrime]

How Westboro of you

:(

[jag]

Dunno.


Of course you don't. That's because my comment had nothing to do with you.

[ambchang]

False. Your instant access to history, science and education from all over the world in todays time gives you a much bigger advantage over Calvin.

As a philosopher? I am flattered by your faith in me, despite having never to have met me in person. But I highly doubt it.


True or false: Hebrews were allowed by God to own other human beings.

True.

[capek]

False. Your instant access to history, science and education from all over the world in todays time gives you a much bigger advantage over Calvin.

Calvin wasn't even a philosopher, he was "just" a whistle blower. None of his statements were unique to himself, great swaths of Europe thought exactly as he did. You could more accurately think of him like a Lenny Bruce type than someone to whom you could apply the word "philosopher."

[ambchang]

If you keep dodging my questions over and over, I will note that you keep dodging them.

The problem is that I didn't. I just said "see above", which really is the answer.



I don't want to hear some random apologist's explanation why killing unruly children is okay. I want to hear your explanation.

I don't get it. I thought your issue was with Christianity in general, not with my thoughts. Why would you care about my thoughts? And you never asked me about unruly children in the past, I don't believe. Your questions have been predominantly about slavery, with rape and murder questions afterwards.


I already read all of that passage. A lesser form of slavey is still slavery, and your God condones slavery, asshole.

No, you are changing the goal post. I first said slavery in the biblical terms is different from those of modern slavery, of which you rejected and claimed I have little knowledge about my own beliefs. Now you are saying that slavery, no matter in what form, is wrong. I am not here to argue with you what your moral standards are. If you feel a prisoner or war or someone in debt is better off being killed, which was the case prior to the biblical laws, rather than termed a slave with a whole lot of rights, then you are free to feel that way. I am not here to argue with you on that point.

My boss can freely term me a slave, but give me all the legal rights. It's demeaning because of what the term slavery entails in modern times, but it would not be the same as modern slavery.


So? Not only is paganism not treason, it isn't even comparable. Paganism doesn't even threaten the safety of Americans in the way that treason does, and I don't even condone the execution of those who commit treason.

Except in biblical days, it did. Your response further illustrates your inability to have a grasp of reality of society norms during biblical times, and tried to apply modern day norms at rights in a different era.


You are rationalizing murder yet again.

Just as capital punishment is a form of murder by the strictest sense.


You don't know what hypocrisy means, idiot.

How did you know? How did my response show I didn't know what hypocrisy means? You have already been shown that your ability to understand what I understand about my beliefs to be sketchy at best, and I would welcome how you would show me how I don't know what hypocrisy means.


No it doesn't, idiot.

It does. Your response is illogical and horribly illustrated.


Wrong, moron. It is not unreasonable at all to expect reasonable answers from a basketball forum. Is it more unlikely? Sure. Unreasonable? Not at all. Your line of reasoning fails completely.

It is logical to expect to get reasonable answers about religion on a basketball forum? This is about as illogical as it gets.


Well, besides the fact that you failed to quote it properly, you did everything right.

Please show.


:lol I am perfectly comfortable reading a sentence that says, "kill unruly children" and coming to the conclusion that it says, "kill unruly children." You're the one crying that sentences that clearly mean one thing actually mean another. The ultimate irony is that your bullshit rationalizations are still absolutely terrible.

Except I had been talking about slavery all along. I am unsure now that the slavery definitions have been clarified, and you acknowledging that biblical slavery is different from modern slavery, you are changing the goal post to your own moral definitions, and now to "kill unruly children".


Your answer was bullshit. I don't accept bullshit answers.

Explain how. You seem to have some difficulty in grasping that you are not the moral standards of the world, and that neither I, or an entire religion, as to subscribe to your answers. Especially when you have shown that you have questionable attitude, motives, and logical thinking skills.


:lol No, this religion doesn't have any logical answers. This religion was made up thousands of years ago by sand people. It's ignorant, dumb and intolerant. Apologists like screaming about faith and context to make up for those simple facts.

Sand people? What is that supposed to mean? While it is obvious you were trolling all along, this is just getting too obvious.


And the fact that God doesn't answer these question, even though he has every reason to answer them, shows how much of an idiot he is.

He did. People just didn't listen.


A perfect being doesn't need any pleasure. He's perfect. He doesn't lack anything. Failure number one by you.[/quotes]

Says who? Are you a perfect being? If not, how would you know what a perfect being need or not need something. In fact, why was it need, and not want? Why is it logical to "want to ask a question", while it is not logical for God to "want to create people"?


No, it isn't. If God constantly needs validation, he lacks self-esteem. A perfect being doesn't need worship. A perfect being doesn't give a shit what non-perfect beings say.

Requiring worship != needs validation. You constantly have these huge jumps in logic.



No, this is an argument about logic. Why would one purposefully cause conflict where there is no conflict? God didn't have to put the fruit there, but he chose to for no reason.

Since when did he purposefully cause conflict? Did the presence of Spurstalk create conflict by being an avenue for you to vent your anger towards Christianity, or was it you who created the conflict?


Because he put the fruit there and caused the conflict in the first place?

See above.


No, God put the cookies there for no reason. The cookies were not to be eaten ever. The only reason they existed was as a temptation. My mom would never bake a batch of cookies just so she can tell me that I should never eat them. Your analogy falls flat completely.

The cookies were there for the reasons that were not explicitly written in the Bible. This does not mean that there were no reasons for it. It just means the reasons for the presence of the cookies had absolutely nothing to do with faith or salvation.


lol. God didn't reveal himself to me. Period. It's not up for debate. You trying to rationalize his complete failure to convince me that he exists, is quite amusing, though. God has an infinite amount of power, so the fact that only a third of humanity believes in him, shows how much of a spectacular failure he is.

Why is it not for debate. God never tried to convince you He exists, and he never said he would use his infinite power to force people to believe Him. Again, another irrational assumption you have made. And you have made plenty in this thread.


No, it's the book saying it. I have passages supporting my position.

But you just said you believing. Which one is it? You seem to have issues expressing your thoughts that are consistent with your own high standards.

To quote you directly "I'm not misinterpreting anything. I believe that the phrases mean what they mean. I don't read a shitty book to convince myself that things don't mean what they clearly mean."

It's astounding that you, at one point of clarity in your life, realize that the interpretation of a phrase is not absolute.



No, I didn't.

Yes it did. An absolute statement of not misinterpreting a something does not require believe. It either is or is not, because is absolute. The phrase "I believe" is not absolute, and is up for personal interpretation.




Even if that is true, it's still slavery.

So have you finally admitted that biblical slavery is different from modern day slavery?


Link? I said that it was still slavery. Your pathetic attempts to rationalize slavery don't change the fact that it's slavery.

Sure:

Do any of you Christians read the content of your holy book?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So, add ambchang to the long list of Christians who have no idea what they are talking about.

:lol comparing LeBron's situation to slavery. LeBron wasn't forced to work for anybody. LeBron could not be beaten to death without consequence so long as he didn't die right away.

Except that this is exactly the case, the issue lies in semantics.



Still slavery, asshole, regardless of whether it is the same extent or not.

So are you acknowledging that biblical slavery is not the same as modern slavery?


And the Hebrew slavery is still forcing people to work for their masters. It's slavery, asshole. Stop rationalizing it.

Prisoners of war and people in debt should be killed off like in ancient times before biblical laws. Is that what you are implying?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How can you read Exodus 21 and miss.


If a man beats his male or female slave with a club and the slave dies as a result, the owner must be punished. 21 But if the slave recovers within a day or two, then the owner shall not be punished, since the slave is his property.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

We can talk about the meaning of the word that was interpreted as 'servant.'

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

Whoops more New Testament.

[capek]

Or people could just read Thomas Pain's Common Sense. He kinda covers all this. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure but the key to dealing with Christians of convenience is to quote the relevant verses. Not just the stuff they were fed in Sunday school and from the pulpit. They won't give a shit about Paine quotes. I was raised as a fundamental literalist. They glossed over the slavery stuff but I got the full on "the law Of Moses" and "the law is eternal" stuff from the Jesus my entire childhood.

Then I learned about combustion, surface tension and meiosis. Shit is absurd and obviously contrived.

[Blake]

As a philosopher? I am flattered by your faith in me, despite having never to have met me in person. But I highly doubt it.

You're putting to great a value on the ability to philosophize.




True.
Agreed.

the fact that God condones man owning another man is enough to legitimately call the Bible bull shit.

but what's awesome is that the bull shit doesn't stop there. :tu

[Blake]

Of course you don't. That's because my comment had nothing to do with you.

It was a sarcastic "dunno".

but of course you didn't know that.

[jag]

It was a sarcastic "dunno".

but of course you didn't know that.

It was a sarcastic "of course you don't."

And my comment still had nothing to do with you.

[Blake]

It was a sarcastic "of course you don't."

And my comment still had nothing to do with you.

I never implied it had anything to do with me.

No sarcasm.

[jag]

I never implied it had anything to do with me.

No sarcasm.

Oh ok. So you quoted me and provided a response that had nothing to do with my quote.


Got it. Keep up the good work.

[jag]

That last part was sarcasm.

[Trill Clinton]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

hai guys

hows everybody doing?

[jag]

hai guys

hows everybody doing?

Doing good. Just hangin out talking basketball. I heard your picture got posted and outed you as a 6'0" 320lb Jew.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Doing good. Just hangin out talking basketball. I heard your picture got posted and outed you as a 6'0" 320lb Jew.
Yup. Im a fat Jew named Andrew. I made it rhyme to sound more catchy and draw attention away from the utter humiliation FkLA unleashed on me.

I'm studying for the last final I'll ever have as an undergraduate tbh, howeva it's the 400 level maf class I need for my minor so there's no way I can cheese dick my way through it like most business classes :lol

[Blake]

Oh ok. So you quoted me and provided a response that had nothing to do with my quote.


Got it. Keep up the good work.

I posted a direct response to your remark about hate and anger not being that natural.

but I get that what entertains you most is to read what other people say and then go American Idol judge on them.......so I get why you didn't catch what I was getting at.

Keep up the work. :tu

[jag]

Yup. Im a fat Jew named Andrew. I made it rhyme to sound more catchy and draw attention away from the utter humiliation FkLA unleashed on me.

I'm studying for the last final I'll ever have as an undergraduate tbh, howeva it's the 400 level maf class I need for my minor so there's no way I can cheese dick my way through it like most business classes :lol

That's ok, bro. There's nothing wrong with obeisity; it is a disease after all. There's a lot of confusion right now within the medical community surrounding the causes of obesity, so I don't blame you. Doctors still aren't sure what caused Mookie to inflate to such frightening proportions.

Yeah, some of the students who bitch about their business finals have no idea what real exams are like. Congrats on graduation. You're inching ever closer to your Jew destiny with that accounting degree.

[Blake]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

When given the opportunity, I enjoy getting a kick out of busting Gods balls for executing gays, condoning slavery, and drowning the heathen.

to each his own

[mindcrime]

That's ok, bro. There's nothing wrong with obeisity; it is a disease after all. There's a lot of confusion right now within the medical community surrounding the causes of obesity, so I don't blame you. Doctors still aren't sure what caused Mookie to inflate to such frightening proportions.

Yeah, some of the students who bitch about their business finals have no idea what real exams are like. Congrats on graduation. You're inching ever closer to your Jew destiny with that accounting degree.

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090724232557/familyguy/images/6/6b/Max_Weinstein.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

quite the opposite. The verses I quoted are a large part of why I am not a christian.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The problem is that I didn't. I just said "see above", which really is the answer.

No, you didn't answer my questions about killing non-believers, homosexuals and unruly children.


I don't get it. I thought your issue was with Christianity in general, not with my thoughts. Why would you care about my thoughts? And you never asked me about unruly children in the past, I don't believe. Your questions have been predominantly about slavery, with rape and murder questions afterwards.

If you think I haven't asked you about unruly children, you haven't been reading all of my posts. And I want to know what you think because you are the one I am conversing with about the matter.


No, you are changing the goal post. I first said slavery in the biblical terms is different from those of modern slavery, of which you rejected and claimed I have little knowledge about my own beliefs.

No, you claimed that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves. I provided proof from the Bible that it did not. You can't read too well.


Now you are saying that slavery, no matter in what form, is wrong. I am not here to argue with you what your moral standards are.

:lmao Are you serious? My moral standards? Why the hell aren't those your moral standards, too?


If you feel a prisoner or war or someone in debt is better off being killed, which was the case prior to the biblical laws, rather than termed a slave with a whole lot of rights, then you are free to feel that way. I am not here to argue with you on that point.

False dichotomy. I am for neither killing nor enslaving the prisoners of war. Your God should be against both as well, but he's not. That's reprehensible.


My boss can freely term me a slave, but give me all the legal rights. It's demeaning because of what the term slavery entails in modern times, but it would not be the same as modern slavery.

Your boss can't beat you to death and get away with it so long as you don't die right away. You also get to choose whom you work for. There's also the matter of sex slaves, too.


Except in biblical days, it did. Your response further illustrates your inability to have a grasp of reality of society norms during biblical times, and tried to apply modern day norms at rights in a different era.

I am perfectly able to grasp the norms of society in Biblical days. That's why I am here now arguing about how shitty and outdated God's teachings are. People had terrible values in biblical days, and those poor values are reflected in the Bible. Of course, I'm going to apply modern norms. I'm not going to let your God get away with being a shitty being because "those were different times."


Just as capital punishment is a form of murder by the strictest sense.

One, I am not defending capital punishment at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Two, capital punishment is usually reserved for people who commit murder themselves, or, in some cases, treason. It's not for killing non-Christians, those who commit homosexual acts, unruly children, etc., so you equating the two things is absolutely moronic.


How did you know? How did my response show I didn't know what hypocrisy means? You have already been shown that your ability to understand what I understand about my beliefs to be sketchy at best, and I would welcome how you would show me how I don't know what hypocrisy means.

You don't know what hypocrisy means because you used it in a situation that completely doesn't apply. I'm a hypocrite because I choose to argue about religion on a basketball forum? That doesn't make any sense.


It does. Your response is illogical and horribly illustrated.

Your accusations of hypocrisy are illogical and wholly unsupported.


It is logical to expect to get reasonable answers about religion on a basketball forum? This is about as illogical as it gets.

Again, you're not making any sense. The fact that this is a basketball forum doesn't mean that reasonable answers about religion can't be given here. Using your moronic reasoning, nobody should discuss anything but basketball on here.


Please show.

Sure: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=11&p=6530685&viewfull=1#post6530685


Except I had been talking about slavery all along. I am unsure now that the slavery definitions have been clarified, and you acknowledging that biblical slavery is different from modern slavery, you are changing the goal post to your own moral definitions, and now to "kill unruly children".

No, you have not, lying idiot. When I brought up other problems with the Bible, you cried about context. You went into more detail with slavery, but you didn't exclusively address slavery.

And you don't know what "moving the goalpost" means, moron. Slavery is still slavery. I not once claimed that slavery in the Bible was exactly like modern times. I claimed that the Bible endorses slavery, and you never disproved that claim.

And I am not just now bringing up killing unruly children:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=8&p=6528306#post6528306
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=3&p=6525875#post6525875
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=2&p=6525640#post6525640

I could probably find even more posts where I mention killing unruly children in this thread, but I think I made by point. Stop lying, idiot.


Explain how. You seem to have some difficulty in grasping that you are not the moral standards of the world, and that neither I, or an entire religion, as to subscribe to your answers. Especially when you have shown that you have questionable attitude, motives, and logical thinking skills.

:lol So everything is relative now? That's your excuse for the Bible's horrific teachings. Those are just MY moral standards? You are a real sicko.


Sand people? What is that supposed to mean? While it is obvious you were trolling all along, this is just getting too obvious.

:lol Says the guy who defends slavery.



He did. People just didn't listen.

Then he should answer them again. And again. And again. It's not like he's too busy saving anybody; he's got nothing better do.

God has nothing to lose and everything to gain by convincing everybody that he exists. A book from 2000+ years ago doesn't cut it. Even if God fails to convince 99.999% of non believers, that .001% that are convinced would be worth it.


Except that this is exactly the case, the issue lies in semantics.

Except no it isn't the case. A man who CHOOSES to play for a basketball teams is not the same as a prisoner of war who is forced to work for a master.


So are you acknowledging that biblical slavery is not the same as modern slavery?

I never claimed that it wasn't. Biblical slavery is still slavery, though.


Prisoners of war and people in debt should be killed off like in ancient times before biblical laws. Is that what you are implying?

False dichotomy again, moron.

[Woo Bum-kon]

:lol Faggot
:lol Rockets fan
:lol Possibly a chink
:lol Tough guy on the internet, faggot pussy atheist in person

Well, I'm an atheist, so you got one thing right.


Why such hatred towards God? Are you upset he allowed your dad to ass-fuck you when you were young, tbh?

:lol You just keep failing.

:lol comparing arguing on the internet to picketing funerals

[Woo Bum-kon]

non believers still typing with conviction and dedication about a God they don't believe in???

If nobody believed in God, there wouldn't be a problem. But people do believe in God. And people do try to force their shitty, illogical beliefs down non-believer's throats.

[mindcrime]

Well, I'm an atheist, so you got one thing right.


I'm pretty certain I got a few of those right, tbh.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Oh, well now that I know that you're certain, I guess I'll become an Asian, homosexual Rockets fan. I wouldn't want to doubt your certainty.

[ambchang]

You're putting to great a value on the ability to philosophize.



Agreed.

the fact that God condones man owning another man is enough to legitimately call the Bible bull shit.

but what's awesome is that the bull shit doesn't stop there. :tu

Why is that? The issue with one man owning another man is not the ownership itself, but that of the abuse that modern slavery is associated with.

Without the sophisticated financial setting of modern banking, when a person owes a debt to another and is unable to pay, s/he is either put in prison, or has to work off the debt. There are strict financial guidelines in how a person can charge interest towards another, so the issue of forever in debt was addressed.

Another example is a prisoner of war, in which a captured person is either killed, or has to work for the victor. It is only until recently, and in most 1st world nations, where there are enough resources to be shared by a large number of people, and people are free to do whatever they want. However, in biblical times, people are faced with issues of constrained resources, and adding another person into a society often times put a heavy burden on the society as a whole. The fact that prisoners of war were allowed to stay in the society without being immediately killed off in some circumstances, but to take a lower social status, but with rights afforded by reasonable people in biblical times, is a luxury to have.

For a person who likes to talk about reality, you sure don't have much of a grasp of it.

[ambchang]

No, you didn't answer my questions about killing non-believers, homosexuals and unruly children.

I did talk about the homosexuals, which has been the topic of this thread. The answer to that one question pretty much applies to all the others.


If you think I haven't asked you about unruly children, you haven't been reading all of my posts. And I want to know what you think because you are the one I am conversing with about the matter.

When you talk about unruly children, I am assuming you are talking about Deuteronomy 18. The context of following the teachings of the parents doesn't mean that you do whatever your parents tells you to do, it means that you do whatever you parents tell you to do that is within the biblical teachings. In other words, unruly children are those who do not following the teachings of God, and yes, in biblical times, people (not only children) are killed for not following the word of God, which, like I said earlier, is comparable to the act of treason in modern societies, as the Jews did not have a king like other tribes until Saul, and relied on the guidance of the prophets and judges (directly from the word of God).


No, you claimed that the Bible prohibits the beating of slaves. I provided proof from the Bible that it did not. You can't read too well.

What proof? It clearly showed that punished means to be treated as a murderer. The bible clearly states, only verses later, that a person has to be set free if they were beaten and hurt.



:lmao Are you serious? My moral standards? Why the hell aren't those your moral standards, too?

Why should they be? If you are talking strictly semantics, there could be hosts of other ways you can define slavery.


False dichotomy. I am for neither killing nor enslaving the prisoners of war. Your God should be against both as well, but he's not. That's reprehensible.

Your country is (assuming you are from the States), including torturing, of which you are a part of, and a government you have elected.


Your boss can't beat you to death and get away with it so long as you don't die right away. You also get to choose whom you work for. There's also the matter of sex slaves, too.

Untrue, I have said it multiple times, and I am not going to repeat it.


I am perfectly able to grasp the norms of society in Biblical days. That's why I am here now arguing about how shitty and outdated God's teachings are. People had terrible values in biblical days, and those poor values are reflected in the Bible. Of course, I'm going to apply modern norms. I'm not going to let your God get away with being a shitty being because "those were different times."

But those were different times. The Biblical teachings directly talked about the errors of following the laws without understanding the reasons for enforcing those laws.


One, I am not defending capital punishment at all, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. Two, capital punishment is usually reserved for people who commit murder themselves, or, in some cases, treason. It's not for killing non-Christians, those who commit homosexual acts, unruly children, etc., so you equating the two things is absolutely moronic.

So why is it OK to kill one group by not the other?


You don't know what hypocrisy means because you used it in a situation that completely doesn't apply. I'm a hypocrite because I choose to argue about religion on a basketball forum? That doesn't make any sense.

You are hypocritical for claiming you value logic, and yet do things that are utterly and complete illogical.



Your accusations of hypocrisy are illogical and wholly unsupported.

Of course they are.



Again, you're not making any sense. The fact that this is a basketball forum doesn't mean that reasonable answers about religion can't be given here. Using your moronic reasoning, nobody should discuss anything but basketball on here.

It could be given, but seeking religious answers in a basketball forum itself is an illogical act, and to come here and demand logical answers to it is contradicting.



Sure: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=11&p=6530685&viewfull=1#post6530685

I apologize for not putting quote marks on your quotes. Never realized that it is of such monumental importance to you. And yet I can't help but notice that you said I did everything else right. I thank you for that.


[QUOTE=Woo Bum-kon;6531586]No, you have not, lying idiot. When I brought up other problems with the Bible, you cried about context. You went into more detail with slavery, but you didn't exclusively address slavery.

And you don't know what "moving the goalpost" means, moron. Slavery is still slavery. I not once claimed that slavery in the Bible was exactly like modern times. I claimed that the Bible endorses slavery, and you never disproved that claim.

And yet this is your direct response to what I said when I talked about how slavery in biblical times is different than those in modern times. That response is not to talk about slavery is wrong in its own right, it's saying slavery is the same between the eras, because it was a direct response to the contrary.


Do any of you Christians read the content of your holy book?

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

So, add ambchang to the long list of Christians who have no idea what they are talking about.


And I am not just now bringing up killing unruly children:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=8&p=6528306#post6528306
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=3&p=6525875#post6525875
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=2&p=6525640#post6525640

I could probably find even more posts where I mention killing unruly children in this thread, but I think I made by point. Stop lying, idiot.

And yet I had not responded to it, and kept talking about the context of the argument. I have made it quite clear that I am not going to talk about the specifics of one or two examples. The Bible is a thick book, and taking one or two verses out to argue will take forever to do. The original premise of the argument for me is that you are taking verses out of context and twisting words to your benefit.


:lol So everything is relative now? That's your excuse for the Bible's horrific teachings. Those are just MY moral standards? You are a real sicko.

Never said it, you are twisting my words again. I am saying that you are defining what is morally correct and what is not. If you cannot accept the moral teachings of a religion, then you are free to explore other options (which you have), and yet you are now defining moral standards for me to follow, and saying those who do not choose to do so are idiots/morons/sickos. How so?



:lol Says the guy who defends slavery.

Another example of taking texts out of context.


Then he should answer them again. And again. And again. It's not like he's too busy saving anybody; he's got nothing better do.

God has nothing to lose and everything to gain by convincing everybody that he exists. A book from 2000+ years ago doesn't cut it. Even if God fails to convince 99.999% of non believers, that .001% that are convinced would be worth it.

Where did you get the idea that God got nothing else to do? Is God supposed to follow what you think He should do now? And what tells you not only 0.001% of non-believers haven't converted?



Except no it isn't the case. A man who CHOOSES to play for a basketball teams is not the same as a prisoner of war who is forced to work for a master.

A person can choose not to borrow debt in the first place either.


I never claimed that it wasn't. Biblical slavery is still slavery, though.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=2&p=6525640&viewfull=1#post6525640


False dichotomy again, moron.

So what would be a good way of treating prisoners of war in ancient times?

[Blake]

Why is that? The issue with one man owning another man is not the ownership itself, but that of the abuse that modern slavery is associated with.

:lol you just made that bull shit excuse up right now, didn't you.

The issue is absolutely about being a free man, no matter how well they're treated.

The Bible allows for fathers to pass slaves down to their sons. I know you're desperately clinging to hope that God isn't evil, but sorry.....he's a sick evil bastard.



Without the sophisticated financial setting of modern banking, when a person owes a debt to another and is unable to pay, s/he is either put in prison, or has to work off the debt. There are strict financial guidelines in how a person can charge interest towards another, so the issue of forever in debt was addressed.

Another example is a prisoner of war, in which a captured person is either killed, or has to work for the victor. It is only until recently, and in most 1st world nations, where there are enough resources to be shared by a large number of people, and people are free to do whatever they want. However, in biblical times, people are faced with issues of constrained resources, and adding another person into a society often times put a heavy burden on the society as a whole. The fact that prisoners of war were allowed to stay in the society without being immediately killed off in some circumstances, but to take a lower social status, but with rights afforded by reasonable people in biblical times, is a luxury to have.

For a person who likes to talk about reality, you sure don't have much of a grasp of it.

Bible God is incredibly illogical, hypocritical and paradoxical. All powerful, all loving God should be able to find another way to save Israel besides declaring war.

That's the reality.

[I. Hustle]

So Blake and Woo, what do you hope to get out of all this? Honestly, is this how you wish you could talk to actual people and use Spurstalk as a way to vent? I really am asking and not picking a fight.
I just don't get the level of rage and anger when nobody is forcing you to believe in any sort of religion. You guys act like if you say the same the things over and over again that someone is going to say "Yeah, you are right! Let me start to think like you!"
Why do you care how Joe Smith thinks when Joe doesn't affect your daily life in any way?
You remind me of those annoying kids in school that always thought they were the smartest kid in the class and didn't hesitate to let everyone know. Or was the moron that was too smart for school because they aren't teaching anything that you either don't already know or will be beneficial to you later in life and just dropped out.

When do you reach the point where you just get over it? When you realize that everyone is wired differently and as a result will never think exactly the same.

[Blake]

Why do you care why I'm in this thread when I don't affect your daily life in any way?

When do you reach the point where you just get over me? When you realize that everyone I'm wired differently than you and as a result will never think exactly the same?

[mindcrime]

Oh, well now that I know that you're certain, I guess I'll become an Asian, homosexual Rockets fan. I wouldn't want to doubt your certainty.

Damn right, faggot.

[ambchang]

:lol you just made that bull shit excuse up right now, didn't you.

The issue is absolutely about being a free man, no matter how well they're treated.

The Bible allows for fathers to pass slaves down to their sons. I know you're desperately clinging to hope that God isn't evil, but sorry.....he's a sick evil bastard.

Bible God is incredibly illogical, hypocritical and paradoxical. All powerful, all loving God should be able to find another way to save Israel besides declaring war.

That's the reality.

So you are out there to define what is logical way of approaching an entire history. And no, God's plan isn't to save Israel, but of mankind and reconcile the broken relationship between man and God.

If you have an issue with the freedom of man, then how is freedom defined? I would like to hear your definition.

[Blake]

So you are out there to define what is logical way of approaching an entire history. And no, God's plan isn't to save Israel, but of mankind and reconcile the broken relationship between man and God.

If you have an issue with the freedom of man, then how is freedom defined? I would like to hear your definition.

No, I'm simply pointing out some of obvious paradoxes/logical inconveniences of the Bible. Not much more than that.

In this case, I would define being free as not being owned (especially forcibly owned) property by another human being.

Pretty standard definition of freedom, imo.

[ambchang]

No, I'm simply pointing out some of obvious paradoxes/logical inconveniences of the Bible. Not much more than that.

In this case, I would define being free as not being owned (especially forcibly owned) property by another human being.

Pretty standard definition of freedom, imo.

But what is the issue of being owned by another person? Is it the ownership itself? The bible constantly talks about sons and daughters being prized possessions of the parents.

And with regards to the logical inconveniences of the Bible, the issue I have is that you have already established the definition of what is acceptable or not, and then using that as a lever to judge the Bible. It simply what you have discovered instances where you find unacceptable taking place in the Bible, and not taking into account the realities and hardships of ancient times, while ignoring the central meaning and purpose of those laws.

[Blake]

But what is the issue of being owned by another person? Is it the ownership itself? The bible constantly talks about sons and daughters being prized possessions of the parents.

And with regards to the logical inconveniences of the Bible, the issue I have is that you have already established the definition of what is acceptable or not, and then using that as a lever to judge the Bible. It simply what you have discovered instances where you find unacceptable taking place in the Bible, and not taking into account the realities and hardships of ancient times, while ignoring the central meaning and purpose of those laws.

Parents "owning" their own kids is a far cry from owning other adult human beings..........and being able to pass these human beings down to your son if you die.

Are you really ok with human adults owning other human adults?

We are also talking logical inconsistencies based on what God himself has established.

God says thou shalt not kill, but he's a butthurt mass murderer.
God preaches forgiveness, yet constructed an eternal lake of fire
God is unchanging, yet changed the rules

etc.

[ambchang]

Parents "owning" their own kids is a far cry from owning other adult human beings..........and being able to pass these human beings down to your son if you die.

Are you really ok with human adults owning other human adults?

In biblical times? Sure, it's either being owned by another person, or getting killed/starved. Not in modern times though, as the economic models is now more sophisticated than before.


We are also talking logical inconsistencies based on what God himself has established.

God says thou shalt not kill, but he's a butthurt mass murderer.
God preaches forgiveness, yet constructed an eternal lake of fire
God is unchanging, yet changed the rules

etc.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

The rules of God has been quite consistent over the years, tbh.

[Blake]

In biblical times? Sure, it's either being owned by another person, or getting killed/starved. Not in modern times though, as the economic models is now more sophisticated than before.

Just because it's accepted practice doesn't make it morally right.

there's a reason why we outlawed it.

smh.





http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html

The rules of God has been quite consistent over the years, tbh.


God said specifically to stone people for breaking laws.

Jesus stopped it and said go and sin no more.

Inconsistent.

[ambchang]

Just because it's accepted practice doesn't make it morally right.

there's a reason why we outlawed it.

smh.

The other alternative is to let people be killed/starved. The reason modern times outlawed it was because we could.

It certainly is not morally right to do it in modern times.



God said specifically to stone people for breaking laws.

Jesus stopped it and said go and sin no more.

Inconsistent.

Did you even read the linked article? You can say you do not accept it, but it's entirely consistent.

[Blake]

The other alternative is to let people be killed/starved. The reason modern times outlawed it was because we could.

It certainly is not morally right to do it in modern times.


that makes no sense for a timeless, all powerful God to allow for changing moral codes.

Personally, I think slavery was never morally ok at any time during human history. I also think it's funny that a Christian would think it was.



Did you even read the linked article? You can say you do not accept it, but it's entirely consistent.

No. But I did now and it was exactly what I knew it would be.

Biased bull shit, with no mention of Onan, kids mauled by bear, or the dude that died for simply touching the Ark.

God is a twisted, insecure fuck.

[ambchang]

that makes no sense for a timeless, all powerful God to allow for changing moral codes.

Personally, I think slavery was never morally ok at any time during human history. I also think it's funny that a Christian would think it was.

The code has not changed, it is still the same. The actions coming out of it in a practical manner has changed.

God never said, "thou shall have slaves". He created a code of ethics for people to follow in the harsh reality of biblical times.


No. But I did now and it was exactly what I knew it would be.

Biased bull shit, with no mention of Onan, kids mauled by bear, or the dude that died for simply touching the Ark.

God is a twisted, insecure fuck.

So anything that is against what you believe/would like to see is biased. Like I said earlier, you have already determined what is right/acceptable and what is not. What is the point of stating your ideals of enforcing current standards across human history?

[Blake]

The code has not changed, it is still the same. The actions coming out of it in a practical manner has changed.

God never said, "thou shall have slaves". He created a code of ethics for people to follow in the harsh reality of biblical times.

God created harsh Bible times.

If slavery is ever morally wrong, then it's always morally wrong.

You can't logically have it both ways.




So anything that is against what you believe/would like to see is biased. Like I said earlier, you have already determined what is right/acceptable and what is not. What is the point of stating your ideals of enforcing current standards across human history?

Did you read your link? The author all but said he's biased against atheists.

We as a society have determined slavery is morally wrong for what should be incredibly obvious reasons.

God doesn't see these obvious reasons, apparently.

[ambchang]

God created harsh Bible times.

Created and allowed are two different things. Man, through sins, created harsh times. Again, you are now pinning everything that goes wrong on God, and will not take the consequences of sins with mankind.


If slavery is ever morally wrong, then it's always morally wrong.

You can't logically have it both ways.

Untrue. Human morals change with times. Emitting vast amounts of GHG for economic growth wasn't wrong a mere 50 years ago. It is slowly changing.


Did you read your link? The author all but said he's biased against atheists.

We as a society have determined slavery is morally wrong for what should be incredibly obvious reasons.

God doesn't see these obvious reasons, apparently.

I did read the link, and of course theists have viewpoints that contradicts those against atheists. You have continuously shown that you have a bias, or even hatred, against theist through this entire thread, am I to simply dismiss your arguments based on that single point?

We as a society determined that slavery is wrong due to the horrible abuses that have existed through human history, not because of ownership itself.

Again, God allowed ownership of humans due to practical historical reasons, he never commanded it.

[Blake]

We as a society determined that slavery is wrong due to the horrible abuses that have existed through human history, not because of ownership itself.

Again, God allowed ownership of humans due to practical historical reasons, he never commanded it.

Rofl. I can't believe I'm seeing someone try to justify slavery.

You can absolutely dismiss my arguments for whatever reason you like. Me, when I see a paragraph start with "atheists like to....".....I tend to dismiss such lazy straw man fallacies and most of the content that follows it.

[Stabula]

:lol @ referring to Jason Collins as a "filthy perverted beast"

[Monster1776]

Fuck me how is this thread still going on?

[Blake]

Fuck you you just bumped it up again

[ambchang]

Rofl. I can't believe I'm seeing someone try to justify slavery.

You can absolutely dismiss my arguments for whatever reason you like. Me, when I see a paragraph start with "atheists like to....".....I tend to dismiss such lazy straw man fallacies and most of the content that follows it.

If you want to see my arguments as justifying slavery , then so be it. We have been through this multiple times, and you are continuously trying to take things out of context and misrepresent what is being said.

And as for "atheists like to ...", I suppose continuous insult to theist's intelligence is fair game, while generalization of atheists are out of bounds.

[Blake]

If you want to see my arguments as justifying slavery , then so be it. We have been through this multiple times, and you are continuously trying to take things out of context and misrepresent what is being said.

And as for "atheists like to ...", I suppose continuous insult to theist's intelligence is fair game, while generalization of atheists are out of bounds.

Misrepresentation, putting words in my mouth and trying to put a motive/agenda behind my posts is exactly what you're doing here.

I have no agenda here. Honestly, what we're discussing here is just scratching the surface of why christianity is bull shit.

Believing in Bible God is just as ridiculous as believing in Zeus. It just is.

If you find that insulting, you can either A) Get over your butthurt or B) prove that God exists

[ambchang]

Misrepresentation, putting words in my mouth and trying to put a motive/agenda behind my posts is exactly what you're doing here.

I have no agenda here. Honestly, what we're discussing here is just scratching the surface of why christianity is bull shit.

Believing in Bible God is just as ridiculous as believing in Zeus. It just is.

If you find that insulting, you can either A) Get over your butthurt or B) prove that God exists

Hilarious that you are pulling the misrepresentation card right here. You have consistently misrepresented what the Bible said throughout this entire thread, and I am not sure if you have even read the entire book, or spent any significant amount of time to research your issues with the religion to draw such decisive conclusions.

If you are have no agenda, then what is the purpose of these arguments?

And already coming to the conclusion that believing in Bible God is a ridiculous concept and having no room for argument is contradictory to your actions of arguing. You have already established this as a fact, and there is no room for argument, so why are you even arguing?

I do not find it insulting, as I had the same questions before. The difference is that I left room for argument, and I research with the lens of assuming existence than assuming non-existence.

Finally, the proof of God exists is as convincing as the proof of God not existing. I will never understand the burden of proof on the existence of God rather than the other way around. Do you actually see that as some profound argument that with no proof of the existence equates to proving non-existence?

[Woo Bum-kon]

I did talk about the homosexuals, which has been the topic of this thread. The answer to that one question pretty much applies to all the others.

I asked if YOU thought it was okay to kill homosexuals, and you never answered my question. Same thing for all the other questions.


When you talk about unruly children, I am assuming you are talking about Deuteronomy 18. The context of following the teachings of the parents doesn't mean that you do whatever your parents tells you to do, it means that you do whatever you parents tell you to do that is within the biblical teachings. In other words, unruly children are those who do not following the teachings of God, and yes, in biblical times, people (not only children) are killed for not following the word of God, which, like I said earlier, is comparable to the act of treason in modern societies, as the Jews did not have a king like other tribes until Saul, and relied on the guidance of the prophets and judges (directly from the word of God).

An entire paragraph of justifying murder. Do YOU think it's okay to kill unruly children?


What proof? It clearly showed that punished means to be treated as a murderer. The bible clearly states, only verses later, that a person has to be set free if they were beaten and hurt.

The Bible clearly says that the one doing the beating will not be punished.


Why should they be? If you are talking strictly semantics, there could be hosts of other ways you can define slavery.

Oh, never mind, then. If you're okay with people being considered as property, what else is there to say?


Your country is (assuming you are from the States), including torturing, of which you are a part of, and a government you have elected.

I didn't elect anybody or vote, so you have no point there. Again, you saying, "The government does it, too!" is meaningless to me, because I haven't condoned their actions.


Untrue, I have said it multiple times, and I am not going to repeat it.

True, and I'll repeat it as much as I want.


But those were different times.

I don't give a fuck.


The Biblical teachings directly talked about the errors of following the laws without understanding the reasons for enforcing those laws.

I don't care. Your God passed down those laws. Your God has shitty morals. Period.


So why is it OK to kill one group by not the other?

I don't know. Why don't you ask somebody who is making that argument instead of building strawmen.

And :lol equating murder to unruly behavior.


You are hypocritical for claiming you value logic, and yet do things that are utterly and complete illogical.

Like what?


It could be given, but seeking religious answers in a basketball forum itself is an illogical act

No, it isn't, idiot. I want to hear what the people on here have to say. I'm not looking for some absolute answers, because I know that they won't be found here.


and to come here and demand logical answers to it is contradicting.

No, it isn't. You can keep repeating this bullshit, but it won't be true. I am asking believers questions. Believer should be able to logically defend their beliefs, no matter what forum they're on.


I apologize for not putting quote marks on your quotes. Never realized that it is of such monumental importance to you.

It's not. The only reason we're still talking about this I because you asked me to provide proof that you fucked up quotes.


And yet I can't help but notice that you said I did everything else right. I thank you for that.

No, I didn't. You can't read too well.


And yet this is your direct response to what I said when I talked about how slavery in biblical times is different than those in modern times. That response is not to talk about slavery is wrong in its own right, it's saying slavery is the same between the eras, because it was a direct response to the contrary.

No, it wasn't, lying moron. It was a direct response to your claim that the Bible prohibited the beating of slaves. Stop lying.


And yet I had not responded to it, and kept talking about the context of the argument. I have made it quite clear that I am not going to talk about the specifics of one or two examples. The Bible is a thick book, and taking one or two verses out to argue will take forever to do. The original premise of the argument for me is that you are taking verses out of context and twisting words to your benefit.

I am not taking things out of context. This is a fundamental disagreement in values.

While you think that there is a certain context in which enslaving human beings is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing unruly children is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing those who practice homosexuality is okay, I don't.

There is no misreading here. You are justifying murder and slavery. I am not.


Never said it, you are twisting my words again. I am saying that you are defining what is morally correct and what is not. If you cannot accept the moral teachings of a religion, then you are free to explore other options (which you have), and yet you are now defining moral standards for me to follow, and saying those who do not choose to do so are idiots/morons/sickos. How so?

:lol That's what human beings have been doing since the dawn of civilization, sicko.


Another example of taking texts out of context.

Nope. Stop defending slavery and I'll stop saying that you defend slavery.


Where did you get the idea that God got nothing else to do?

Because he doesn't do anything.


Is God supposed to follow what you think He should do now?

It's what's logical, not what I think.


And what tells you not only 0.001% of non-believers haven't converted?

You can't read too well. I am saying that God should try to convert present non-believers.


A person can choose not to borrow debt in the first place either.

So? Doesn't justify slavery. And your LeBron example fails completely.


http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=213343&page=2&p=6525640&viewfull=1#post6525640

Nowhere in that post do I make the claim that slavery then is exactly the same as slavery now. Keep lying.


So what would be a good way of treating prisoners of war in ancient times?

Treat them like we do now. Treat them like we treated the Germans after WWII. The Jews had GOD on their side, so being a product of their times is no excuse.

[Blake]

Hilarious that you are pulling the misrepresentation card right here. You have consistently misrepresented what the Bible said throughout this entire thread, and I am not sure if you have even read the entire book, or spent any significant amount of time to research your issues with the religion to draw such decisive conclusions.

No I haven't. The Bible says "gays shall be put to death".

There's no way that doesn't mean not to execute them.

But I'd like to see you try to spin it.


If you are have no agenda, then what is the purpose of these arguments?

And already coming to the conclusion that believing in Bible God is a ridiculous concept and having no room for argument is contradictory to your actions of arguing. You have already established this as a fact, and there is no room for argument, so why are you even arguing?

If you think I'm here to change you or anyone else's mind, you're mistaken. There's nothing in it for me to do that and frankly, I don't care about you as an individual. No offense.

I'm just playing along for a few shits and giggles. Sort of like playing Frisbee with a dog.


do not find it insulting, as I had the same questions before. The difference is that I left room for argument, and I research with the lens of assuming existence than assuming non-existence.

Finally, the proof of God exists is as convincing as the proof of God not existing. I will never understand the burden of proof on the existence of God rather than the other way around. Do you actually see that as some profound argument that with no proof of the existence equates to proving non-existence?

I don't have a problem with agnosticism. I'm probably a bit agnostic myself.

What I've closed the door on is Christianity. Like I said before, God killing the gay is just scratching the surface of problems with the Bible and christianity.

If you want to go further and talk historical crap such as zoroastrianism, the council of Trent, the apocrypha or go even deeper and talk impossible paradoxes such as hell, free will and how ridiculously unintelligent Satan is, I'll throw you a bone and start a thread over in the political forum.

Even though the chance is incredibly low, there still might be something that you or someone else throws out that I've never seen before. I'm open minded like that. :tu

[Woo Bum-kon]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.

[Blake]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.

what's wrong with assuming the existence of a loving, all powerful spaghetti monster?

[ambchang]

I asked if YOU thought it was okay to kill homosexuals, and you never answered my question. Same thing for all the other questions.



An entire paragraph of justifying murder. Do YOU think it's okay to kill unruly children?



The Bible clearly says that the one doing the beating will not be punished.



Oh, never mind, then. If you're okay with people being considered as property, what else is there to say?



I didn't elect anybody or vote, so you have no point there. Again, you saying, "The government does it, too!" is meaningless to me, because I haven't condoned their actions.



True, and I'll repeat it as much as I want.



I don't give a fuck.



I don't care. Your God passed down those laws. Your God has shitty morals. Period.



I don't know. Why don't you ask somebody who is making that argument instead of building strawmen.

And :lol equating murder to unruly behavior.



Like what?



No, it isn't, idiot. I want to hear what the people on here have to say. I'm not looking for some absolute answers, because I know that they won't be found here.



No, it isn't. You can keep repeating this bullshit, but it won't be true. I am asking believers questions. Believer should be able to logically defend their beliefs, no matter what forum they're on.



It's not. The only reason we're still talking about this I because you asked me to provide proof that you fucked up quotes.



No, I didn't. You can't read too well.



No, it wasn't, lying moron. It was a direct response to your claim that the Bible prohibited the beating of slaves. Stop lying.



I am not taking things out of context. This is a fundamental disagreement in values.

While you think that there is a certain context in which enslaving human beings is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing unruly children is okay, I don't.
While you think that there is a certain context in which killing those who practice homosexuality is okay, I don't.

There is no misreading here. You are justifying murder and slavery. I am not.



:lol That's what human beings have been doing since the dawn of civilization, sicko.



Nope. Stop defending slavery and I'll stop saying that you defend slavery.



Because he doesn't do anything.



It's what's logical, not what I think.



You can't read too well. I am saying that God should try to convert present non-believers.



So? Doesn't justify slavery. And your LeBron example fails completely.


Nowhere in that post do I make the claim that slavery then is exactly the same as slavery now. Keep lying.



Treat them like we do now. Treat them like we treated the Germans after WWII. The Jews had GOD on their side, so being a product of their times is no excuse.

Not going to talk about it point by point, because we have basically gone back and forth with the exact same points over and over again.

Most of the questions you asked have been answered multiple times, and you have stated that they do not satisfy your criteria, which is fine by me.

As for treating POW, are you serious? Did you know what actually went on in WWII? It's great that you are saying 1/3 of the human population is drinking the Bible Koolaid, and not see the US Koolaid you've been drinking.

[ambchang]

No I haven't. The Bible says "gays shall be put to death".

There's no way that doesn't mean not to execute them.

But I'd like to see you try to spin it.

Where did the Bible say "gays shall be put to death"? What you are doing is akin to me quoting your post, stripping every thing out and leaving the phrase "gays shall be put to death", and say you said it.

I have said it multiple times about the context of how it worked, and how the penalty has everything to do with following pagan rituals than being homosexuals themselves. So there is no point in me repeating for about the 5th time.



If you think I'm here to change you or anyone else's mind, you're mistaken. There's nothing in it for me to do that and frankly, I don't care about you as an individual. No offense.

I'm just playing along for a few shits and giggles. Sort of like playing Frisbee with a dog.

So you have little purpose in this argument, and is treating a discussion in the death of homosexuals as a game? You really put yourself on a moral high ground on that one.


I don't have a problem with agnosticism. I'm probably a bit agnostic myself.

What I've closed the door on is Christianity. Like I said before, God killing the gay is just scratching the surface of problems with the Bible and christianity.

If you want to go further and talk historical crap such as zoroastrianism, the council of Trent, the apocrypha or go even deeper and talk impossible paradoxes such as hell, free will and how ridiculously unintelligent Satan is, I'll throw you a bone and start a thread over in the political forum.

Even though the chance is incredibly low, there still might be something that you or someone else throws out that I've never seen before. I'm open minded like that. :tu

I never visit the political forum, so there is no point.

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

[ambchang]

The default position is assuming non-existence, so ambchang screwed up already by assuming the opposite.


what's wrong with assuming the existence of a loving, all powerful spaghetti monster?

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

[Blake]

Where did the Bible say "gays shall be put to death"? What you are doing is akin to me quoting your post, stripping every thing out and leaving the phrase "gays shall be put to death", and say you said it.

I have said it multiple times about the context of how it worked, and how the penalty has everything to do with following pagan rituals than being homosexuals themselves. So there is no point in me repeating for about the 5th time.

It specifically says in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals shall be put to death.

if you're set on mistranslating this, then I'd agree, there's no point for you to go further.





So you have little purpose in this argument, and is treating a discussion in the death of homosexuals as a game? You really put yourself on a moral high ground on that one.

there is no game in this discussion because there is no competition.

It's clear at this point your levels of comprehension, logic and biblical history are at base level.

No offense, it just is what it is. I'm just playing along, again, for a few shits and giggles.




I never visit the political forum, so there is no point.

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

The political forum is set up for "politics and religious discussions" so it was merely a suggestion.

If you want to stay at your continued level of ignorance, it's no skin off my back.

[Blake]

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

Base logic.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Why is the the default position non-existence? Care to explain?

Burden of proof. Your God hasn't met it yet.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Not going to talk about it point by point, because we have basically gone back and forth with the exact same points over and over again.

Most of the questions you asked have been answered multiple times, and you have stated that they do not satisfy your criteria, which is fine by me.

As for treating POW, are you serious? Did you know what actually went on in WWII? It's great that you are saying 1/3 of the human population is drinking the Bible Koolaid, and not see the US Koolaid you've been drinking.

I wasn't talking about POWs. I meant that the defeated groups should be forced to reform.

And you are right that a point by point rebuttal is pointless. You made it very clear that you condone murder for ridiculous "crimes," and I have made it clear that I don't.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Agnosticism essentially is I don't know. Having a strong opinion on something you don't know about is quite a refreshing take.

This is funny, since you seem not to know what agnosticism or atheism is.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim "There is a God."
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a god (or gods) is unknown and/or unknowable.

One can be both an agnostic and an atheist. And one can take a strong stance against the claim that God exists because there is no evidence for his existence. To believe without evidence is moronic.

Basically, you were a shitty atheist, which is why you converted to Christianity.

[ambchang]

It specifically says in Leviticus 20:13 that homosexuals shall be put to death.

if you're set on mistranslating this, then I'd agree, there's no point for you to go further.



there is no game in this discussion because there is no competition.

It's clear at this point your levels of comprehension, logic and biblical history are at base level.

No offense, it just is what it is. I'm just playing along, again, for a few shits and giggles.

The political forum is set up for "politics and religious discussions" so it was merely a suggestion.

If you want to stay at your continued level of ignorance, it's no skin off my back.

It does take you a little longer than WB-k to go the personal attack route, so I give you credit. But unfortunately, at the end of this, it still resolves to personal attacks. Which, really, isn't surprising.

I also find it amusing how you could have not read the Bible in itself to conclude the entire book makes no sense. That goes for some strong comprehension skills.

[ambchang]

Burden of proof. Your God hasn't met it yet.

Which really does not apply, as the burden of proof and the default positions of logic was created for scientific and mathematical studies. People extend the same set of rules to religious and philosophical studies.


I wasn't talking about POWs. I meant that the defeated groups should be forced to reform.

And you are right that a point by point rebuttal is pointless. You made it very clear that you condone murder for ridiculous "crimes," and I have made it clear that I don't.

We have been talking about POWs in the Bible all along, haven't we?

And in terms of murder for ridiculous crimes, you condone it as much as any American (assuming you are from the States), as you live in a country that has capital punishment as part of a legal code.


This is funny, since you seem not to know what agnosticism or atheism is.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim "There is a God."
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence of a god (or gods) is unknown and/or unknowable.

One can be both an agnostic and an atheist. And one can take a strong stance against the claim that God exists because there is no evidence for his existence. To believe without evidence is moronic.

Basically, you were a shitty atheist, which is why you converted to Christianity.

Under the same logic, could you have been a below standard theist, and converted to atheism?

And I fully understand the meaning of Agnosticism, it is a mechanism to cover all bases to satisfy logical rules to make a stance infallible.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Which really does not apply, as the burden of proof and the default positions of logic was created for scientific and mathematical studies. People extend the same set of rules to religious and philosophical studies.

Burden of proof absolutely does apply. There's the claim, "God exists." Either it has enough evidence supporting it or it does not. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of studies we're in. God either exists or not exists, and he either has evidence that supports his existence or he does not. Period. Since God has no evidence supporting his existence, the only justifiable conclusion is that God doesn't exist.


We have been talking about POWs in the Bible all along, haven't we?

Nope, because not just POWs were slaves.


And in terms of murder for ridiculous crimes, you condone it as much as any American (assuming you are from the States), as you live in a country that has capital punishment as part of a legal code.

You are unbelievably retarded.

1.) I am not condoning capital punishment. Just because I live in America does not mean I condone capital punishment. I did not make the legal code or vote for it. Stop being an idiot. Stop reaching.
2.) The death sentence for MURDER fits the crime far more than a death sentence for unruliness or being a non-believer. You equating the two is pathetic.

This argument from you makes no sense at all. You are just piling up the stupid.


Under the same logic, could you have been a below standard theist, and converted to atheism?

All theists are below standard.


And I fully understand the meaning of Agnosticism, it is a mechanism to cover all bases to satisfy logical rules to make a stance infallible.

Infallible how?

[ambchang]

Burden of proof absolutely does apply. There's the claim, "God exists." Either it has enough evidence supporting it or it does not. Period. It doesn't matter what kind of studies we're in. God either exists or not exists, and he either has evidence that supports his existence or he does not. Period. Since God has no evidence supporting his existence, the only justifiable conclusion is that God doesn't exist.

This topic has been studied for ages, and many theories and arguments have been made for and against the existence of God. Whether that proof is sufficient to you is another matter. This argument could be made by any scientific theory as well.


Nope, because not just POWs were slaves.

The argument with regards to slaves through debt has been settled. Those "slaves" were essentially people under contract and could be freed after years of labour to pay off debt, and the treatment of them has been established to be quite well. You have been having a problem with slaves that were beaten, and those were POW, weren't they?


You are unbelievably retarded.

1.) I am not condoning capital punishment. Just because I live in America does not mean I condone capital punishment. I did not make the legal code or vote for it. Stop being an idiot. Stop reaching.
2.) The death sentence for MURDER fits the crime far more than a death sentence for unruliness or being a non-believer. You equating the two is pathetic.

This argument from you makes no sense at all. You are just piling up the stupid.

You used the same argument that all Christians condone slavery, after misinterpreting the code in handling slavery in the OT. I did not make the legal code, nor did I vote for it in the OT, neither did millions and millions of Christians, Jews or Muslims.
As for point 2), I am not in the position to argue who is and is not deserving of capital punishment. If you feel that you have the moral right to determine whether a person lives or not, be my guest.


All theists are below standard.

Proof.




Infallible how?

By stating that an argument that has been argued since the dawn of time cannot be proven one way or another is to take an infallible stance. It has been demonstrated for thousands of years that an answer could not be deduced.

[Woo Bum-kon]

This topic has been studied for ages, and many theories and arguments have been made for and against the existence of God. Whether that proof is sufficient to you is another matter. This argument could be made by any scientific theory as well.

Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.


The argument with regards to slaves through debt has been settled. Those "slaves" were essentially people under contract and could be freed after years of labour to pay off debt, and the treatment of them has been established to be quite well. You have been having a problem with slaves that were beaten, and those were POW, weren't they?

You did not prove that slaves were treated well. I never singled out POWs. You were the first to make that distinction.


You used the same argument that all Christians condone slavery, after misinterpreting the code in handling slavery in the OT.

Wrong. Your terrible reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. I have shown that the Bible condones slavery. I didn't misinterpret shit, because the slavery in the Bible is still slavery.


I did not make the legal code, nor did I vote for it in the OT, neither did millions and millions of Christians, Jews or Muslims.

But you CHOSE to believe in it and call it the word of God, did you not? That's the difference between me being an American and you being a theist. You have shown yet again to have terrible reasoning skills.


As for point 2), I am not in the position to argue who is and is not deserving of capital punishment. If you feel that you have the moral right to determine whether a person lives or not, be my guest.

You are so stupid that it's unbelievable. First of all, I have not condoned capital punishment. I am merely stating that if somebody were to executed for a crime, that crime should not be something like being a non-believer or an unruly child. Second, your God in your holy book says that you should determine who lives or dies. So, please answer the questions that you have dodged from the very beginning: do you think that the punishments fit the crimes in the Bible? Do you think non-believers should be put to death?


By stating that an argument that has been argued since the dawn of time cannot be proven one way or another is to take an infallible stance. It has been demonstrated for thousands of years that an answer could not be deduced.

It is stating that the argument has not been proven and that it may not be proven. Agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable stance when it comes to knowledge. When it comes to belief, atheism is the only reasonable stance.

[Blake]

It does take you a little longer than WB-k to go the personal attack route, so I give you credit. But unfortunately, at the end of this, it still resolves to personal attacks. Which, really, isn't surprising.

I also find it amusing how you could have not read the Bible in itself to conclude the entire book makes no sense. That goes for some strong comprehension skills.



your critical thinking sucks and your reading comprehension is mediocre.

It is what it is. I'm not attacking you. Just giving it to you straight.

[ambchang]

Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

I agree on the scientific point of view, because applying a scientific view point on the existence of God has already been agreed to be the incorrect route as God, or deities in general, are not mathematical or scientific entities. As for philosophical proofs, perhaps you can show me an example.



You did not prove that slaves were treated well. I never singled out POWs. You were the first to make that distinction.

I showed that slaves were given basic human rights, and were freed after 7 years of labour. POW were not to be beaten without consequences. I don't want to go down the route again, because I know you would just like to take one sentence and ignore everything that came before or after it. While you like to go around in circiles, I don't.


Wrong. Your terrible reading comprehension rears its ugly head yet again. I have shown that the Bible condones slavery. I didn't misinterpret shit, because the slavery in the Bible is still slavery.

Reading the entire book is terrible reading comprehension while not reading the entire book is not? And do you know what condones mean? Most countries have legal codes that talks about incarceration for committing crimes, do all those countries condone incarceration?


But you CHOSE to believe in it and call it the word of God, did you not? That's the difference between me being an American and you being a theist. You have shown yet again to have terrible reasoning skills.

You can choose to live in another country. You have terrible mobility.



You are so stupid that it's unbelievable. First of all, I have not condoned capital punishment. I am merely stating that if somebody were to executed for a crime, that crime should not be something like being a non-believer or an unruly child. Second, your God in your holy book says that you should determine who lives or dies. So, please answer the questions that you have dodged from the very beginning: do you think that the punishments fit the crimes in the Bible? Do you think non-believers should be put to death?

Provided God exists, of course God can determine who lives or dies, He created mankind by definition.

And yes, the punishments fit the crimes. But then again, please use your fantastic comprehension skills to read the entire book.



It is stating that the argument has not been proven and that it may not be proven. Agnosticism is a perfectly reasonable stance when it comes to knowledge. When it comes to belief, atheism is the only reasonable stance.

You are saying atheism is the only reasonable stance? Proof?

[ambchang]

your critical thinking sucks and your reading comprehension is mediocre.

It is what it is. I'm not attacking you. Just giving it to you straight.

As opposed to a person not being able to understand how the Bible was written, and continuously take ones phrase out of an entire paragraph to proof great comprehension?

You have been filled with self-contradiction in this entire thread, and now is just relegating to stating anything you please as facts.

[Blake]

As opposed to a person not being able to understand how the Bible was written, and continuously take ones phrase out of an entire paragraph to proof great comprehension?[b

You have been filled with self-contradiction in this entire thread, and now is just relegating to stating anything you please as facts.

wrong on all points.

Is what it is. You are what you are: ignorant.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I agree on the scientific point of view, because applying a scientific view point on the existence of God has already been agreed to be the incorrect route as God, or deities in general, are not mathematical or scientific entities. As for philosophical proofs, perhaps you can show me an example.

I don't have to show you an example of anything. That's not how burden of proof works.


I showed that slaves were given basic human rights, and were freed after 7 years of labour. POW were not to be beaten without consequences. I don't want to go down the route again, because I know you would just like to take one sentence and ignore everything that came before or after it. While you like to go around in circiles, I don't.

Nah, I just don't pretend that slavery isn't slavery. And being forced to work for someone else takes away human rights.


Reading the entire book is terrible reading comprehension while not reading the entire book is not? And do you know what condones mean? Most countries have legal codes that talks about incarceration for committing crimes, do all those countries condone incarceration?

Again, you show your terrible reading you claimed that I claimed that all Christians condone slavery. That's untrue. Therefore, you either misunderstood my point or lied.

And people are incarcerated for breaking laws. It's necessary for numerous reasons. The Biblical slavery is completely unnecessary, because the Jews had God on their side.


You can choose to live in another country. You have terrible mobility.

If I had the money, maybe. But that's besides the point. Every country's people disagree with their policies. I was born into America. I didn't make that choice. You, on the otherhand, chose to believe in God. You chose to follow his "infallible" teachings. That's where your comparison falls flat.


Provided God exists, of course God can determine who lives or dies, He created mankind by definition.

Terrible reading comprehension yet again. I was talking about God telling his followers whom to kill, not God killing people himself.

Take a critical reading and writing class in your spare time, instead of whining about Kobe Bryant.


And yes, the punishments fit the crimes.

So I deserve to be stoned to death for being a non-believer. You are a real sicko.


But then again, please use your fantastic comprehension skills to read the entire book.

You just don't understand. With or without the context that you provided, Biblical laws are fucked up. And you are fucked up for thinking that they are somehow justified.


You are saying atheism is the only reasonable stance? Proof?

God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing would be not believing. All there is to it. You were a shitty atheist before, and you are shitty human being now, like all Christians who truly believe the bullshit in the Bible.

[ambchang]

wrong on all points.

Is what it is. You are what you are: ignorant.

LOL, writing in absolutes with absolutely no back up. This is simply painful to read from someone claiming to be a scientific thinker.

An objective person would have understood that the Bible was written in Hebrew, and that taking the reading in English without deeper understanding of the background and history is absolutely taking texts out of context.

An objective person would have understood that in order to criticize a subject, it is absolutely critical to read the book that was the basis of that subject.

But then, you didn't.

[ambchang]

I don't have to show you an example of anything. That's not how burden of proof works.

Burden of proof works on a scientific front, things such as theory of gravity could be proven/rejected based on a list of scientific observations.

On the other hand, I am trying to understand your burden of proof for philosophical questions. You raised it as something of an existence, and I would like to see an example of it so that I know what you mean.




Nah, I just don't pretend that slavery isn't slavery. And being forced to work for someone else takes away human rights.

Human rights? Do you know the history of human rights and how that applies to biblical times? The Bible is actually one of the first written examples of human rights.


Again, you show your terrible reading you claimed that I claimed that all Christians condone slavery. That's untrue. Therefore, you either misunderstood my point or lied.

And people are incarcerated for breaking laws. It's necessary for numerous reasons. The Biblical slavery is completely unnecessary, because the Jews had God on their side.

I most definitely misunderstood your point then, if a person's personal believes align perfectly with those of a God, and the Bible is the written word of God, how can one claim that Christians do not condone slavery when the Bible does? In fact, I asked whether "those countries" condone incarceration, not whether "all citizens in those countries" condone incarceration.

The the statement about having God on their side thus not requiring slavery makes not sense whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Woo Bum-kon;6562039]If I had the money, maybe. But that's besides the point. Every country's people disagree with their policies. I was born into America. I didn't make that choice. You, on the otherhand, chose to believe in God. You chose to follow his "infallible" teachings. That's where your comparison falls flat.

How much money does it take to move to another country? Other than the flight of a ticket, there is none, and in a place like the States, all you have to do is work for a few months and you would have enough money to move elsewhere, it is not that hard. I was born in an atheist and chose to be a Christian, you are born to be an American and can choose to be a non-American, it's not that hard.



Terrible reading comprehension yet again. I was talking about God telling his followers whom to kill, not God killing people himself.

Actually, God did both, but then again, the American government tells their soldiers to go abroad and kill terrorists and militants, the American government didn't kill, they only instruct their soldiers to do so.


Take a critical reading and writing class in your spare time, instead of whining about Kobe Bryant.

Like telling the difference between countries and citizens of a country? Where can I take those classes? I will avoid the ones you took because you certainly didn't learn too much from it.


So I deserve to be stoned to death for being a non-believer. You are a real sicko.

Were you a born a Jew?


You just don't understand. With or without the context that you provided, Biblical laws are fucked up. And you are fucked up for thinking that they are somehow justified.

Because you have defined it so. And I don't agree with your definition, because it was based on what you have deemed acceptable and not. I do not have to subscribe to your standards of morals, just like you don't have to for mine. It's not that hard to understand.



God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing would be not believing. All there is to it. You were a shitty atheist before, and you are shitty human being now, like all Christians who truly believe the bullshit in the Bible.

The burden of proof on the existence of God is in the creation itself. This has been the main argument for the existence of God. While this is not a logical argument (I am not sure if you are looking for one), a burden of proof requires none.

In fact, the assertion that God does not exist could be rephrased into "There is no single dimension of existence with at least one God", turning the negative assertion to a positive one, and could easily shift the burden of proof.

I have a suspicion that you are mixing up burden of proof and logical deduction, but am trying to find out.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Burden of proof works on a scientific front, things such as theory of gravity could be proven/rejected based on a list of scientific observations.

On the other hand, I am trying to understand your burden of proof for philosophical questions. You raised it as something of an existence, and I would like to see an example of it so that I know what you mean.

Burden of proof is for all factual claims. Either your God exists or he does not. Either your God has evidence supporting him or he does not. For a claim to be believable, it should have evidence supporting it.


Human rights? Do you know the history of human rights and how that applies to biblical times? The Bible is actually one of the first written examples of human rights.

That's nice and all, but slavery strips away human rights and turns a person into property.


I most definitely misunderstood your point then, if a person's personal believes align perfectly with those of a God, and the Bible is the written word of God, how can one claim that Christians do not condone slavery when the Bible does?

It's either because they don't know what the Bible says about slavery, or they rationalize it. You are really stupid and you really like putting words in my mouth. I already know that all Christians don't condone slavery, which is why I never asserted that they did. You are building up more strawmen.


In fact, I asked whether "those countries" condone incarceration, not whether "all citizens in those countries" condone incarceration.

So?


The the statement about having God on their side thus not requiring slavery makes not sense whatsoever.

God should be able to find a way for defeated armies to not be turned into slaves, because he's God.


How much money does it take to move to another country? Other than the flight of a ticket, there is none, and in a place like the States, all you have to do is work for a few months and you would have enough money to move elsewhere, it is not that hard. I was born in an atheist and chose to be a Christian, you are born to be an American and can choose to be a non-American, it's not that hard.

You are a fucking moron. The solution to one disagreeing with their country's policies is to move away? There is not a country in the world that I agree with 100%, so what would moving away accomplish?

It's simple: you made a retarded statement about all Americans condoning murder and got called out on it. Stop being retarded. I have to live in a country. You don't have to worship a murder-happy God. Your comparison falls flat.


Actually, God did both

I never claimed that he didn't. I did claim that you have horrible reading comprehension, which you have shown repeatedly in this thread alone.


but then again, the American government tells their soldiers to go abroad and kill terrorists and militants, the American government didn't kill, they only instruct their soldiers to do so.

:lol So your response to your God being an asshole is, "The American government is, too"? A stance that I don't even disagree with? If you want to expose me for hypocrisy, attack a stance I have, not some other group whose actions I don't even support.


Like telling the difference between countries and citizens of a country? Where can I take those classes? I will avoid the ones you took because you certainly didn't learn too much from it.

:lol You think all Americans condone capital punishment by virtue of being American. You clearly can't distinguish between a country and it's citizens.


Were you a born a Jew?

Am I of Jewish lineage? No. Are you going to complain about the context in which murder is okay, again?


Because you have defined it so.

:lol So? That's what human beings have being doing since they've been on earth.


And I don't agree with your definition, because it was based on what you have deemed acceptable and not. I do not have to subscribe to your standards of morals, just like you don't have to for mine. It's not that hard to understand.

I never said you did. It's funny that after all your crying about context, when it come right down to it, you don't even try to defend your sickfuck beliefs. You are just using moral relativism now.


The burden of proof on the existence of God is in the creation itself.

That doesn't make any sense as a sentence and as an argument.


This has been the main argument for the existence of God. While this is not a logical argument (I am not sure if you are looking for one), a burden of proof requires none.

Burden of proof requires evidence and logical consistency. Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever and has no evidence whatsoever. You're off to a bad start.


In fact, the assertion that God does not exist could be rephrased into "There is no single dimension of existence with at least one God", turning the negative assertion to a positive one, and could easily shift the burden of proof.

:lol How many times have theists made this strawman in this thread alone? Where I have I stated that no gods exist? You don't understand what atheism is, and you are pathetic at arguing. My stance is that your God hasn't met his burden of proof, not that your God doesn't exist.


I have a suspicion that you are mixing up burden of proof and logical deduction, but am trying to find out.

I have a suspicion that you have no idea what burden of proof or atheism are.

[Kidd K]

When are Christians going to learn that their "Word of God" is actually "Word of Man who wrote the book while claiming it's the word of God"?

God didn't write it, man did. Try to understand this shit. It's also very outdated. Back then it all made sense, now it doesn't. We also now understand that the world isn't flat, witchcraft doesn't exist, we revolve around the sun rather than the sun revolving around us, and that bullshit like slavery and misogyny (bullshit that's condoned and even pushed in the bible) are wrong while homosexuality isn't actually a big deal as it harms no one including themselves.

[ambchang]

Burden of proof is for all factual claims. Either your God exists or he does not. Either your God has evidence supporting him or he does not. For a claim to be believable, it should have evidence supporting it.

Given your amazing comprehension skills, I would imagine you would have read that my original question was for you to show me an example of a burden of proof from a philosophical point of view so that I can answer your following question from a few post ago correctly.


Your God hasn't met the burden of proof. Period. Not from a scientific or philosophical point of view.


That's nice and all, but slavery strips away human rights and turns a person into property.

The concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon, and no where does the base of it says that being a property to another person cannot satisfy basic human rights. Human rights has two major approaches, one through the human interest theory, and one through the will theory. The interest theory does not apply in this case based on my interpretation, and the will theory applies in the significance of freedom.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#SH4b

Freedom during different eras constitutes different meanings. In biblical times, freedom does not exclude being the property of another person. It is only recently that such a definition emerged, and the reason for the need for abolishing modern day slavery is due to the abuses through slavery than the act of ownership itself. In other words, the human rights of the biblical times were satisfied when the biblical codes were written. 500 years from now, human rights and freedom may be defined totally differently, the conditions we live in right now may be considered to be oppressive and appalling, but for us, at this point in time, we are absolutely living in a free environment with our basic human rights satisfied.



It's either because they don't know what the Bible says about slavery, or they rationalize it. You are really stupid and you really like putting words in my mouth. I already know that all Christians don't condone slavery, which is why I never asserted that they did. You are building up more strawmen.

So?

:lol, immediately after saying I put words in your mouth, you tried to brush off the countries comment. You, on one hand, said the Bible condones slavery, and on another hand dismissed that you are condoning capital punishment. Condone, by definition, means to disregard and overlook a subject. You, as an American, living in USA, did not action to abolish capital punishment in your country is the definition of condoning it.

Speaking of strawmen …


God should be able to find a way for defeated armies to not be turned into slaves, because he's God.

Now you are defining the actions of what God should do. This in and of itself defines what a strawman argument is.


You are a fucking moron. The solution to one disagreeing with their country's policies is to move away? There is not a country in the world that I agree with 100%, so what would moving away accomplish?

So what have you done to stamp out capital punishment? If nothing, you are condoning it, by definition.


It's simple: you made a retarded statement about all Americans condoning murder and got called out on it. Stop being retarded. I have to live in a country. You don't have to worship a murder-happy God. Your comparison falls flat.

Perhaps all Americans is a tad overkill, as there were pockets that were fighting against it. So, again, what have you done to stop capital punishment in your country?


I never claimed that he didn't. I did claim that you have horrible reading comprehension, which you have shown repeatedly in this thread alone.

I never claimed that you said He didn’t. You read anywhere I did? Perhaps your brilliant reading comprehension can point me the way.


:lol So your response to your God being an asshole is, "The American government is, too"? A stance that I don't even disagree with? If you want to expose me for hypocrisy, attack a stance I have, not some other group whose actions I don't even support.

My stance is that you are condoning what your government is doing by not doing a thing about it. It is the strict definition of the term.


:lol You think all Americans condone capital punishment by virtue of being American. You clearly can't distinguish between a country and it's citizens.

Again I ask, what is the definition of condone?


Am I of Jewish lineage? No. Are you going to complain about the context in which murder is okay, again?

Have I ever said murder is OK? Given you have such a strong stance against people words in others’ mouths, perhaps you can quote me?


:lol So? That's what human beings have being doing since they've been on earth.

Defining something and then arguing anybody who does not agree with them is what human beings have been doing since we've been on earth?


I never said you did. It's funny that after all your crying about context, when it come right down to it, you don't even try to defend your sickfuck beliefs. You are just using moral relativism now.

I never said you have to, I am telling you I don’t have to. Do I require your permission for that?


That doesn't make any sense as a sentence and as an argument.

Burden of proof requires evidence and logical consistency. Your above statement makes no sense whatsoever and has no evidence whatsoever. You're off to a bad start. [/quote]

My apologies, I meant, the proof is in the creation of God. The evidence is in the creation itself.


:lol How many times have theists made this strawman in this thread alone? Where I have I stated that no gods exist? You don't understand what atheism is, and you are pathetic at arguing. My stance is that your God hasn't met his burden of proof, not that your God doesn't exist.

Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. I am not sure how you can be an atheist and you can claim that gods do exist. God hasn’t met the burden of proof is agnosticism.



I have a suspicion that you have no idea what burden of proof or atheism are.


Perhaps you can enlighten me.

[Blake]

LOL, writing in absolutes with absolutely no back up. This is simply painful to read from someone claiming to be a scientific thinker.

An objective person would have understood that the Bible was written in Hebrew, and that taking the reading in English without deeper understanding of the background and history is absolutely taking texts out of context.

An objective person would have understood that in order to criticize a subject, it is absolutely critical to read the book that was the basis of that subject.

But then, you didn't.

So you're saying King James didn't translate it correctly.

An objective person would wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent God would allow for such mis translations instead of just writing it himself.

Why has he allowed so many people to believe the Israelites crossed the Red Sea for example.

fwiw, I never claimed to be a scientific thinker. Just a logical thinker. More reading comprehension failure here. More to come, no doubt.

You're God awful at this.

[Blake]

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

he has enlightened you multiple times as to what burden of proof in a logical sense means.

Your inability to get it by now is on you

[Woo Bum-kon]

Given your amazing comprehension skills, I would imagine you would have read that my original question was for you to show me an example of a burden of proof from a philosophical point of view so that I can answer your following question from a few post ago correctly.

Google it.


The concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon, and no where does the base of it says that being a property to another person cannot satisfy basic human rights. Human rights has two major approaches, one through the human interest theory, and one through the will theory. The interest theory does not apply in this case based on my interpretation, and the will theory applies in the significance of freedom.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#SH4b

Thank you. Taking away people's freedom is not giving them human rights.


Freedom during different eras constitutes different meanings. In biblical times, freedom does not exclude being the property of another person. It is only recently that such a definition emerged, and the reason for the need for abolishing modern day slavery is due to the abuses through slavery than the act of ownership itself. In other words, the human rights of the biblical times were satisfied when the biblical codes were written. 500 years from now, human rights and freedom may be defined totally differently, the conditions we live in right now may be considered to be oppressive and appalling, but for us, at this point in time, we are absolutely living in a free environment with our basic human rights satisfied.

The standards of the Biblical times were fucked up.


:lol, immediately after saying I put words in your mouth, you tried to brush off the countries comment. You, on one hand, said the Bible condones slavery, and on another hand dismissed that you are condoning capital punishment. Condone, by definition, means to disregard and overlook a subject. You, as an American, living in USA, did not action to abolish capital punishment in your country is the definition of condoning it.

:lol That's retarded. I have not condoned it at all. And give me an example of how one person with no political influence at all can put a stop to all capital punishment in America.


Speaking of strawmen …

Now you are defining the actions of what God should do. This in and of itself defines what a strawman argument is.

No, it is not. A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an oponent's argument. Whose argument am I deliberately misinterpreting?


So what have you done to stamp out capital punishment? If nothing, you are condoning it, by definition.

No, I am not condoning it, moron. I, as a single person, cannot overturn the all capital punishment laws in the US. Your argument that I condone it because I haven't done anything to stop it is retarded, retard.


Perhaps all Americans is a tad overkill, as there were pockets that were fighting against it. So, again, what have you done to stop capital punishment in your country?

Again, read the above, asshole, and stop trying to attack a position I haven't taken, moron.


I never claimed that you said He didn’t. You read anywhere I did? Perhaps your brilliant reading comprehension can point me the way.

You posted, "Actually, God did both" as if I claimed otherwise.


My stance is that you are condoning what your government is doing by not doing a thing about it. It is the strict definition of the term.

What should I do exactly?


Again I ask, what is the definition of condone?

To accept/agree with another's actions or policies.


Have I ever said murder is OK? Given you have such a strong stance against people words in others’ mouths, perhaps you can quote me?

When you said that the punishments fit the crime, you condoned murder.


Defining something and then arguing anybody who does not agree with them is what human beings have been doing since we've been on earth?

Yes.


I never said you have to, I am telling you I don’t have to. Do I require your permission for that?

Nope. Unlike your God, I am not for murdering people who disagree with me.


My apologies, I meant, the proof is in the creation of God. The evidence is in the creation itself.

Circular reasoning.


Atheism is the belief that there are no deities. I am not sure how you can be an atheist and you can claim that gods do exist.

I agree completely.


God hasn’t met the burden of proof is agnosticism.

The fact that you stated that shows that you don't understand with atheism and agnosticism are.






Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Your previous statement shows that you don't know what atheism is.

[ambchang]

So you're saying King James didn't translate it correctly.

An objective person would wonder why an omniscient, omnipotent God would allow for such mis translations instead of just writing it himself.

Why has he allowed so many people to believe the Israelites crossed the Red Sea for example.

fwiw, I never claimed to be a scientific thinker. Just a logical thinker. More reading comprehension failure here. More to come, no doubt.

You're God awful at this.

First, logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking, so saying that a logical thinker is a scientific thinker is correct by definition. Scientific thinking includes empiricism, rationalism (logical thinking/reasoning), and a skeptical attitude. I am not even sure if you know what you a scientific thinker is, at this point.

Second, I never said the King James version incorrectly translated the Bible. Please practice that fantastic comprehension skills and logical thinking skills you preach. There is more than one alternative and conclusion that came from my earlier comment.

Third, I have been asking about burden of proof in a philosophical sense.


he has enlightened you multiple times as to what burden of proof in a logical sense means.

Your inability to get it by now is on you

[ambchang]

Google it.

I did, couldn't find it. Given that you already know about it, please tell me.


Thank you. Taking away people's freedom is not giving them human rights.

You are again forcing your own definition of freedom into arguments.


The standards of the Biblical times were fucked up.

Compared to modern times? Sure. Wars, famine, diseases, social stratification, are but a few examples that we don't practice in modern times anymore.



:lol That's retarded. I have not condoned it at all. And give me an example of how one person with no political influence at all can put a stop to all capital punishment in America.

You can demonstrate, you can pressure politicians. There isn't only one single way to accomplish this.


No, it is not. A strawman is a deliberate misinterpretation of an oponent's argument. Whose argument am I deliberately misinterpreting?

God's. You disregarded certain points of the Biblical context, and presented a superficially similar argument (In this case, the necessity of having slaves if He was a God), thus dismissing the origin position of whether He is God.



No, I am not condoning it, moron. I, as a single person, cannot overturn the all capital punishment laws in the US. Your argument that I condone it because I haven't done anything to stop it is retarded, retard.


Again, read the above, asshole, and stop trying to attack a position I haven't taken, moron.

I am asking if you have done ANYTHING. Have you?


You posted, "Actually, God did both" as if I claimed otherwise.

As if? But I didn't, did I? If you said, "Durant scored 30 points on 12 shots", and I responded, "Actually, he scored 30 points on 12 shots and another 8 FTs", that does not mean that I disagree with your original statement, it only means I have more to add.



What should I do exactly?



To accept/agree with another's actions or policies.

It also includes to disregard or overlook (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?s=t)



When you said that the punishments fit the crime, you condoned murder.

Punishment is murder? So capital punishment is murder?



Yes.

So what is the point of arguing? You already had it defined.



Nope. Unlike your God, I am not for murdering people who disagree with me.

Again, if you define punishment as murder, then I don't agree with the definition.




Circular reasoning.

How so?




I agree completely.

The fact that you stated that shows that you don't understand with atheism and agnosticism are.

Your previous statement shows that you don't know what atheism is.

Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics

Agnosticism is the view that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

[Woo Bum-kon]

I did, couldn't find it. Given that you already know about it, please tell me.

A philosophical argument is an argument that something is necessarily true, given the premises.

Bob is a penguin.
All penguins are black and white.
Therefore, Bob is black and white.

Replace Bob the penguin with God, and set up premises with him. It's not that hard to do. Look at the millions of iterations of the first cause argument. They all fail, but they are arguments for the existence of God from a philosophical standpoint.


You are again forcing your own definition of freedom into arguments.

So? And it's the modern definition of freedom. By the modern definition of freedom, slaves were not given basic human rights.


Compared to modern times?

Of course.


You can demonstrate, you can pressure politicians. There isn't only one single way to accomplish this.

Lot's of people have demonstrated. Lot's of people have pressured politicians.


God's.

No, I didn't.


You disregarded certain points of the Biblical context, and presented a superficially similar argument (In this case, the necessity of having slaves if He was a God), thus dismissing the origin position of whether He is God.

This doesn't even make sense. If an all powerful being was truly good, it would find a way for people to not be turned into slaves or indentured servants or whatever word you want to use. Period. I am not misinterpreting shit.

If God is good and all powerful, he would find a way. That's not a strawman.



I am asking if you have done ANYTHING. Have you?

Like what? And again, how is being born into a country with set policies the same as choosing a religion with set policies? How are you going to put the citizen at fault for all the actions of a government when the citizen doesn't even support those actions?



As if? But I didn't, did I? If you said, "Durant scored 30 points on 12 shots", and I responded, "Actually, he scored 30 points on 12 shots and another 8 FTs", that does not mean that I disagree with your original statement, it only means I have more to add.

Except you didn't have more to add. I specifically asked you a question about God telling his followers to kill people, and you changed the subject to God himself killing people. You dodged my original point, which is why we are having this conversation right now.


It also includes to disregard or overlook (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/condone?s=t)

So? Again, I didn't make the laws. I didn't choose to be born American. You chose to be a Christian. You can easily just stop being a Christian. You can easily just stop believing the bullshit in the Bible, but you choose not to. Asking somebody to stop believing in a religion is a lot more feasible than asking somebody to find a country whose policies they agree with 100%.


Punishment is murder? So capital punishment is murder?

Killing somebody for a bullshit reason is murder. Your repeated attempts at saying, "But the government does it, too!" doesn't change the fact that your God is a murdering psycho who wants you to murder people. And you choose to believe in him.



So what is the point of arguing? You already had it defined.

What is your point of arguing? You asked these stupid questions about humanity and definitions as if the answers aren't common knowledge.


Again, if you define punishment as murder, then I don't agree with the definition.

I am not defining punishment as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being a non-believer as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being unruly as murder. You seem to be okay with, but I'm not.


How so?

You are using your conclusion in your premise. God created everything, and the evidence is everything? That doesn't make sense. It's a circular argument.


Explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostics

I already explained it to you, but you didn't listen. I have explained it multiple times in this thread, but you didn't listen. But I will explain it again slowly, so you don't get confused.

Atheism concerns belief.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Not all beliefs are knowledge, but all knowledge comes from belief.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim, "A God exists." That's the lack of belief in a God.

Agnosticism claims that we don't know if there is a God.

When you say, "But that's agnosticism, not atheism!" you show that you misunderstand what both terms mean. They are not mutually exclusive.

I will give you an example from The Atheist Experience:

You are walking with two people and you come across a gumball machine. The first person tells you that the number of gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. The second person tells you the number of gumballs is odd. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. You are an atheist in this situation because you lack belief in whether the number of gumballs is odd or even. You are agnostic because you acknowledge that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in the number of gumballs in the machine.

Replace the number of gumballs with God. If a person says, "God exists," do you believe him? No, given the information available, one cannot come to that conclusion. I am an atheist in that I lack belief in God. I am an agnostic because I believe that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in a god or gods.

[baseline bum]

Anyone know their plans for Game 7?

[Blake]

First, logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking, so saying that a logical thinker is a scientific thinker is correct by definition. Scientific thinking includes empiricism, rationalism (logical thinking/reasoning), and a skeptical attitude. I am not even sure if you know what you a scientific thinker is, at this point.

lol at that made up shit.


Second, I never said the King James version incorrectly translated the Bible. Please practice that fantastic comprehension skills and logical thinking skills you preach. There is more than one alternative and conclusion that came from my earlier comment.

yeah, it's clear now you haven't compared the literal translation vs the King James.



Third, I have been asking about burden of proof in a philosophical sense.

It's an easy google, lazy ass.

[DMC]

My cock is God. Get on your goddamn knees and worship it. You shall bear the fruit of my loin across your visages.

[DMC]

Whoops more New Testament.

So when did you encounter your 1st Peter?

[Blake]

So when did you encounter your 1st Peter?

It was a revelation to John when he found a second one

[ambchang]

A philosophical argument is an argument that something is necessarily true, given the premises.

Bob is a penguin.
All penguins are black and white.
Therefore, Bob is black and white.

Replace Bob the penguin with God, and set up premises with him. It's not that hard to do. Look at the millions of iterations of the first cause argument. They all fail, but they are arguments for the existence of God from a philosophical standpoint.

Well, taking it straight from Thomas Aquinas:

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.



So? And it's the modern definition of freedom. By the modern definition of freedom, slaves were not given basic human rights.

But the social norms of biblical times were not the same it is now. It was the reflection of the societal norms, and the rules the Bible gives people to manage those social norms. The central idea of the Bible isn't to or not to have slaves, or how to punish those who violated certain socially acceptable behaviours.



Of course.



Lot's of people have demonstrated. Lot's of people have pressured politicians.

I am not talking about lots of people, I am talking about you in particular. What have you done?



No, I didn't.



This doesn't even make sense. If an all powerful being was truly good, it would find a way for people to not be turned into slaves or indentured servants or whatever word you want to use. Period. I am not misinterpreting shit.

If God is good and all powerful, he would find a way. That's not a strawman.

You have established a position that an all powerful God does not need slaves. The original position is the existence of God, and you have misrepresented and distorted that version by quoting the Bible out of context, then arguing against the existence of slaves means there was no God.




Like what? And again, how is being born into a country with set policies the same as choosing a religion with set policies? How are you going to put the citizen at fault for all the actions of a government when the citizen doesn't even support those actions?

Don't you guys live in a democracy?



Except you didn't have more to add. I specifically asked you a question about God telling his followers to kill people, and you changed the subject to God himself killing people. You dodged my original point, which is why we are having this conversation right now.

Which really has nothing to do with my lack of reading comprehension, but either your lack of reading comprehension (which I don't mind by the way), or you jumping to conclusions about my ability to read (which I sort of mind). As for God telling his followers to kill people, I can't explain it better than this article, so here you go:


Israel was commanded by God to completely exterminate the Canaanite inhabitants of the land including men, women, and children. This has been called a primitive and barbaric act of murder perpetrated on innocent lives.

Several factors must be kept in mind in viewing this situation. (1) There is a difference between murder and justifiable killing. Murder involves intentional and malicious hatred which leads to life-taking. On the other hand, the Bible speaks of permissible life-taking in capital punishment (Gen. 9:), in self defense (Exod. 22:2), and in a justifiable war (Gen. 14). (2) The Canaanites were by no means innocent. They were a people cursed of God from their very beginning (Gen. 9:25). They were a vile people who practiced the basest forms of immorality. God described their sin vividly in these words, “I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:25). (3) Further, the innocent people of the land were not slaughtered. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah clearly demonstrates that God would save a whole city for ten righteous people (Gen. 18:22f.). In that incident, when God could not find ten righteous people, He took the four or five righteous ones out of the place so as not to destroy them with the wicked (Gen. 19:15). On another occasion God saved some thirty-two thousand people who were morally pure (Num. 31:35). Another notable example is Rahab, whom God saved because she believed (cf. Heb. 11:31). (4) God waited patiently for hundreds of years, giving the wicked inhabitants of Canaan time to repent (cf. 2 Peter 3:9) before He finally decided to destroy them (Gen. 15:16). When their iniquity was “full,” divine judgment fell. God’s judgment was akin to surgery for cancer or amputation of a leg as the only way to save the rest of a sick body. Just as cancer or gangrene contaminates the physical body, those elements in a society—if their evil is left to fester—will completely contaminate the rest of society. (5) Finally, the battle confronting Israel was not simply a religious war; it was a theocratic war. Israel was directly ruled by God and the extermination was God’s direct command (cf. Exod. 23:27-30; Deut. 7:3-6; Josh. 8:24-26). No other nation either before or after Israel has been a theocracy. Thus, those commands were unique. Israel as a theocracy was an instrument of judgment in the hands of God. (Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1977, pp. 99-100.)




So? Again, I didn't make the laws. I didn't choose to be born American. You chose to be a Christian. You can easily just stop being a Christian. You can easily just stop believing the bullshit in the Bible, but you choose not to. Asking somebody to stop believing in a religion is a lot more feasible than asking somebody to find a country whose policies they agree with 100%.

Switching religion is tough to do because it involves the mental state of mind. Physical relocation is extremely simple. Millions of people immigrate yearly.



Killing somebody for a bullshit reason is murder. Your repeated attempts at saying, "But the government does it, too!" doesn't change the fact that your God is a murdering psycho who wants you to murder people. And you choose to believe in him.

Whether a reason is acceptable or not is your own definition, I can't argue with it. And for the record, no, God hasn't commanded me, or anyone, to murder anyone. As for him commanding people to kill either in the act of war or through punishment, it hasn't happened since early in the Biblical times.



What is your point of arguing? You asked these stupid questions about humanity and definitions as if the answers aren't common knowledge.

They aren't, that's why there are still different schools of thoughts for and against the position.


I am not defining punishment as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being a non-believer as murder. I am defining killing somebody for being unruly as murder. You seem to be okay with, but I'm not.

Great, we will agree to disagree then.



You are using your conclusion in your premise. God created everything, and the evidence is everything? That doesn't make sense. It's a circular argument.

Except God created everything is not the premise, the existence of God is the premise.



I already explained it to you, but you didn't listen. I have explained it multiple times in this thread, but you didn't listen. But I will explain it again slowly, so you don't get confused.

Atheism concerns belief.

Agnosticism concerns knowledge.

Knowledge is justified true belief.

Not all beliefs are knowledge, but all knowledge comes from belief.

Atheism is the rejection of the claim, "A God exists." That's the lack of belief in a God.

Agnosticism claims that we don't know if there is a God.

When you say, "But that's agnosticism, not atheism!" you show that you misunderstand what both terms mean. They are not mutually exclusive.

I will give you an example from The Atheist Experience:

You are walking with two people and you come across a gumball machine. The first person tells you that the number of gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. The second person tells you the number of gumballs is odd. Do you believe him? No. Given the information available, you can't agree because you don't know. You are an atheist in this situation because you lack belief in whether the number of gumballs is odd or even. You are agnostic because you acknowledge that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in the number of gumballs in the machine.

Replace the number of gumballs with God. If a person says, "God exists," do you believe him? No, given the information available, one cannot come to that conclusion. I am an atheist in that I lack belief in God. I am an agnostic because I believe that there is not a sufficient amount of evidence available for there to be a justified true belief in a god or gods.

How does that contradict with my claim that God hasn't met the burden of proof is agnosticism?

[ambchang]

lol at that made up shit.

Except I didn't make that up.

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

You may not agree with the introduction to science from Miami University, but that seems like a pretty basic definition of what a scientific thinker is.




yeah, it's clear now you haven't compared the literal translation vs the King James.

What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.



It's an easy google, lazy ass.

Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philosophical+burden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

[Blake]

Except I didn't make that up.

http://www.geo.sunysb.edu/esp/files/scientific-method.html

You may not agree with the introduction to science from Miami University, but that seems like a pretty basic definition of what a scientific thinker is.





What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.




Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philosophical+burden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

Point out the part that says logic is a subset of science.

I absolutely agree with this part:

" Reading, writing, and math are the traditional methods that young people learned to think logically (i.e. correctly), but today science is a fourth method. Perhaps the best way is to do a lot of writing that is then reviewed by someone who has critical thinking skills. Most people never learn to think logically; many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are."

Part of learning how to think logically is learning and understanding basic logical fallacies.

You've used a number of fallacies here in this thread. We've been pointing them out but you still don't get it.

[Blake]

What does that have to do with what I said? I mean, your comprehension skills are so good, you can read into something I never wrote. Perhaps you can provide a logical explanation of how you can derive your conclusions from that one single sentence I wrote.

you're right, you're not saying king James mistranslated a lot of it. I am.




Of course, I did, and I said that to W-Bk.

These are the results I found http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=philosophical+burden+of+proof, and none of them shows me a useful example.

Sorry you're having trouble understanding burden of proof. Sucks for you.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well, taking it straight from Thomas Aquinas:

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.
Aquinas' argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good – a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.

I already know what Aquinas's argument is.


But the social norms of biblical times were not the same it is now. It was the reflection of the societal norms, and the rules the Bible gives people to manage those social norms. The central idea of the Bible isn't to or not to have slaves, or how to punish those who violated certain socially acceptable behaviours.

Don't care. It's obvious that the social norms were different. I have more of a problem with God being in favor of the social norms.


I am not talking about lots of people, I am talking about you in particular. What have you done?

So, what I am getting from you is that if one doesn't do something to stop the government from doing anything that they disagree with at all, that person is condoning the government's actions. You have stretched the meaning of the word "condone" so far that it has become meaningless.


You have established a position that an all powerful God does not need slaves.

No, I didn't. Your terrible reason comprehension strikes yet again. My position is that a good, all powerful god would not allow slavery, because he's good and all powerful.


The original position is the existence of God, and you have misrepresented and distorted that version by quoting the Bible out of context, then arguing against the existence of slaves means there was no God.

This doesn't make any sense at all. My argument is that an all powerful, all good god wouldn't allow slavery. I'm not saying that that means that God therefore doesn't exist. You are just making shit up.



Don't you guys live in a democracy?

So? Just because laws can be change in theory doesn't mean that they will be changed in reality. And again, your position is illogical and impractical.


Which really has nothing to do with my lack of reading comprehension, but either your lack of reading comprehension (which I don't mind by the way), or you jumping to conclusions about my ability to read (which I sort of mind). As for God telling his followers to kill people, I can't explain it better than this article, so here you go:

:lol at an article that justifies the murder of children. And that still doesn't explain why non-believers deserve death.


Switching religion is tough to do because it involves the mental state of mind.

No, it isn't.


Physical relocation is extremely simple. Millions of people immigrate yearly.

:lol thinking that dropping all ties and finding a country one agrees with completely is easier than dropping a religion. You are absolutely ridiculous.

You are saying that it is easier to leave one's job, family, community, attachments, property, etc to find a country whose policies that they agree with 100%, than it is to simply look at a religion's tenets and reject them. That's moronic. You said yourself that you CHOSE to believe in God. I never CHOSE to be an American. That completely destroys your weak argument.


Whether a reason is acceptable or not is your own definition, I can't argue with it. And for the record, no, God hasn't commanded me, or anyone, to murder anyone. As for him commanding people to kill either in the act of war or through punishment, it hasn't happened since early in the Biblical times.

Yes, God has commanded his followers to kill people. It is in the Bible. It expressly says to kill witches, false prophets, non-believers, pagans, unruly children, etc. You can read those passages so hard that you can come up with completely different interpretations, but that doesn't change what they say.



They aren't, that's why there are still different schools of thoughts for and against the position.

Yes, it is common knowledge that people will argue for the position that they agree with. I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to that obvious fact.


Great, we will agree to disagree then.

Yeah, you're for murder and I am not.


Except God created everything is not the premise, the existence of God is the premise.

No, the existence of God is the conclusion that you are trying to arrive at.

Your argument is circular. You are saying that the evidence of God's existence is everything, which is silly. "God created everything because everything was created by God" is a circular argument.


How does that contradict with my claim that God hasn't met the burden of proof is agnosticism?

It's atheism, too. You brought up agnosticism because you were under the mistaken belief that the two were mutually exclusive. Either that or you having typing Tourette's, which makes you post random things for no reason.

You claimed that the burden of proof is shifted when one makes the claim that God doesn't exist, and I said that nobody made that claim. I'm not going to take your burden of proof. Sorry, but you still haven't proven the existence of God.

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Hey, Woo Bum-fucknuts.

STFU.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Hey, Woo Bum-fucknuts.

STFU.
That's telling him.

[Blake]

Hey, Woo Bum-fucknuts.

STFU.

smh aggy

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Thread had gone on long enough. Just picked the last poster to tell to shut up.

I get shit done, son.

[Blake]

Thread had gone on long enough. Just picked the last poster to tell to shut up.

I get shit done, son.

Bumping a thread is a great way to shut it down.

Smh aggy

[ambchang]

Point out the part that says logic is a subset of science.

Logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking. I am surprised a person who preaches the importance of comprehension didn't read what I wrote correctly.



What is scientific thinking? At this point, it is customary to discuss questions, observations, data, hypotheses, testing, and theories, which are the formal parts of the scientific method, but these are NOT the most important components of the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced within a context of scientific thinking, and scientific (and critical) thinking is based on three things: using empirical evidence (empiricism), practicing logical reasonsing (rationalism), and possessing a skeptical attitude (skepticism) about presumed knowledge that leads to self-questioning, holding tentative conclusions, and being undogmatic (willingness to change one's beliefs). These three ideas or principles are universal throughout science; without them, there would be no scientific or critical thinking. Let's examine each in turn.


I absolutely agree with this part:

" Reading, writing, and math are the traditional methods that young people learned to think logically (i.e. correctly), but today science is a fourth method. Perhaps the best way is to do a lot of writing that is then reviewed by someone who has critical thinking skills. Most people never learn to think logically; many illogical arguments and statements are accepted and unchallenged in modern society--often leading to results that are counterproductive to the good of society or even tragic--because so many people don't recognize them for what they are."

Part of learning how to think logically is learning and understanding basic logical fallacies.

You've used a number of fallacies here in this thread. We've been pointing them out but you still don't get it.

You have been pointing out the importance of comprehension, but it's not like you are practicing it.

[Rick Santorum]

:lol the Westboro Baptists are true prophets

Their protests should have been a warning sign to Oklahoma about what was going to come. Should have listened to the only REAL Christians out there :lmao

All hail Fred Phelps :lmao

[ambchang]

I already know what Aquinas's argument is.



Don't care. It's obvious that the social norms were different. I have more of a problem with God being in favor of the social norms.



So, what I am getting from you is that if one doesn't do something to stop the government from doing anything that they disagree with at all, that person is condoning the government's actions. You have stretched the meaning of the word "condone" so far that it has become meaningless.



No, I didn't. Your terrible reason comprehension strikes yet again. My position is that a good, all powerful god would not allow slavery, because he's good and all powerful.



This doesn't make any sense at all. My argument is that an all powerful, all good god wouldn't allow slavery. I'm not saying that that means that God therefore doesn't exist. You are just making shit up.




So? Just because laws can be change in theory doesn't mean that they will be changed in reality. And again, your position is illogical and impractical.



:lol at an article that justifies the murder of children. And that still doesn't explain why non-believers deserve death.



No, it isn't.



:lol thinking that dropping all ties and finding a country one agrees with completely is easier than dropping a religion. You are absolutely ridiculous.

You are saying that it is easier to leave one's job, family, community, attachments, property, etc to find a country whose policies that they agree with 100%, than it is to simply look at a religion's tenets and reject them. That's moronic. You said yourself that you CHOSE to believe in God. I never CHOSE to be an American. That completely destroys your weak argument.



Yes, God has commanded his followers to kill people. It is in the Bible. It expressly says to kill witches, false prophets, non-believers, pagans, unruly children, etc. You can read those passages so hard that you can come up with completely different interpretations, but that doesn't change what they say.




Yes, it is common knowledge that people will argue for the position that they agree with. I'm sorry that you are so ignorant to that obvious fact.



Yeah, you're for murder and I am not.



No, the existence of God is the conclusion that you are trying to arrive at.

Your argument is circular. You are saying that the evidence of God's existence is everything, which is silly. "God created everything because everything was created by God" is a circular argument.



It's atheism, too. You brought up agnosticism because you were under the mistaken belief that the two were mutually exclusive. Either that or you having typing Tourette's, which makes you post random things for no reason.

You claimed that the burden of proof is shifted when one makes the claim that God doesn't exist, and I said that nobody made that claim. I'm not going to take your burden of proof. Sorry, but you still haven't proven the existence of God.

Well, it's clear that we are arguing in circles, and it is pointless to repeat our respective points over and over.

Like I said, scientific burden of proof does not apply, as God is neither a scientific or mathematical entity.

Philosophical burden of proof has been repeated for centuries, whether you accept it or not is another question, and I can't force or convince you one way or another.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well, it's clear that we are arguing in circles, and it is pointless to repeat our respective points over and over.

Like I said, scientific burden of proof does not apply, as God is neither a scientific or mathematical entity.

Philosophical burden of proof has been repeated for centuries, whether you accept it or not is another question, and I can't force or convince you one way or another.

If God affects the real world in physical ways, then scientific burden of proof definitely applies. And philosophical arguments for God are always poor.

Again, God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing to do is not believe.

[ambchang]

If God affects the real world in physical ways, then scientific burden of proof definitely applies. And philosophical arguments for God are always poor.

Again, God hasn't met his burden of proof, so the only reasonable thing to do is not believe.

Untrue, that is why belief and faith exist.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Faith is belief for no reason. Religion has brainwashed people into thinking belief for no reason is a virtue, but it isn't.

[Splits]

God this thread sucks.

[ambchang]

Faith is belief for no reason. Religion has brainwashed people into thinking belief for no reason is a virtue, but it isn't.

Faith isn't belief for no reason, faith is belief that may not be based on proof. Business decisions are being made daily with no positive proof one way or another, but if people make decisions solely on scientifically proven methodologies, no decisions will be made (well, or very few).

[Woo Bum-kon]

Faith isn't belief for no reason, faith is belief that may not be based on proof.

In other words, belief for no reason.


Business decisions are being made daily with no positive proof one way or another, but if people make decisions solely on scientifically proven methodologies, no decisions will be made (well, or very few).

Business decisions are made based on various factors, generally. They aren't made for no reason, so they don't require faith.

[clambake]

business decisions based on nothing more than hope are called ventures.

[ambchang]

In other words, belief for no reason.



Business decisions are made based on various factors, generally. They aren't made for no reason, so they don't require faith.


The difference is the proof of which you require. My argument is that business decisions are routinely made on proof that is no more convincing than those required by religion.

Again, there are various explanations for the proof of the existence of God, just that they are not absolute and does not pass your requirements.

[Woo Bum-kon]

The difference is the proof of which you require. My argument is that business decisions are routinely made on proof that is no more convincing than those required by religion.

If somebody makes a business decision based on faith, they made a bad business decision (or a good decision for a bad reason). You are the one talking about scientific proof as if it's the only standard out there. A businessman can look at current trends and make decisions off of those. That's one example of believing something for an actual reason, which theists don't do when it comes to God.


Again, there are various explanations for the proof of the existence of God, just that they are not absolute and does not pass your requirements.

Then they aren't good explanations.

[hater]

God this thread sucks.

worst thread of the season IMO. just clicked to see what niggas was babbling about and got nausea :lol

[Blake]

Logical thinking is a subset of scientific thinking. I am surprised a person who preaches the importance of comprehension didn't read what I wrote correctly.

Don't know where you are getting that from. Don't really care, tbh.

Logic is completely independent of science.






You have been pointing out the importance of comprehension, but it's not like you are practicing it.

You've been getting intellectually crushed in this thread.

it's unimportant to me if you ever figure that out, tbh.

Simply fascinating though that you keep coming back to this particular thread for more

[ambchang]

If somebody makes a business decision based on faith, they made a bad business decision (or a good decision for a bad reason). You are the one talking about scientific proof as if it's the only standard out there. A businessman can look at current trends and make decisions off of those. That's one example of believing something for an actual reason, which theists don't do when it comes to God.

I am not saying scientific proof is the only proof out there, as logical proof is another, and faith-based (gut-feeling) approaches are also present.




Then they aren't good explanations. Very few proofs are absolute, even scientific ones.

[ambchang]

Don't know where you are getting that from. Don't really care, tbh.

Logic is completely independent of science.

I am getting at the comprehension skills you so desperately treasure. I personally don't really care much for it, as this is a basketball forum and I don't expect people to read every single word diligently. However, you do, and had been harping on it for a good portion of this thread, and yet you have failed it yourself.



You've been getting intellectually crushed in this thread.

it's unimportant to me if you ever figure that out, tbh.

Simply fascinating though that you keep coming back to this particular thread for more

LOL, declaring victory.

[Blake]

I am getting at the comprehension skills you so desperately treasure. I personally don't really care much for it, as this is a basketball forum and I don't expect people to read every single word diligently. However, you do, and had been harping on it for a good portion of this thread, and yet you have failed it yourself.

Wrong.



LOL, declaring victory.

LOL, easy victory