(quiz)Which Enemy of the Christian Faith Are You?

[Brasuca-RJ]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christquiz.html

Before anything a warning, this isn´t anyhow accurate about what you are but fairly accurate as how some people perceive you.

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/nothing.jpg

[Sentinel]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/atheist.jpg

I like this test :cool:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Brasuca - for someone who doesnt give a damn, you certainly know how to express yourself when you want to. Though it may be in the spirit of light humor, your thread makes a mockery of the christian faith as indicated in the test you offered. This kind of posting is reprehensible, and should be deleted as blatant hate literature. We are free to argue our points in the off topics, and we do most expressly, but this is filth.

[Jondar]

How about we steer away from the religious debates... I think 5 threads is already enough, eh?

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Heck, I figured I would bite. Granted the test was comedic in nature, it was strange that I came up with this:

whatever...





Odd. I never knew.

[Agonistes]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/philo-science.jpg


I think it got the jist of me.


Edit: AoA... I think you're taking it a bit to the extreme. He has every right to share the test with us if he wants. Granted.. the answers do come out slightly one-sided in the favor of non/anti-christians. But, still... lighten up. If you get that worked up over something this small then you're gonna end up busting a vein in your head and having an aneurism some day.

[Eiger]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/nothing.jpg

I like the "utterly untouchable" part, hehe.

[memememe173]

this was horribly unexpected

my test told me I am a christian

[BhsCrew]

I don't know how to put the picture in my post, but I got the same as Agonistes so just read his. Philosopher/ Scientist. Go figure.

[Sweetpea]

OMG!!!! It says I'm a heretic. Mean and nasty little quiz!

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Agonistes - It's the presentation that is problematic. It's a blatant mockery of Christianity. Then again, it doesn't much differ from the caliber of some posters on the other threads.. but at least here we've got visual presentation and identity archetypes which make things all the more potent. Lastly, as far as getting "worked up" goes, I'd say I'm not the only one guilty of that ^^. In this case, anger is justified.

If there was one thing that did amuse me, it would be seeing Eiger dubbed as a "whatever".

[Dragon's_Servant]

i am a total atheist(oh yeaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!)

Man, AoA, mockery would be if the quiz was
"what kind of Christian I diot are you?"
but it wasn't, and besides some humor, it basicly tells everyone what he already knows(or at least expected).

Since you seem to camplein about it, what did you get?

[MastaBlasta]

I got Philosopher/ Scientist. hit teh nail right on teh head. thats a pretty cool test.

[Sweetpea]

Lastly, as far as getting "worked up" goes, I'd say I'm not the only one guilty of that ^^. In this case, anger is justified.



It seems to me that those people who are secure in their faith should be able to withstand a little parody. It's these kinds of reactions that make movies like Gibson's latest all the more popular.

Lighten up a little, you'll be a lot happier. Really.

[DeVries]

Philosopher/Scientist, about what I expected =)

[Tyran_Harasvelg]

Whatever... but I already knew that.

[Eiger]

It seems to me that those people who are secure in their faith should be able to withstand a little parody. It's these kinds of reactions that make movies like Gibson's latest all the more popular.

Lighten up a little, you'll be a lot happier. Really.Sweetpea's got a good point there methinks...

[Eiger]

If there was one thing that did amuse me, it would be seeing Eiger dubbed as a "whatever".
I believe I got dubbed a "nothing". Which works tremendously well, hehe.

[Riden]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/philo-science.jpg

Fairy spot-on, though I would say I'm more of Philosopher/Scientist/Atheist :thumbsup:

AoA: This is not a mockery at all, even though it is humorous. If you are a member of the Christian faith then it actually has nothing to do with you at all and so you should just ignore it.. or are you afraid of what it might say :lady: <-- not sure what I put that smilie for

[Booms]

I got atheist, although I prefer to go by agnostic. This is one of the rare few good quizzes on the internet, good job finding the link.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well, people will post what they want. In response to those who adressed me directly, I see this test in a mocking tone as it immediately assumes that one is an enemy of christianity. Even the "christian" archetype is presented as a fool. It assumes that Christianity is not only unworthy of consideration, but that it is a foolhardy position. That is what pissed me off. FYI, I took the test and got "philosopher/scientist", and I am in no way a threat to christianity. Indeed, I spend alot of my time on on rpgforums pwning mental-midget atheists in the off topic forums. In reference to Sweetpea's post, I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors, but there comes a time when humor can turn to persecuton. Some of you feel persecuted when I kick your a$$es on the other forums, Agonistes being a clear example. But regardless, my contribution to this particuar thread is finished. Have fun ^^.

[Eiger]

Indeed, I spend alot of my time on on rpgforums pwning mental-midget atheists in the off topic forums. Some of you feel persecuted when I kick your a$$es on the other forums, Agonistes being a clear example.
Hehe, you need an ego boost. This one shows you're really not in touch with reality.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hehe, you need an ego boost. This one shows you're really not in touch with reality.

Coming from you, that's an ego boost in itself.

[Booms]

Well, people will post what they want. In response to those who adressed me directly, I see this test in a mocking tone as it immediately assumes that one is an enemy of christianity. Even the "christian" archetype is presented as a fool. It assumes that Christianity is not only unworthy of consideration, but that it is a foolhardy position. That is what pissed me off. FYI, I took the test and got "philosopher/scientist", and I am in no way a threat to christianity. Indeed, I spend alot of my time on on rpgforums pwning mental-midget atheists in the off topic forums. In reference to Sweetpea's post, I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors, but there comes a time when humor can turn to persecuton. Some of you feel persecuted when I kick your a$$es on the other forums, Agonistes being a clear example. But regardless, my contribution to this particuar thread is finished. Have fun ^^.

A Christian fears persecution? Funny, I always thought they were the ones doing all the persecuting. Not to mention, I've not once seen you truly take down any of the atheists on the forums. You simply mention philosophers and then claim that it is possible to figure out that there is a God by use of "reason," but you haven't yet managed to convince anyone.

I'm not a grammar guy, but I was wondering if anyone could confirm that in the sentence "I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors," AoA has given the actual stance (of believing in God or not) emotions, and it would have made much more sense to say "I affirm that anyone with a valid position should fear no detractors,"?

[Bartleby]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/heretic.jpg

um.... wtf?! I go to church like every other sunday, help out with projects that benefit those that I believe need help, usually consider how my actions affect others and am a fairly "christian" guy. I mean... my fiance's wiccan, I was agnostic for a long while and I read stuff from the Dalai Lama, but still... a heretic.
Oh well, doesn't really matter, IMO if you use the unperversed path or ideologies set forth in most major religions that I've heard of (judeo-christian/islamic/buddhist, etc.) I'd bet you'll end up a level-headed considerate person.
Of course, I'd consider "leasing" my soul for the right to beta test WoW. Any takers? ;)

[Booms]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/heretic.jpg

um.... wtf?! I go to church like every other sunday, help out with projects that benefit those that I believe need help, usually consider how my actions affect others and am a fairly "christian" guy. I mean... my fiance's wiccan, I was agnostic for a long while and I read stuff from the Dalai Lama, but still... a heretic.
Oh well, doesn't really matter, IMO if you use the unperversed path or ideologies set forth in most major religions that I've heard of (judeo-christian/islamic/buddhist, etc.) I'd bet you'll end up a level-headed considerate person.
Of course, I'd consider "leasing" my soul for the right to beta test WoW. Any takers? ;)

Chances are you're a good person while this quiz is comparing you to an actual follower of the Chrisitan faith. As in you aren't really Chrisitian unless you think that all *** people are going to go to Hell.

Argh, I do not understand why the world *** is blocked...its like blocking the word midget or something.

[Bartleby]

ROFL, mormons and satanists living arm in arm, like ebony and ivory. nice touch. btw, I'm lutheran.

[Masamunae]

WOOT! Athiest!!!

[Bartleby]

Booms, I am an actual follower of the christian faith. We're not storm troopers nor are we blind sheep, it's just the idiots who wrap their bigotry in the name of christianity tend to stand out more than anyone else. People usually focus on the negative "stuff", because that's what needs to change, but rarely make a mention of all the positive "stuff". "stuff" = all those things I don't have the time or inclination to iterate.

[sardotirion]

But regardless, my contribution to this particuar thread is finished. Have fun ^^.

That's good.

Anyway, circular logic and loopholed semantics don't count as "pwning" anyone. Ever.


BTW, I got atheist. :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

A Christian fears persecution? Funny, I always thought they were the ones doing all the persecuting.


Before being shot to death by the posters on this thread, I'll offer a few points before the execution begins. Though for this cause, I'll gladly go down fighting. Sadly enough, the crusades did take place, as well as the inquisition, and angry bible thumpers etc. For my part, I wouldn't consider their actions as being christian. Scripture certainly doesn't approve of those actions. If you want to hold that view, that's up to you.


Not to mention, I've not once seen you truly take down any of the atheists on the forums. You simply mention philosophers and then claim that it is possible to figure out that there is a God by use of "reason," but you haven't yet managed to convince anyone.


Obviously, one cannot be convinced of anything if they are unwilling to learn. If I mention philosophers and their texts, it is to offer people a chance to read them. I believe they have lots to teach us. So, the ownice is really on my readers to choose wether they want to learn or not. A good example is BhsCrew. He's been at me since the abortion thread, but he did indicate he wanted to learn, and has agreed to read the texts. Where he goes from there is his business.

As far as "pwning" is concerned, this need not have to do with the position of an argument per se (as I have found some atheists to posess more intellectual honesty than some christians), it is rather the presentation of argument. I started off in the off topics as mr. gentle, but I have gotten frustrated in the last week or so by idiots. Perhaps I should just stay away from these topics? I'll think it over. Anyway, when I see someone like Eiger, who creates threads and polls on controversial subjects to "keep me busy", and then reveals that he is unwilling to learn (just scroll up, he's very clear), that is what I find troublesome. People like these are those who get pwned, as their only aim on these threads is mental masturbation. And Eiger, if that pisses you off, bring it on. For my part, I am here not only to put in my own 2 cents, but also to take correction when necessary. I don't take alot of it because my detractors either don't care enough about the issue to dig for more material and/or sources, or are simply my junior in terms of education and life experience. You may not like that last statement, but that's the way it goes.


I'm not a grammar guy, but I was wondering if anyone could confirm that in the sentence "I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors," AoA has given the actual stance (of believing in God or not) emotions, and it would have made much more sense to say "I affirm that anyone with a valid position should fear no detractors,"?


Wow.. I stand corrected. I guess I should stick to literal language from now on, so I won't walk away bruised.

[sardotirion]

Booms, I am an actual follower of the christian faith. We're not storm troopers nor are we blind sheep, it's just the idiots who wrap their bigotry in the name of christianity tend to stand out more than anyone else. People usually focus on the negative "stuff", because that's what needs to change, but rarely make a mention of all the positive "stuff". "stuff" = all those things I don't have the time or inclination to iterate.


Hey. I look at the positives. My best friend is a christian, very devout. And he believes that Christians should all practice the concept of loving everyone, and actually showing. I don't generalize all Christians into the typical "right wing, over zealous conservative a-holes" like I don't generalize all non christians into "left-wing, knee jerk morons." (I myself will say that I'm neither liberal nor conservative, as I hate the fact that they are overwhelmingly a part of the respective political powers here. I instead think of myself as a free-thinking compassionate existentialist.) But I do know a lot of people that have this attitude of "holier than thou art" crap, and seem to think, with nothing to show for it but faith, that all non-believers (and even those with slightly differing beliefs) should have to bend over *** backwards to make to fit the believers concepts of what is wrong and right.

[Agonistes]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.... back it up.


When did you ever "kick my ***", AoA? I've been nothing but respectful to you and now you say something like that when we haven't even been at odds? Well.. I figured I had a lot in common with you, but now I see I was mistaken.

I'll refrain from trying to carry an intelligent conversation with you the next time we both start posting in the same thread.

[Rook]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/nothing.jpg

Ahh, well, couldn't be any right than that. I like that test.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.... back it up.


When did you ever "kick my ***", AoA? I've been nothing but respectful to you and now you say something like that when we haven't even been at odds? Well.. I figured I had a lot in common with you, but now I see I was mistaken.

I'll refrain from trying to carry an intelligent conversation with you the next time we both start posting in the same thread.

Well I suppose I could have toned it down a little. I was referring to post on one of the God threads, in regard to your blanket definiton of christianity seen only from a negative point of view. This I responded to in the "do you believe in God thread", rather harshly I might add. As a few of my readers discovered, it does not mean that I "dislike" a person because of their posts, but I can certainly be rough with them regarding their post. We can still talk about it more if you like (but I did kick your *** on that thread :p).

[Agonistes]

I "looked down on" Christianity's past. Such as the Crusades and the like.

I also "looked down on" some of the christian extremists out there.. the anti-*** crowd... the pro-white crowd... and last, but definately not least, the evangelists.

I didn't say that Christianity as a religion was bad.. I said it has a history of being interpreted and practiced in all the wrong ways.

[Mallow]

Poor AgeofAbnegation, I saw his demise comming after his first post on this thread...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Well, actually, you were a bit harsh. For my part, I don't see any of the movements you highligeted as facets of christianity. But anyway, I do agree with your last statement.

All I want to do on the off-topic forums is simply make things clear. I'll laud any atheist if they take their position in the matter seriously, and aren't being crybabies with agendas. Thx for clearing that up for me Agonistes.

Mallow - I'll be fine.

[Sage the Mage]

First off, that goth chick reminds me of a hot girl at my school...

Second:
http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/nothing.html
Which is honestly pretty accurate.

[Spensdawg]

Well, in case anyone cares... i got

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/atheist.jpg

While this describes me acurately, I wouldn't use this "test" as anything but an inside joke amongst non-religious folk like myself.

[Andarcel]

I'm not a grammar guy, but I was wondering if anyone could confirm that in the sentence "I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors," AoA has given the actual stance (of believing in God or not) emotions, and it would have made much more sense to say "I affirm that anyone with a valid position should fear no detractors,"? Either works. One is a little more anthropomorphic, that's all.

[Dementor]

Heh. I love the cartoon Mormon with his little pamphlets.

[Bartleby]

That's gotta be the first time I've ever seen someone use the term "anthropomorphic" correctly while not referring to what they think about their dog. gj Andarcel, you get a gold star for the day.

[Cale The Dark]

I'd like to start a poll. Which enemy of the islamic faith are you? it would have questions like "which country were you born in?" "by what name do you call god?" "do you have any jewish friends?" and stuff like that. and then i could make a picture with you in a building and a plane flying into it...nothing offensive about that. or i could do a poll about enemies of the aethiests and have questions like "are you an innocent unborn baby?" "do you believe in a set of morals that extend beyond pleasing yourself?". just a little comic humor......

oh and somebody post the christian picture cause i don't know how. read that and see how "light hearted and humorous" this test is. i agree with AoA. this is blatant hate. i wonder if this guy got molested by a priest and now is taking it out on the rest of us? just a little "humor".

[Halcyon's Dawning]

I'm not a grammar guy, but I was wondering if anyone could confirm that in the sentence "I affirm that any valid position fears no detractors," AoA has given the actual stance (of believing in God or not) emotions, and it would have made much more sense to say "I affirm that anyone with a valid position should fear no detractors,"?
I disagree. After you take a few classes in English, which I guess you havn't, you learn that there are times when you can personify things, such as positions.
Stop nitpicking. At least when I pick on grammar, its for a reason. His point still holds.

[Cale The Dark]

I'd like to start a quiz. Which enemy of the islamic faith are you? it would have questions like "which country were you born in?" "by what name do you call god?" "do you have any jewish friends?" and stuff like that. and then i could make a picture with you in a building and a plane flying into it...nothing offensive about that. or i could do a poll about enemies of the aethiests and have questions like "are you an innocent unborn baby?" "do you believe in a set of morals that extend beyond pleasing yourself?". just a little comic humor......

oh and somebody post the christian picture cause i don't know how. read that and see how "light hearted and humorous" this test is. i agree with AoA. this is blatant hate. i wonder if this guy got molested by a priest and now is taking it out on the rest of us? just a little "humor".


~why do the pictures all have one eyebrow? or are there eyes supposed to spell "T I". weird.

[Bartleby]

oh and somebody post the christian picture cause i don't know how.
Here ya go

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christian.jpg

[BhsCrew]

I'd like to start a poll. Which enemy of the islamic faith are you? it would have questions like "which country were you born in?" "by what name do you call god?" "do you have any jewish friends?" and stuff like that. and then i could make a picture with you in a building and a plane flying into it...nothing offensive about that. or i could do a poll about enemies of the aethiests and have questions like "are you an innocent unborn baby?" "do you believe in a set of morals that extend beyond pleasing yourself?". just a little comic humor......


Go ahead and find another quiz. If I can't laugh at my own beliefs then I need to lighten up. This quiz is from the viewpoint that religion doesn't exist and is basicially a scam to controll the masses. It doesn't have to be for Catholics as it could be slightly changed to fit any organized religion on earth (including Islam). If you can find or make a quiz that mocks athiests for their beliefs that god doesn't exist and religion is a scam then go right ahead. I'll take it.

[Mad_One]

mmmmmm...........atheist,i believe in god but i dont support religions,but if i think about it,but.......probably most of the people that knows me probably thinks im an atheist,just some of them know how i really think,but i like a lot more the idea of been seen as an atheist than as a christian(just my point of view,i dont intend to flame other persons beliefs)

[Benjamin_Blackheart]

http://robertandtim.topcities.com/quiz/christ/christian.html



Christain here, w00t! BTW, I don't really care bout abortion or pre-marital sex. It's your choice kiddos!

[Eiger]

Not to mention, I've not once seen you truly take down any of the atheists on the forums. You simply mention philosophers and then claim that it is possible to figure out that there is a God by use of "reason," but you haven't yet managed to convince anyone.
Yup, that's what I meant by him not being in touch with reality. He hasn't pwned anyone since his responses typically refer to an application of an obscure philosophical tenet which is rarely properly explained or justified. It's an unconvincing and arrogant argumentative style which generally serves to alienate rather than inform or enlighten.

[Eiger]

Obviously, one cannot be convinced of anything if they are unwilling to learn. If I mention philosophers and their texts, it is to offer people a chance to read them. I believe they have lots to teach us. So, the ownice is really on my readers to choose wether they want to learn or not. A good example is BhsCrew. He's been at me since the abortion thread, but he did indicate he wanted to learn, and has agreed to read the texts. Where he goes from there is his business.

As far as "pwning" is concerned, this need not have to do with the position of an argument per se (as I have found some atheists to posess more intellectual honesty than some christians), it is rather the presentation of argument. I started off in the off topics as mr. gentle, but I have gotten frustrated in the last week or so by idiots. Perhaps I should just stay away from these topics? I'll think it over. Anyway, when I see someone like Eiger, who creates threads and polls on controversial subjects to "keep me busy", and then reveals that he is unwilling to learn (just scroll up, he's very clear), that is what I find troublesome. People like these are those who get pwned, as their only aim on these threads is mental masturbation. And Eiger, if that pisses you off, bring it on. For my part, I am here not only to put in my own 2 cents, but also to take correction when necessary. I don't take alot of it because my detractors either don't care enough about the issue to dig for more material and/or sources, or are simply my junior in terms of education and life experience. You may not like that last statement, but that's the way it goes.

Don't worry, you can't piss me off. Feel free to keep trying.

However, I am most desirous to learn. I just don't agree with some of the things you say. Just don't find the concepts convincing enough to run down to the library and search out the texts. Wasn't convinced in my high school philosophy class or the four quarters I took in college 20+ years ago either.

Seems to me that a requirement of being pwned, is that the person being pwned needs to know they're being pwned. I'm certainly not feeling that way. hehe.

I like your use of "mental masturbation", by the way. One of my favorites.

[Jona]

I really must add this to the discussion [although I don't imagine it will do much to make it less harsh ;-)]:

I'm completely new to these forums, and I can't understand how you manage to be so nice to that AoA fella. Having sifted through the different threads on abortion, faith adherence and this, I can honestly say I have never seen a forum member that has done more to ruin the tone and mood of a discussion. Any forum, any thread. And I've been a regular visitor to Shadowbane's class forums for one year, so this does carry some weight ;-)

After seeing his responses in this thread, I feel I must contribute with a small kudos to people like Eiger, who suffer his bashings and still continue to post in good humour.

[Croo]

Hey, if we send him to hell, we are alamost as worse as he. I know a bunch of much worse men than AoA :uhhuh: Though you have a point.
You know I can see his view on this thing. I just expect it from a much older mind. Like my grandmother :scratch:

Anyway , I'm a sientisct/philosopher or what was it.
And I missed an answer to the Q : "The meaning of life and all?"
It's obviously 42 :thanks:

[Booms]

I disagree. After you take a few classes in English, which I guess you havn't, you learn that there are times when you can personify things, such as positions.
Stop nitpicking. At least when I pick on grammar, its for a reason. His point still holds.

First off, I was asking a question, so its not really the type of thing you would disagree with. I know that you can personify objects in English, but the personification of the position seemed somewhat out of place and just confused the sentence IMO.

I do know that I was nitpicking, I'm actually surprised at myself for not putting that into the sentence. And I didn't say that because I thought he may have grammatically messed up a sentence his point was valid..and I fail to see where I may have implied that in the paragraph pertaining to the grammar.

Besides, your post was completely unnecessary. Andarcel had already answered the question.

[Brasuca-RJ]

Yup, that's what I meant by him not being in touch with reality. He hasn't pwned anyone since his responses typically refer to an application of an obscure philosophical tenet which is rarely properly explained or justified. It's an unconvincing and arrogant argumentative style which generally serves to alienate rather than inform or enlighten.
Some important points, the philosophy in general don´t serve as a basis to argument in favor of religion; most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods; it´s not fair to quote a philosopher but to someone who claims to study them cause everything has a context that must be known before any interpretation. I´m telling this cause I think that AoA "left the feeling" philosophy suports religion, rather than this.

[Croo]

Uh-oh, I suddently have a feeling this room is breeding disagreement...

About nitpicking : I never ask anyone to correct himself until it's understandable, becouse I'm not sure either :) I do know the words and some grammar.That's all :( Yet :king:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yup, that's what I meant by him not being in touch with reality. He hasn't pwned anyone since his responses typically refer to an application of an obscure philosophical tenet which is rarely properly explained or justified. It's an unconvincing and arrogant argumentative style which generally serves to alienate rather than inform or enlighten.

Call it what you will, but in the history of our argumentation, you've just decided to avoid conflicts, rather than meet them head on with credible sources. It seems also to me, if you cared enough about the topic you're airing your opinions on, you would query me for clarification if I were that obscure.

A fine example is the one I cited, about how someone who really isn't all that interested in working his way through these problems would blanket the forums with these threads. Is it all a game to you? For some, it's more than a game. Yet, if you want to keep the convo's light, then I dont mind discussing in the community forums, as over there, one's opinion does have a bearing on reality.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I'm completely new to these forums, and I can't understand how you manage to be so nice to that AoA fella. Having sifted through the different threads on abortion, faith adherence and this, I can honestly say I have never seen a forum member that has done more to ruin the tone and mood of a discussion. Any forum, any thread. And I've been a regular visitor to Shadowbane's class forums for one year, so this does carry some weight ;-)


Well kiddo, it's like this. Any discussion on abortion for instance, be it a light toned discussion, is hardly a discussion - everyone would be on the same side of the fence on such a controversial issue. For those on opposing sides of the debate, the content will ruffle a few feathers. I don't know what forum you came from, but it certainly wasn't eclectic in nature, more like a friends club than anything else. In topics like those, It is my expressed intention to ruin a calm tone when dealing with the murder of the unborn. In the future, you should pay more attention to the subject matter and content of a post, not only the way you feel. If you're unable to do that, find yourself a kiddy forum.

[Jona]

Well kiddo, it's like this. Any discussion on abortion for instance, be it a light toned discussion, is hardly a discussion - everyone would be on the same side of the fence on such a controversial issue. For those on opposing sides of the debate, the content will ruffle a few feathers. I don't know what forum you came from, but it certainly wasn't eclectic in nature, more like a friends club than anything else. In topics like those, It is my expressed intention to ruin a calm tone when dealing with the murder of the unborn. In the future, you should pay more attention to the subject matter and content of a post, not only the way you feel. If you're unable to do that, find yourself a kiddy forum.

Oh, I do not doubt that you do it intentionally. That what appalls me so.

On the subject of my age, or other possible uses for the work kiddo: I shouldn't deign this one with a reply, but I'm afraid too few people in your life has done so. I can see two possible reasons for 'kiddo':

1) The contents of my post has given you the impression that I am of a certain age. If so, all's well and fine. My age is hardly relevant. However, if you choose to place less value on opinions derived from the age of the one who expresses them, I know that I never need to pay even the slightest heed to anything you ever say again. It's one of the basics tenets of philosophical/moral/ethical debate. Hell, it's the basic principle of interpersonal communication. Any attempts to downplay an opinion based on the discourse and context of the opinion is the diametric polar of rational debate.

2) You hope to discredit me. Well, refer to point 1, above.

On eclectics: not at all applicable. Any discussion/debate on subjects of religion and ethical issues is highly personal, and opinions should be credited regardless of they have their roots in a single or multiple sources. And, yes, that includes abortion. In Sweden (m'country), abortion is a human right. This translates as: yey, there might well be many sides in a debate on the subject. And, yey, I have seen two opposed sides make moral headway in this subject, without 'ruffling feathers' or ruining the calm tone, even when one side was a sexual abuse victim who knew well the emotional and social importance of discussing the subject.

On feelings: Yes, I am happy to let my feelings cloud my judgement and my rationality. Their worth as guidance in life exceeds, by far, any creed or moral tenet I've encountered. In the case of you, however, I was just saddened at seeing such a total lack of social co-dependancy and intellectual restraint.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

When it comes to serious business, you'll see that AoA gets in there to the details, and if it means getting a little too serious, he will..
But generally if you see the lighthearted offtopic threads, everythings all cool..
He's a philosopher. He digs deep. Sometimes a little bit rude, but hey, aren't we all now and then? Sure, maybe he pushes it sometimes in your opinion, but either way, he tries to get to a fundamental point. If you check back on some of his stuff, you will see that he can be quite agreeable, most of the conflicts that have occured have been settled.. Anyways, as for the attack on his social habits, you should check out his guild forum. They're all pretty cool in there..
So yeah.. chill :p :)

[Cale The Dark]

I have to admit that AoA has dropped his standards of debate in this thread quite a bit, but i thought he had conducted himself very well in the other threads. I find the people who can discuss topics such as abortion with calmness more reprehensible than any passionate person trying to debate something as hideous and vile as abortion. I despair for the human race every time I hear someone use the words "human rights" and "abortion" in the same sentence unless they are talking about the rights of the slain child. Enough of this though. wrong thread.

[Bartleby]

most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods
Are you just voicing your opinion here? Because based on my 4 semesters worth of studies in philosophy and 4 semesters worth of studies on the concept of religion/spirituality and religions of the world (I went to a Jesuit University, it was a requirement) I know that statement to be false. There have been both areligious philosophers and spiritual/religious philosophers spanning known history though neither was truly more dominant than the other.

And philosophical arguments have always been the preferred method for debating and understanding that which we cannot yet measure.

I'm not trying to go hostile, but that statement appeared to me to be personal opinion posing as fact. If I'm wrong please show me where I can find more information.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

1) The contents of my post has given you the impression that I am of a certain age. If so, all's well and fine. My age is hardly relevant. However, if you choose to place less value on opinions derived from the age of the one who expresses them, I know that I never need to pay even the slightest heed to anything you ever say again. It's one of the basics tenets of philosophical/moral/ethical debate. Hell, it's the basic principle of interpersonal communication. Any attempts to downplay an opinion based on the discourse and context of the opinion is the diametric polar of rational debate.

2) You hope to discredit me. Well, refer to point 1, above.


Well, you botched that one pretty good. "Kiddo" need not be a literal reference for age. I only made use of the term because you post made you look young. Yet, a high council member in my guild is 15, and he shows remarkable command of rhetoric, as well as common sense. In that, he can usually read the full message of my text, which includes subject matter, as well as tone.


On eclectics: not at all applicable. Any discussion/debate on subjects of religion and ethical issues is highly personal, and opinions should be credited regardless of they have their roots in a single or multiple sources. And, yes, that includes abortion. In Sweden (m'country), abortion is a human right. This translates as: yey, there might well be many sides in a debate on the subject. And, yey, I have seen two opposed sides make moral headway in this subject, without 'ruffling feathers' or ruining the calm tone, even when one side was a sexual abuse victim who knew well the emotional and social importance of discussing the subject.


Indeed, we did discuss this once, I think it was with Essex, not sure.. But anyway, the matter at hand was indeed tone. We can discuss in relative calmness to a certain "extent", and once you go beyond that, then things get a bit nasty. My point on the abortion thread was the elimination of abortion. I took a hard line on that issue, and there were those who disagreed. Sometimes, a disagreement with my position included a belief that I was judgemental and arrogant, as you do now. I find that ironic that The "AoA slamming" on this thread got started as a result of my standing up against faith-slamming and persecution of christanity. Don't assume you can just pop in the forum and start kicking me around. I suggest you rethink your position.


On feelings: Yes, I am happy to let my feelings cloud my judgement and my rationality. Their worth as guidance in life exceeds, by far, any creed or moral tenet I've encountered. In the case of you, however, I was just saddened at seeing such a total lack of social co-dependancy and intellectual restraint.

Well, in this case, it would seem that your judgment and rationality was clouded quite a bit.

[Jona]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jona

1) The contents of my post has given you the impression that I am of a certain age. If so, all's well and fine. My age is hardly relevant. However, if you choose to place less value on opinions derived from the age of the one who expresses them, I know that I never need to pay even the slightest heed to anything you ever say again. It's one of the basics tenets of philosophical/moral/ethical debate. Hell, it's the basic principle of interpersonal communication. Any attempts to downplay an opinion based on the discourse and context of the opinion is the diametric polar of rational debate.

2) You hope to discredit me. Well, refer to point 1, above.

Well, you botched that one pretty good. "Kiddo" need not be a literal reference for age. I only made use of the term because you post made you look young. Yet, a high council member in my guild is 15, and he shows remarkable command of rhetoric, as well as common sense. In that, he can usually read the full message of my text, which includes subject matter, as well as tone.

Quote:

On eclectics: not at all applicable. Any discussion/debate on subjects of religion and ethical issues is highly personal, and opinions should be credited regardless of they have their roots in a single or multiple sources. And, yes, that includes abortion. In Sweden (m'country), abortion is a human right. This translates as: yey, there might well be many sides in a debate on the subject. And, yey, I have seen two opposed sides make moral headway in this subject, without 'ruffling feathers' or ruining the calm tone, even when one side was a sexual abuse victim who knew well the emotional and social importance of discussing the subject.

Indeed, we did discuss this once, I think it was with Essex, not sure.. But anyway, the matter at hand was indeed tone. We can discuss in relative calmness to a certain "extent", and once you go beyond that, then things get a bit nasty. My point on the abortion thread was the elimination of abortion. I took a hard line on that issue, and there were those who disagreed. Sometimes, a disagreement with my position included a belief that I was judgemental and arrogant, as you do now. I find that ironic that The "AoA slamming" on this thread got started as a result of my standing up against faith-slamming and persecution of christanity. Don't assume you can just pop in the forum and start kicking me around. I suggest you rethink your position.

Quote:

On feelings: Yes, I am happy to let my feelings cloud my judgement and my rationality. Their worth as guidance in life exceeds, by far, any creed or moral tenet I've encountered. In the case of you, however, I was just saddened at seeing such a total lack of social co-dependancy and intellectual restraint.

Well, in this case, it would seem that your judgment and rationality was clouded quite a bit.


Yes, I see now why now one even bothers to try anymore. I'm quite fond of these forums already, so I'll not risk alienating myself by critizising someone who has been here for a while, regardless of what I think of him.

[Sentinel]

I can honestly say I have never seen a forum member that has done more to ruin the tone and mood of a discussion. Any forum, any thread.

!!!
What about me?!? What I leave for a week or so and no-one remembers me? Bah.

Hey, if we send him to hell, we are alamost as worse as he.

Dont send him to hell!!! I dont want to have to put up with him for all enternity!!!

And I honestly cant see what you lot are arguing about, the test has spoken, Aetheists > Christains.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Bartleby brings up a good point in that the last 1500 years of western philosophical tradition, most proponents of philosophy were associated with theology, or expressed strong belief in christianity - even those who seem to detract from that position, such as Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley, who by their method, rejected the true essence of christianity. Heck, even Kant, to whom I owe alot of my tutelage, walked his students to church every sunday.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hey, if we send him to hell, we are alamost as worse as he. I know a bunch of much worse men than AoA :uhhuh: Though you have a point.
You know I can see his view on this thing. I just expect it from a much older mind. Like my grandmother :scratch:



Here is a fine example of what I was discussing earlier - how a person can be attached with their opinion. Indeed, the position I hold is often seen amongst the older - and usually, wisdom comes with age. You needn't slam my person for the position I hold, which holds more ground than whymsical opinion.

The good thing about Eiger and I is that we do still talk to each other - this wasn't our first major disagreement.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Yes, I see now why now one even bothers to try anymore. I'm quite fond of these forums already, so I'll not risk alienating myself by critizising someone who has been here for a while, regardless of what I think of him.

Well, you've already made yourself out as a fool in your post against me. Yet, the damage can be repaired, and I'm still willing to offer you my hand in friendship if you're up for it. As I hinted at earlier, there is a different culture here than you're used to.

[BhsCrew]

Yes, I see now why now one even bothers to try anymore. I'm quite fond of these forums already, so I'll not risk alienating myself by critizising someone who has been here for a while, regardless of what I think of him.

We usually try to keep the criticisms to a minimum, even though we don't always succeed. On many of these threads we get into discussions in which people feel very strongly one way or another. The debates get heated and some people use more insulting tones then others. Obviously the more open the tone the less people you get angry. The more angry a person is with you the less likely they are to respond to reason, so the harder it is to change their viewpoint.

That being said, it is a free country and most people aren't going to change the tone of their writing regardless of how much it might benefit their case in these debates. If you realize that the tone isn't personal and it isn't meant to degrade you then you're going to have a much easier time here.

Welcome. I hope you like this place. :)

[Sentinel]

Yet, the damage can be repaired, and I'm still willing to offer you my hand in friendship

ROFLMAO

That has to be the most amusing "make up" speech I've heard. Where did you pull that from, the middle ages?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

ROFLMAO

That has to be the most amusing "make up" speech I've heard. Where did you pull that from, the middle ages?

:flip: Kinda hard to shift gears from waging war to speaking in terms of camaraderie.

[BhsCrew]

ROFLMAO

That has to be the most amusing "make up" speech I've heard. Where did you pull that from, the middle ages?

I would've used that quote with someone who was about to die and I was their only chance of life. But that's just me. Mabye if they were holding onto a cliff with one hand. :)

[Jona]

BhsCrew, yer right. Good point. Although I must disagree a tiny bit and say I've never seen a forum where the criticism is harsher (albeit veiled) ,-) I'll try and show my goodwill, by changing my tone, since you said it was rare (though my opinion remains the same).

AoA... no I did not make a fool of myself. In no way, by no means. No, I have no interest in your hand in friendship [I'd sooner take yer hand in marriage :-D]. But yes, I am used to a different culture. A culture of far more civil, and far more reciprocal, and far more humble debate (excluding all the rest of ya).

Sentinel... What waaas I thinking? In mine and Croo's two humble posts, we've managed to insult you not once, but eternally (hell is that, right?)... I'd run straight to the prayer corner and beg for that guy's safe passage to the heavens, to spare you :-D

[Halcyon's Dawning]

i think sentinel meant your choice in words.. not common words in common conversation.. more, philosophical or poetic words..

[Halcyon's Dawning]

BhsCrew, yer right. Good point. Although I must disagree a tiny bit and say I've never seen a forum where the criticism is harsher (albeit veiled) ,-) I'll try and show my goodwill, by changing my tone, since you said it was rare (though my opinion remains the same).

AoA... no I did not make a fool of myself. In no way, by no means. No, I have no interest in your hand in friendship [I'd sooner take yer hand in marriage :-D]. But yes, I am used to a different culture. A culture of far more civil, and far more reciprocal, and far more humble debate (excluding all the rest of ya).

Sentinel... What waaas I thinking? In mine and Croo's two humble posts, we've managed to insult you not once, but eternally (hell is that, right?)... I'd run straight to the prayer corner and beg for that guy's safe passage to the heavens, to spare you :-D
hmm well seems to me you're the one marching in here being uncivil (no offense)
usually everyone manages the debates around here quite well.. arguing over points, not people...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA... no I did not make a fool of myself. In no way, by no means. No, I have no interest in your hand in friendship [I'd sooner take yer hand in marriage :-D]. But yes, I am used to a different culture. A culture of far more civil, and far more reciprocal, and far more humble debate (excluding all the rest of ya).

Sentinel... What waaas I thinking? In mine and Croo's two humble posts, we've managed to insult you not once, but eternally (hell is that, right?)... I'd run straight to the prayer corner and beg for that guy's safe passage to the heavens, to spare you :-D

Jona, I've offered to just put this behind us, and I don't appreciate your blatant insults. Eiger and I were having it out between the two of us. I hardly call character bashing humble posting. I hope we can turn this around.

[BhsCrew]

BhsCrew, yer right. Good point. Although I must disagree a tiny bit and say I've never seen a forum where the criticism is harsher (albeit veiled) ,-) I'll try and show my goodwill, by changing my tone, since you said it was rare (though my opinion remains the same).

AoA... no I did not make a fool of myself. In no way, by no means. No, I have no interest in your hand in friendship [I'd sooner take yer hand in marriage :-D]. But yes, I am used to a different culture. A culture of far more civil, and far more reciprocal, and far more humble debate (excluding all the rest of ya).

Sentinel... What waaas I thinking? In mine and Croo's two humble posts, we've managed to insult you not once, but eternally (hell is that, right?)... I'd run straight to the prayer corner and beg for that guy's safe passage to the heavens, to spare you :-D

I haven't been to any other forums discussing the same issues so I can't say. Frankly any debates I've had about religion or social issues with a group this large make the ones here look tame. At least here I'm not in the room with people so they can't just raise their voice louder and louder until the other side can't be heard.

I would make your tone as humble as possible, regardless of what everyone else does. As I've said before it's just good politics. Simply put I would cut out the personal insults because regardless of what you thought we try to keep personal insults out of this.

[Jona]

I've read your replies. Point taken, in some cases. In others, I stand by what I have said before. But you are right about one thing. Let's all (yep, includes me) try to be more humble, and let's point this thread back to where it began. Is that a satisfactory solution?

[BhsCrew]

I've read your replies. Point taken, in some cases. In others, I stand by what I have said before. But you are right about one thing. Let's all (yep, includes me) try to be more humble, and let's point this thread back to where it began. Is that a satisfactory solution?

As someone who was not insulted in any way in this entire exchange I can say YES I do think this is a satisfactory solution. So Jona what did you get on this quiz?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I've read your replies. Point taken, in some cases. In others, I stand by what I have said before. But you are right about one thing. Let's all (yep, includes me) try to be more humble, and let's point this thread back to where it began. Is that a satisfactory solution?

Sure, I'm willing to start over. Only, let's make it clear about forum culture on debates. Humility is not to be understood as a "humble tone". Rather, humility has to do with one's text. Eiger and I have already patched things up - as is the norm with us. Bhs and I were slugging it out a few days back, and now we're cool. The same thing can be said with Essex and a few others. I like all these people. However, if there's a contentious issue at stake, I'll hammer away. Passionate debate is a good thing - because we know we are arguing from the heart. It's understood, as Bhs and Halcyon pointed out, that this is not about person bashing, but it can be about opinion bashing. To merge the two is the anthesis of humility. If everyone agreed, nobody would learn anything new.

Being humble in posts is about seeking the "truth" of a given matter, not just agreeing to disagree - though that is an option if we've done our best to find the best side of the argument. I'll tell you one thing - RPGforums is the most mature, informative forum I've ever been on. Everyone here has something to say, even the jokers. So, if you can agree with that, I'd like to welcome you here. If not, than you'll likely find yourself steering away from our heavy discussions.

[Jona]

Bhs, I got the non-caring, whatever aspect of the test. Can't quite remember the name of it. Feel like I should do it again, though [remember someone saying the first result in an internet test is always representative. That does not bode well for my 'kinky doctor' result from the Angels Sanctuary anime test :-D]. If I'm supposed to be the enemy of a faith, I'd rather not be the non-caring kind :-D

[BhsCrew]

Bhs, I got the non-caring, whatever aspect of the test. Can't quite remember the name of it. Feel like I should do it again, though [remember someone saying the first result in an internet test is always representative. That does not bode well for my 'kinky doctor' result from the Angels Sanctuary anime test :-D]. If I'm supposed to be the enemy of a faith, I'd rather not be the non-caring kind :-D

Taking the quiz twice after you know the results defeats the whole purpose of the quiz. Whatever you got is the answer. Hehehe. :)

[xuNvaUnTeD_wArDeNx]

*Puts on flame-retardant suit, noticing there is a supreme lack of Christians*


Eh, couldn't post image. anyway, i am a proud Christan. So sue me.


SMITE ME O HERETICS AND ATHEISTS!!! SMITE ME!!!!!!!!!!!

(that last bit was unnesecary. sorry. take no offense.)

[FireArc]

Ok, I am annoyed. I can’t help it. You guys have probably noticed that I haven’t been posting very much recently and I have two reasons. The first is city of heroes but the second (and relevant one) is that I was tired of having pointless debates. I know myself and I can’t help but post my opinions on a variety of topics so in general I have stayed away. But this just annoys the crap out of me…

1) Christian beliefs, literature and web content are far more abusive and confrontational to atheists then any atheist is to Christians. Period. You want us to stop poking fun? Want us to stop referring to the holes in your faith? How about we also stop laughing at you for what we believe is a weakness of character that makes you cling onto a spectre where we accept and judge what we see based on what is measurable only? We will do all of that for you I swear if you will do one little thing for us. You have to stop being a hypocrite.

Want to know how? If you want us to stop making fun of you have to stop saying we are going to hell. It’s the exact same thing. Your belief structure insists that the unbelievers will go to hell. Ours suggest your stupid for believing in god. And, I don’t know why, But somehow I think your side is worse. So you go out there and start campaigning to rewrite the bible, and take down nearly every Christian website and shut down Christian T.V. and when you start doing that I will agree that this quiz is wrong. You show us respect (and no matter how nice you are about it you cant say we are going to hell and respect us) and we will show you the same. Until then we will continue to make fun of you (mostly in a light hearted manner) because making fun of someone’s religion is a hell of a lot better then insisting they will writhe in torture forever. Get a clue.

2) You have never owned anybody. Period. You yourself said you give resources so that people who want to learn (how wrong they are) can. Good for you. I like this idea. Let just send all of our bombs to iraq in pieces. They can assemble them and blow themselves up. But we still get credit.

3) Your attacks on Eiger are ridiculous and short sited. You insult him for creating threads then giving them minimal attention afterward. But, by posting in his threads you validate them and confirm their usefulness. You claim he start arguments because he is bored but it is other who take the arguments beyond. That includes you. Until you stop aiding Eiger in his “Mental masturbation” (eww…..) you need to also stop criticizing the creation of such threads.

4) Every post you have made thus far has been arrogant and self absorbed. Yes, we get it. You are smart. Yes, we also know you read a lot of obscure books (which you drop into conversations at any oppertunity). We get it. But there is a difference between talking to a person and talking above them. If you were even the slightest bit interested in changing a persons opinion you would spend three seconds considering the audience before you posted. Why don’t you? Because you don’t want to change someone’s opinion, you want to destroy it and crush them in the process.

5) My disclaimer: I was harsh towards Christianity in many of my points above but do not take undue offence toward it if you can help it (this is for everyone). I was using such harsh language and opinions to prove a point, nothing more. They do not necessarily reflect my beliefs. I do not believe in god and I do honestly believe that any faith in a higher being is futile. But, that does not mean I do not respect your faith and recognize it as a strong point in your favor. I agree with most Christian moral laws as well. I understand we all have different beliefs (even atheism is the belief in nothing) and I have always tried to respect other peoples. But until you give atheists ever bit of respect they deserve (a near impossibility in your belief structure) just bite the bit and keep quiet when we poke fun. Even mocking you is nicer then claiming you’ll be tortured for all eternity… :lol:

And have a great day!!!

[Sentinel]

SMITE ME O HERETICS AND ATHEISTS!!! SMITE ME!!!!!!!!!!!

*begins his warmup, aims the smite, FIRES!!!*

*watches the smite fly past warden*

Damn, sorry AOA. :p

[AgeOfAbnegation]

My goal was not to make enemies. I suppose I'm used to discussing these topics with others who would not see my ramblings as offensive - they'd give as good as they got. It's been a stressful week, and that certainly contributes to that as well. Just when I thought it was getting resolved, here I get smucked in the face. Well, I'm not going to fight with you guys anymore on this. You're right in that my "pwn" statements were out of line, and I apologize. Yet, dont put my character on trial as being one of malicious or egotistical intent, nor criticize what knowledge I have accumulated. That's all I will say about that, and my time here is finished. :bow:

[BhsCrew]

My goal was not to make enemies. I suppose I'm used to discussing these topics with others who would not see my ramblings as offensive - they'd give as good as they got. It's been a stressful week, and that certainly contributes to that as well. Just when I thought it was getting resolved, here I get smucked in the face. Well, I'm not going to fight with you guys anymore on this. You're right in that my "pwn" statements were out of line, and I apologize. Yet, dont put my character on trial as being one of malicious or egotistical intent, nor criticize what knowledge I have accumulated. That's all I will say about that, and my time here is finished. :bow:

Ok he apologized. Leave the man alone. As I've said before just assume every time that he gets out of line that he's had a bad week. He's good most of the time. And he's said before that he doesn't mean anything as a personal attack.

He apologized. Hehehehe. :) Ok I won't rub it in anymore. Hehehe.
AoA you'd be such a great debater if you could just watch that tone. Oh well.

[Brasuca-RJ]

I'm not trying to go hostile, but that statement appeared to me to be personal opinion posing as fact. If I'm wrong please show me where I can find more information.
As an introdution; we first should remember the Saint Inquisition, but even after that there were plenty of history you can find out of similar behaviour; if you need some tutorial around I think I can get a spare time later.
Second, that a man can say what he believes even if it´s against the "church" it´s a very contemporan conception. But still we see reporters and other people that express their opinion to other have their right to speech denied one way or another.
But then, something more concret; when a person dedicate time to study god we say it´s theology. Well, of those quoted here how many were theologists? Some talk about god, but it wasn´t a religious one, but more like god be, we don´t. Meaning we can´t predicate him cause then we couldn´t call him god anymore (plato - parmenides). There are other views of god, but not the type we see in churchs. So, these men could have believed in something they couldn´t talk about with rigor? Instead they construct their ideas without the auxilium of any god; talking about moral, laws, politics, aesthetics and logic.
This way, about their private lives what can we say for sure without examing the context, the culture and the restrictions were imposed over them? Now, their work is alive, at least a good part of them, to the present days and we can try make a psicological analisis of their contents; but thats so difficult, indeed some scholars will try.
I´m not planning writing an essay here in this post, so I´ll stop now. But be sure I´m not "talking just for saying"... and also am not the owner of the truth as some coleges seems to believe they are. Perhaps the context of your degree clouded your mind for a more extensive perspective of the things.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Acutally, I think I'll stick around a little longer. Let's see if we can restart this debate, but with a reasonable tone. My apology for the apocalyptic tone earlier still stands. I've taken the time to cool off, so now let's debate this issue as it was meant to be treated. Firearc - let's play :buddies:


1) Christian beliefs, literature and web content are far more abusive and confrontational to atheists then any atheist is to Christians. Period.


Why?


You want us to stop poking fun? Want us to stop referring to the holes in your faith?


Please list these holes.


How about we also stop laughing at you for what we believe is a weakness of character that makes you cling onto a spectre where we accept and judge what we see based on what is measurable only?


If Christianity is my crutch, what is yours? You cling to rocks, lakes, and trees, and I cling to their creator.


We will do all of that for you I swear if you will do one little thing for us. You have to stop being a hypocrite.


I want to be told my beliefs are foolish. Then I get to ask you why that is. I think your position is foolish, and you think mine is. Let's be honest. In this way, we may discover a few things. How's that?


Want to know how? If you want us to stop making fun of you have to stop saying we are going to hell.


"I" have never told anyone they were going to hell - not in all my life. I'm sure however you have heard it from others. In accord with scripture, I have no right or ability to call that shot.


It’s the exact same thing. Your belief structure insists that the unbelievers will go to hell.


Here is a term we can define further through our subsequent debate (if of course, you're inclined to continue). Christianity does not say that those who have no knowledge of Christ are consigned to spend eternity apart from him. Rather, it is only those who have had a clear opportunity, and have rejected.


Ours suggest your stupid for believing in god. And, I don’t know why, But somehow I think your side is worse.


Yes you do know why, and you've stated it above.


So you go out there and start campaigning to rewrite the bible, and take down nearly every Christian website and shut down Christian T.V. and when you start doing that I will agree that this quiz is wrong.


In truth, christianity is belief in "something", while atheism is simply the negation of that belief. What doctrine is there to tear down in atheism? I can't tear down a void.


You show us respect (and no matter how nice you are about it you cant say we are going to hell and respect us) and we will show you the same. Until then we will continue to make fun of you (mostly in a light hearted manner) because making fun of someone’s religion is a hell of a lot better then insisting they will writhe in torture forever. Get a clue.


Again, never insisted you were going to hell. I actually thoght the test amusing and witty, but I also believe it's tenets and direction to be false. But this kind of material has caused less educated and/or mature christians leave the "lord's side", and that as such has saddened me.


2) You have never owned anybody. Period. You yourself said you give resources so that people who want to learn (how wrong they are) can. Good for you. I like this idea. Let just send all of our bombs to iraq in pieces. They can assemble them and blow themselves up. But we still get credit.


As noted earlier, I do apologize for that out of line comment, and any time I have used that tone on these forums.


3) Your attacks on Eiger are ridiculous and short sited. You insult him for creating threads then giving them minimal attention afterward.


I was curious only to his motive for creating them. And poked fun at what I thought to be an inconsistency of an prolific poster getting the "nothing", or "whatever" test result. Eiger and I have a history of debating. I do like you Eiger, BTW :).


But, by posting in his threads you validate them and confirm their usefulness.


They are indeed very useful. Refer to above.


You claim he start arguments because he is bored but it is other who take the arguments beyond.


Never stated anything of the sort. I mentioned "as a game", but he'd never strike me as someone who is easily bored.


That includes you. Until you stop aiding Eiger in his “Mental masturbation” (eww…..) you need to also stop criticizing the creation of such threads.


Again, refer to above.


4) Every post you have made thus far has been arrogant and self absorbed.


hmm.. EVERY post. What am I up to now.. 507 I believe (I cant see the ticker in the reply area). You may be referring to the fact that I sound very "sure" in my posts, even if they are not laced with sarcasm, or a high tone. I'm afraid I can do little to change your outlook at this particular moment in time, but if we continue to debate or talk in the future, you may start to believe otherwise. BTW, thanks to those who corrected me on the tonality issue.


Yes, we get it. You are smart. Yes, we also know you read a lot of obscure books (which you drop into conversations at any oppertunity). We get it.


Um.. You don't get it. I suppose to those who do not read texts of philosophy, most any text would seem obscure. One of the texts I mention alot, Kant's "critique of pure reason", is one of the widely recognized and read texts in philosophy. I'm sure you may have heard of it in your travels.


But there is a difference between talking to a person and talking above them.


You're right. I should take more time being clear with my posts, as I endeavor to do now.


If you were even the slightest bit interested in changing a persons opinion you would spend three seconds considering the audience before you posted.


As far as changing opinions go, I dont believe that anyone could be talked into christianity - as someone else would likey talk them out of it. My main thrust in the off topics were to attempt to emphaise intellectual consistency. Admittedly, I have been inconsistent in the past week, but I do not come to prosletyse. I know most of my readers here would throw out a gospel sermon as they would yesterday's sportspage, so I approach on a common ground - matters of reason and the intellect. I do indeed consider my audience.


Why don’t you? Because you don’t want to change someone’s opinion, you want to destroy it and crush them in the process.


refer to above. You have little grounds to assume my intent.


5) My disclaimer: I was harsh towards Christianity in many of my points above but do not take undue offence toward it if you can help it (this is for everyone). I was using such harsh language and opinions to prove a point, nothing more. They do not necessarily reflect my beliefs.


Sure they do. But that's ok, becuase from here on out, we're being honest. While the harsh language you used need not be representative of your beliefs, it is well established by now that you believe christianity is futile, and that's ok. As we cleared up before, I believe atheism is futile. That's why we're here discussing it.


I do not believe in god and I do honestly believe that any faith in a higher being is futile. But, that does not mean I do not respect your faith and recognize it as a strong point in your favor.


I fail to see the consistency between your two sentances. How could something futile count as a strong point in another's favor? Unless of course that person was "weak", and could use a crutch like faith to help them out. But then again, I won't assume that's what you meant.


I agree with most Christian moral laws as well. I understand we all have different beliefs (even atheism is the belief in nothing) and I have always tried to respect other peoples.


To mature christians, being respected by atheists who see our religion as good because it's greatest virtue is simply "valuable moral norms and guidelines", is disrespect. The disrespect comes in with the rejection of its higest tenets, which is the belief in Jesus as "savior of the world", and its other spiritual tenets and doctrines. As such, it is impossible for an atheist to truly "respect" christianity. They would have to become believers to do so. That being said, they may have a respectful attitude, that could be characterized in the phrase "to each their own", but in truth, that is not respect of the faith per se, but an attitude that is removed from direct confrontation of the tenets of the faith, which demand a strong response.


But until you give atheists ever bit of respect they deserve (a near impossibility in your belief structure) just bite the bit and keep quiet when we poke fun. Even mocking you is nicer then claiming you’ll be tortured for all eternity…


Again, never claimed any of that. Thanks for the post firearc, I've always believed good things happen we people are honest. So, here I am, not being quiet. Let's take this as far as we can. The ball is in your court. ttyl.

[Andarcel]

How about we also stop laughing at you for what we believe is a weakness of character that makes you cling onto a spectre
But, that does not mean I do not respect your faith and recognize it as a strong point in your favor.
Ours suggest your stupid for believing in god.
I understand we all have different beliefs (even atheism is the belief in nothing) and I have always tried to respect other peoples.
Which makes it so very ironic when you say
You have to stop being a hypocrite.

You don't get to launch a tirade of that nature and then weasel out with a "disclaimer" that flatly contradicts what you've just said. You don't get to froth at the mouth and then pretend to be tolerant. As I see it, the first part of the post is you genuine feeling; the second is your grudging acknowledgement of the social requirement to express "respect," no matter how absurd in light of your earlier derision. I find myself less than soothed. I also find your inability to actually manifest any of these "holes" you fling about rather a mark against you.

I for one, far from wanting you to stop, cowering in fear as you effortlessly dismantle my beliefs, actually am waiting for you to start mounting even a paltry argument. Go ahead. Field's open.

[Brasuca-RJ]

I for one, far from wanting you to stop, cowering in fear as you effortlessly dismantle my beliefs, actually am waiting for you to start mounting even a paltry argument. Go ahead. Field's open.
There is no argument with religion. If I point out some "holes" in bible you invent something to cover it someway or another; for exemple Gen I e II that have already been discussed another thread sometime ago. If someone read the books of the bible criteriously will find some apparent incongruences. Anyway, doesn´t matter because who believes will find out someway to remedy the situation even if it requires reference to other also questionable sources. So, there is no discussion, there is?
For standart, it´s impossible to prove that anything doesn´t exist. Even if you haven´t seen, nobody saw, perhaps it´s just hidden or it´s invisible(?); you got the picture? We can´t be certain that anything really doesn´t exist. For extension you could argue that we can´t prove that something DO exist. But that´s much more complicated in the moment that thing have been experienced by the senses; one could argue it doesn´t exist in the way we perceive it, but for sure the other can claim it have some kind of existence.
This is the main reason I think there is no real dialog between someone who have faith on the imaterial and those who only acepts what can be experienced, and shared by anyone, no matter if they believe in it or not.
If someone can see a way to start a dialog it would amuses me; and really I´m willing to.

[Andarcel]

The burden of proof is on believers generally, I agree. But FireArc has made his claims, and now it's up to him to substantiate them. I should also point out that if he can make us retreat God to the point that there's no impact on the universe, he will also have won. If he can make us reform God so as not to have any sensory consequences, I will happily concede. If the playing field is steep, well, he spent his post busily slanting it against himself. Now he has to live with his bravado.

But I should mention that you do not believe only in what can be "shared and experienced by anyone." You believe, for example, in electrons, because speculative reason makes them the most likely possible explanation for an observed phenomenon. I believe God the simplest explanation for the universe.

(If I use the word "faith," by the way, I mean only in the sense of the faith between persons. Thus, if I talk about faith in God I mean trust in God's will, not existence.)

[Brasuca-RJ]

But I should mention that you do not believe only in what can be "shared and experienced by anyone." You believe, for example, in electrons, because speculative reason makes them the most likely possible explanation for an observed phenomenon. I believe God the simplest explanation for the universe.

(If I use the word "faith," by the way, I mean only in the sense of the faith between persons. Thus, if I talk about faith in God I mean trust in God's will, not existence.) If your belief in God is as strong as the John Doe about electrons we could think into what extents are you a religious man at all. So you don´t strongly believe in God? I´m confused...

EDIT: (just adding) The kind of belief that an average person(john doe) has about electrons is very light and he won´t defend it strongly if presented with another view of the world. If the kind of belief you have in God is similar to mr. Doe don´t you think that the tenets of your faith are questionable? It´s all about statistics? It seems more probable to you so you stick with it, but if you see something better you can change? Perceived the reason I got confused? Perhaps if you explain better...

[Andarcel]

If your belief in God is as strong as the John Doe about electrons we could think into what extents are you a religious man at all. So you don´t strongly believe in God? I´m confused...
Not nearly as confused as I am after reading that. I get the vague impression that you see a contradiction, but I have no idea in what. Please kindly untangle your grammar enough for me to figure out what you mean. And an explanation of "John Doe" would be nice as well.

[Qbob]

Well, I hate to do it, but I'm going to hijack this thread and fly it into the ground. :evil:

I am a jelly doughnut! Bow down before the doughnut! :surprise:

Now I just turned this into a political thread. :lol:

[Valamyr]

Excellent thread. Loved that link.

The Ageofabnegation posts were absolutely hilarous. Persecuted. Oh man, priceless. :)

If there was a God, it should be a vengeful indian diety who has something to say about persecution. ;)

Maybe we'll create that one too, one of these days.

[FireArc]

I refuse to get into a religous debate again so instead of arguing I am simply going to try to explain what I meant. Hopefully that will be enough.

I meant most of what I said in the tirade above. By disclamer at the end was not design to negate what I had said but to put its tone (not content) in place. For instance, in my tirade I often refer to christianity as stupid and this is not the case. Nor do I find christians themselves to be stupid. The tone was used to make the point. The opinions expressed where generally true in my eyes.

The only opinion I want to elaborate on is my reference to using religeon as a crutch. I am torn on this issue in many ways. First, I do see many aspects of religeon as using something bigger then yourself to bolster and improve your life. Because I think this bigger thing is imaginary I see such dependance as self delusion. But, on the other side, I do admit it takes a certain amount of courage and personal strength to dedicate yourself in the ways many christians do. So, I suppose in my opinion the two balance each other out. I simply chose to only present one side of the argument for the sake of flow (and to strengthen my side)

For the rest I refuse to get pulled into a debate about religeon. That was never my intention. Yes, religeon was the backdrop but the purpose was to discredit the statement made my AoA, not to debate religeon. I am sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Let us just say that each of our own beliefs has its holes that as of now can not be fully explained. For you it's revolves around things like evolution and fossil records for me it goes back much farther to original life (and how life came from nothing... no one still has a clue really...). That is why it's faith and not fact.

[Bartleby]

and also am not the owner of the truth as some coleges seems to believe they are. Perhaps the context of your degree clouded your mind for a more extensive perspective of the things.
This wasn't a veiled personal insult was it? If so, it's not necessary.

We seem to have differing beliefs about one thing (correct me if I miss understand):
You believe philosophers are philosophers and theologists are theologists. It is my ascertion that all theologists are philosphers, but not all philosphers are theologists.

Hard Sciences (like physics) are about two things, fact finding and theory (postulating hypothesis'). Philosophy is only different in that the facts can't necessarily be "found" and that the hypothesis are proved "true" as their base assumptions and flow are proved "true".

Theologists are therefore philosopher's who focus on trying to understand spirituality and the metaphysical; whether their arguments work or not is irrelevant.

Also, griping about things like the crusades, or the inquisition, or any other atrocities commited in the name of one religion or another is irrelevant to whether or not theologians are philosphers. The above is better used as a reference to the problem with not seperating church and state.

I think I covered what you were talking about but I didn't want to go quoting the whole thing... my eyes strain when I see huge posts.

[Bartleby]

And a side note:

Enough with the claims that if you don't follow the bible exactly as it's written then you're not a "true" christian. That's just ignorant.

The bible has many versions of itself and it's chapters; which means it's up for interpretation.

Like the constitution, the bible is a social contract (for lack of a better word) and is constantly studied, interpreted and reevaluated. That is why there's so many denominations of every major religion out there. They are living texts and therefor evolving with time to remain relevant.

A written text is just the author's attempt at clarifying and explaining the religion as they understand it. That helps further the ethical and moral codes therein by spurring debate, which forces those ideas to evolve.

[Cale The Dark]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing when people who profess that they deeply DO NOT believe in a heaven or hell are so horribly offended by beliefs that say they are going there? I mean, you don't think it's real so why do you even care? It just blows my mind. I have never in my life told someone flat out that they are going to hell. I have told people to go to hell, and I have told people I think that they SHOULD end up in hell, but I am not god and I cannot say what he will decide to do whith people.

Firearc, if you aren't going to be happy until the christian faith somehow degrades itself to fit your standards of "tolerance" (by which you actually mean "acceptance") or Political Correctness where everyone gets along and the birds don't crap on our cars, you are going to be waiting for a long long time.

I don't personally believe that being an aethiest means you go to hell, but thats just me.

[Bartleby]

Oh and by "evolve" [at the end of my last post] I'm referring to the refining of an idea/theory/belief which improves the collective understanding of said idea/theory/belief.

Also the reference to the constitution was a reference to the US Constitution, however the same is true of every other countries' constitutions of which I'm aware.

[Andarcel]

I refuse to get into a religous debate again so instead of arguing I am simply going to try to explain what I meant. Hopefully that will be enough.

I meant most of what I said in the tirade above. By disclamer at the end was not design to negate what I had said but to put its tone (not content) in place. For instance, in my tirade I often refer to christianity as stupid and this is not the case. Nor do I find christians themselves to be stupid. The tone was used to make the point. The opinions expressed where generally true in my eyes.

The only opinion I want to elaborate on is my reference to using religeon as a crutch. I am torn on this issue in many ways. First, I do see many aspects of religeon as using something bigger then yourself to bolster and improve your life. Because I think this bigger thing is imaginary I see such dependance as self delusion. But, on the other side, I do admit it takes a certain amount of courage and personal strength to dedicate yourself in the ways many christians do. So, I suppose in my opinion the two balance each other out. I simply chose to only present one side of the argument for the sake of flow (and to strengthen my side)

For the rest I refuse to get pulled into a debate about religeon. That was never my intention. Yes, religeon was the backdrop but the purpose was to discredit the statement made my AoA, not to debate religeon. I am sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Let us just say that each of our own beliefs has its holes that as of now can not be fully explained. For you it's revolves around things like evolution and fossil records for me it goes back much farther to original life (and how life came from nothing... no one still has a clue really...). That is why it's faith and not fact.
FireArc, you're arguing with a phantom in your own mind, one which apparently practices rigid fundamentalism and believes you're going to hell. Sorry, but evolution and the fossil record are not problems for me. But your arrogant assumptions and total ignorance of the mainstream theology of Christianity do not surprise me. I can only imagine your expression when you find out that evolution is part of the mainstream curriculum of Catholic schools.

It appears that you find it perfectly acceptable to adopt stances one moment for the sake of lambasting a person you personally dislike, and then abandon them when they're no longer convenient. Religion is a crutch when it serves your purpose, and then a mark in one's favor when you no longer want to be offensive. In essence you create a series of stances in one post for the sake of assaulting a single person, and then expect to be able to blow them all off by sophistry. Saying religious people are stupid IS content, not tone. It's an opinion, one of those opinions you say ytou think were true. So which is it? Were you telling the truth then, or now?

You're dishonest and apparently find no problem with it. I look forward to seeing how you reinvent yourself in the next post.

[Brasuca-RJ]

The bible has many versions of itself and it's chapters; which means it's up for interpretation.

Like the constitution, the bible is a social contract (for lack of a better word) and is constantly studied, interpreted and reevaluated. That is why there's so many denominations of every major religion out there. They are living texts and therefor evolving with time to remain relevant.

A written text is just the author's attempt at clarifying and explaining the religion as they understand it. That helps further the ethical and moral codes therein by spurring debate, which forces those ideas to evolve. Well, if that´s your view of the bible so there is no discussion in this specific subject, although you could have some with some religious people who see it different. What I question is who can´t accept that there is a possibility that it´s not the direct words of God, line by line.

About direct attacks I´m really sorry if you feel so but I just raise a question/doubt, perhaps... personal attacks apart you questioned my knowledge because the differences in our views and I presented you with a possible reason. Before choose an university to take my degrees I did some research cause I wanted a not dogmatic one; the one I chose there were priests, atheists, jews all them with their own personal beliefs but with the main concern to study and discuss philosophy. And trying not to compare, but you took 4 semesters of philosophy, where I had 4 years, and perhaps, just perhaps, that gave me a more wide view of the things.

And the distinction between theologists and philosophers, I was asking why most of the philosophers didn´t write theology treatises but instead written entire works without any need of god to justify anything, this was the big question but you seem you´ve lost the perspective and saw personal attacks anywhere someone simply disagreed with you.

Over the presentation of historical traits like inquisition and the questioning explained above about the reason most of the philosophers haven´t writen theologys despite the power of the church in their time all that summed up in an attempt to answer your previous post; to know:

I said:"...most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods"

You answared: "Are you just voicing your opinion here? Because based on my 4 semesters worth of studies in philosophy and 4 semesters worth of studies on the concept of religion/spirituality and religions of the world (I went to a Jesuit University, it was a requirement) I KNOW that statement to be false."

[Brasuca-RJ]

...when you find out that evolution is part of the mainstream curriculum of Catholic schools. First an amend to what you´ve said; as far as I know the EUA are an exception in teaching evolution at school, even in catholic schools. Yes, I was in one big part of my life, and my jr. brother now is one, and also, Brasil is considered the biggest catholic country in the world.

Now, about the previous post I think you missed my answer cause I just edited the original post instead of creating a new one, but here it is...

If your belief in God is as strong as the John Doe about electrons we could think into what extents are you a religious man at all. So you don´t strongly believe in God? I´m confused...

EDIT: (just adding) The kind of belief that an average person(john doe) has about electrons is very light and he won´t defend it strongly if presented with another view of the world. If the kind of belief you have in God is similar to mr. Doe don´t you think that the tenets of your faith are questionable? It´s all about statistics? It seems more probable to you so you stick with it, but if you see something better you can change? Perceived the reason I got confused? Perhaps if you explain better...

[Andarcel]

1) All my beliefs are revisable

2) I made it quite obvious that I was talking directly to you, not John Doe. I don't know where you came up with the idea of some generic idiot as the object of my address. If you believe only loosely in electrons, then you are an idiot, and I apologize for overestimating your intelligence

3) I demonstrated a qualitative not quantitative connection between belief in God and belief in electrons. At no time did I so much as vaguely imply that the two are of the same degree.

[Brasuca-RJ]

1) All my beliefs are revisable

2) I made it quite obvious that I was talking directly to you, not John Doe. I don't know where you came up with the idea of some generic idiot as the object of my address. If you believe only loosely in electrons, then you are an idiot, and I apologize for overestimating your intelligence

3) I demonstrated a qualitative not quantitative connection between belief in God and belief in electrons. At no time did I so much as vaguely imply that the two are of the same degree.
I could say the same about someone who strongly believe in electrons as someone who have studied physics know that it´s just a theory. Perhaps it´s "contamination" of your fundamentalist way of viewing things. Wait, but that you said all your beliefs are revisable. That seems a contradiction, cause if what you said is true in (1) then you shouldn´t really think (2) as you would know it´s just a theory. Perhaps you are overestimating yourself intelligence? (just a question, no pun intend)

(3) Qualitative, quantitative, comparing your belief in God to Electrons is ok for me; I do that all the time and not only about these subjects. It´s not a classical religious guy faith, but who cares? Not me. For me you can believe in god, fairys, santa claus, it´s your business.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

G'Day FireArc, how's it hangin'? Let's see what you've written today..

I refuse to get into a religous debate again so instead of arguing I am simply going to try to explain what I meant. Hopefully that will be enough.


You sounded pretty sure you knew what you were talking about yesterday, as emphasized by your point form text and the strong tone.


I meant most of what I said in the tirade above.


Most?



By disclamer at the end was not design to negate what I had said but to put its tone (not content) in place.


Tone does not deride content of its meaning in a written text.


For instance, in my tirade I often refer to christianity as stupid and this is not the case.


Oh.. you've "got religion" all of a sudden? Why is it "not stupid" from an atheist's perspective. Stop backpedaling.


Nor do I find christians themselves to be stupid. The tone was used to make the point. The opinions expressed where generally true in my eyes.


I would say you made your point in the text clear, regardless of tone.


The only opinion I want to elaborate on is my reference to using religeon as a crutch. I am torn on this issue in many ways. First, I do see many aspects of religeon as using something bigger then yourself to bolster and improve your life. Because I think this bigger thing is imaginary I see such dependance as self delusion.


Religion, at least christianity, is not a "tool" to be used to set one's life in order. Rather, it is us, who would be "swept up" into an alreadly present reality, that is given symbolic form in religion. You have an opportunity to learn here, don't pass it up.


But, on the other side, I do admit it takes a certain amount of courage and personal strength to dedicate yourself in the ways many christians do.


Decide what? That my opinion has a bearing on reality?


So, I suppose in my opinion the two balance each other out. I simply chose to only present one side of the argument for the sake of flow (and to strengthen my side)


What side is your side? What is atheism but a negation?


For the rest I refuse to get pulled into a debate about religeon. That was never my intention.


In that case, you should think next time before posting.


Yes, religeon was the backdrop but the purpose was to discredit the statement made my AoA, not to debate religeon. I am sorry if it seemed otherwise.


You hardly discredited me, and that was demonstrated for you in my last reply to you. I had made my apologies for my last week's postings, and was ready to move on. You've kicked a sleeping bull-dog, with a vise-like jaw. That wasn't wise.


Let us just say that each of our own beliefs has its holes that as of now can not be fully explained.


You can speak for yourself. I can't see any holes in christianity, but I'm glad that the void of atheism is starting to catch on in your case.


For you it's revolves around things like evolution and fossil records for me it goes back much farther to original life (and how life came from nothing... no one still has a clue really...). That is why it's faith and not fact.

As Andarcel so incisively put it, there really is no problematic to be found with evolution or fossil records and the like. And the point you cling to is one of the oldest issues in philosophy. I'll read from some texts adressing the "ex niliho" argument if you like. There are answers, if you want them. So, sorry FireArc, but you're inexorably locked in this debate as long as you hold that view. You can continue it with us, or simply walk away, but I'm not going anywhere.

[Andarcel]

I could say the same about someone who strongly believe in electrons as someone who have studied physics know that it´s just a theory. Perhaps it´s "contamination" of your fundamentalist way of viewing things. Wait, but that you said all your beliefs are revisable. That seems a contradiction, cause if what you said is true in (1) then you shouldn´t really think (2) as you would know it´s just a theory. Perhaps you are overestimating yourself intelligence? (just a question, no pun intend)

(3) Qualitative, quantitative, comparing your belief in God to Electrons is ok for me; I do that all the time and not only about these subjects. It´s not a classical religious guy faith, but who cares? Not me. For me you can believe in god, fairys, santa claus, it´s your business.
You're right, if only I studied physics... Oh, wait, that's my major. But please, tell me all about it.

All we know of reality is theory and guesswork. Saying the electron is "just a theory" therefore means absolutely nothing. As you would know if you spent five consecutive seconds thinking about it. So, if in fact you believe only loosely in electrons, I will deride with the same fervor I apply to someone who does not believe in heliocentrism. Here I go now: what a fool you are! Do you have any notion how large the body of evidence for the electron is? How meaningless it is in practical terms to say "well, it could be wrong?" So could everything and anything. That's why my beliefs are revisable. You appear to interpret that as some sort of weakness, or possibly dogmatism (it's really quite comical watching you accuse me of both). In fact, it's the only honest position on any subject.

[Bartleby]

Well, if that´s your view of the bible so there is no discussion in this specific subject, although you could have some with some religious people who see it different. What I question is who can´t accept that there is a possibility that it´s not the direct words of God, line by line.
Fair enough, but I'm obviously not that person.

About direct attacks I´m really sorry if you feel so but I just rise a question/doubt
It's all about the tone and the use, that's why I asked.

Before choose an university to take my degrees I did some research cause I wanted a not dogmatic one; the one I choose there were priests, atheists, jews all them with their own personal beliefs but that main concern inside there was to study and discuss philosophy.
Please don't mistake the fact that I graduated from a religious university with my reason for attending that university. I went to a state school for an engineering major and later chose accounting as my final degree. Neither my choice of degree nor my choice of school had anything to do with religion, instead having everything to do with finding the best possible educators. Also it's important to note that religious affiliation does not necesitate one way of thinking. The priests make up a portion of the school's educators and are well versed in all major religions and current non-religious philosophical thought (I've had enough beers with them to know). Being an engineering major and later an accounting major my professors were not all priests, instead they were individual's from all over the globe and from many different mindsets. You are aware that aetheists teach at religious universities, right? They just don't teach about religion... my guess is it doesn't interest them.

and perhaps, just perhaps, that gave me a more wide view of the things.
Perhaps, just perhaps, since your focus was solely on philosophy maybe you're missing some of what else is outside the philosophical domain.

And the distinction between theologists and philosophers, I was asking why don´t most of the philosophers didn´t write theology treatises but instead written entire works without any need of god to justify anything,
Philosophers speak about many subjects as I'm sure you know. They deal with the unknown, immeasurable, unanswerable questions. They try to make sense out of it all. The existence of God and the soul, our origins are just a small fraction of the questions addressed in philosophical debates. Of course there will be those who don't debate about, in favor of, or against God. And again I'm not saying, nor have I said that God is the magic answer for everything. I've only said that I believe the ultimate source of what spawned the BB to be
something eternal, something that always was and always will be. And that I chose to associate that with God as understood by the Lutheran tradition.

this was the big question but you seem you lost the perspective and see personal attacks anywhere someone disagree with you.
Now that's just asinine... That's like me saying I'm tired of arguing with you because you're a mental midget. Like your comment, I have no real proof of that, it's just how I feel at this moment. Of course I'm not saying that because that would just be rude.

Over the presentation of historical traits like inquisition and the questioning explained above about the reason most of the philosophers didn´t write theologys despite the power of the church in their time all that summed up in an attempt to answer your previous post; to know:

I said:"...most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods"

You answared: "Are you just voicing your opinion here? Because based on my 4 semesters worth of studies in philosophy and 4 semesters worth of studies on the concept of religion/spirituality and religions of the world (I went to a Jesuit University, it was a requirement) I KNOW that statement to be false."
If the attempt was to explain that most (some ambiguous quantity greater 50% but less than 100%) philosophers were areligious or aethiests because they didn't write religious doctrine then it failed miserably. Let's blindly accept your "most" claim, now just because "most" philosophers chose to pursue questions that interested them, and were not religious in nature does not allow someone to definitively say what their spiritual beliefs were or weren't.

If however you meant that "most" philosopher's wrote against what the theologians were saying, that still does not allow you to say what their beliefs were. That's a huge leap with little more than supposition on the beliefs of someone long since dead to back it up.

However, if we don't blindly accept your "most" claim then you still have yet to quantify or back it up.

And as for me "know[ing]" what you said to be false, I have a derth of history on my side that demonsrates to the contrary your belief that "...most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods".

Personally I'd start by figuring out that whole "most" problem.

[Brasuca-RJ]

You're right, if only I studied physics... Oh, wait, that's my major... That's why my beliefs are revisable. You appear to interpret that as some sort of weakness, or possibly dogmatism (it's really quite comical watching you accuse me of both). In fact, it's the only honest position on any subject.
Well, if we start talking about degrees it will never end as I have taken philosophy, math, physics and computer science; but refers to me as an average guy, It´ll be better for all matters as I refer to you this way.
Anyway, I´ll try in this post no get any deep in physics but if you want let me know; anytime, anywhere, and we could start a new and interesting thread about 2005(next year, the year), as you study physics perhaps you know what I´m talking about. :thumbsup:
Your belief in god is revisable, that´s the point that have to be with this thread, don´t you think so? As I said, it´s ok for me; but not a traditional religious guy, can you see that? Once more, no problems for me. I´m pointing this just to make things clear. And have already suggested that all my beliefs are also revisable. And talking with/without reafirming that electrons are just a theory is a matter of rethorics, don´t really change the so callen evidence you said, but the psicological aspects for the presentation of this subject to an audience.

[Bartleby]

I take back the dig I made... it wasn't necessary and I'm sorry I said it.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing when people who profess that they deeply DO NOT believe in a heaven or hell are so horribly offended by beliefs that say they are going there? I mean, you don't think it's real so why do you even care? It just blows my mind. I have never in my life told someone flat out that they are going to hell. I have told people to go to hell, and I have told people I think that they SHOULD end up in hell, but I am not god and I cannot say what he will decide to do whith people.

Priceless, Cale..

For the rest I refuse to get pulled into a debate about religeon. That was never my intention. Yes, religeon was the backdrop but the purpose was to discredit the statement made my AoA, not to debate religeon. I am sorry if it seemed otherwise.

Let us just say that each of our own beliefs has its holes that as of now can not be fully explained. For you it's revolves around things like evolution and fossil records for me it goes back much farther to original life (and how life came from nothing... no one still has a clue really...). That is why it's faith and not fact.

Dude, I know you already have a few people attacking you on this (or rather attacking your point), but.. I can't help it..

If you discredit AoA's post, you gotta take the debate.. especially if you start it. Otherwise, why bother writing the post?

And if you're going to claim that our religion has 'holes', I suggest you know what you're talking about, instead of making random claims. As Andarcel (I believe it was) corrected, your apparent 'hole' in Christianity was rather.. unfounded. If you are going to make claims on here, you've got to be able to back them up.
Otherwise, don't even bother.

[Andarcel]

but refers to me as an average guy, It´ll be better for all matters as I refer to you this way. If that clause makes some strange kind of sense it's beyond me. Why and how would I refer to you as an average guy? Or vice versa? How does it make things better? For what matters? What kind of references do you mean either by you to me or me to you?

Your belief in god is revisable, that´s the point that have to be with this thread, don´t you think so? As I said, it´s ok for me; but not a traditional religious guy, can you see that? No. I don't see that. I see that you have a caricature of Christians in your head as Bible-thumping maniacs. Even if I agreed that it's "traditional" to divorce your beliefs completely from reality, I still wouldn't see how it has any relevance to this thread or my posts.

And have already suggested that all my beliefs are also revisable. And talking with/without reafirming that electrons are just a theory is a matter of rethorics, don´t really change the so callen evidence you said, but the psicological aspects for the presentation of this subject to an audience. In short, you're attempting to muddy the waters by inserting facts that appear meaningful but really aren't and seeing if you could get away with it. The existence of the electron is scarcely less probable than the existence of electromagnetism, if it's less probable at all.

Are there any honest agnostics or athiests on this thread?

[Brasuca-RJ]

Please don't mistake the fact that I graduated from a religious university with my reason for attending that university. Anyway you pointed out that you attended to a religious university in your post; if thats not influenced your view of reality you really don´t have to point it out, but you did, in a religious thread, while you were defending that the philosophers can at the same time believe in a church like god and write essays that deny it. As I stated in other post, "in a rigid thinking it´s impossible to deny anything can be; and for *some extent* prove that something exist." But if you really take this rigor way there is no discussion and that is my ultimate point about religion.

something eternal, something that always was and always will be. And that I chose to associate that with God as understood by the Lutheran tradition. Well, I can´t say much about luteran tradition, but about catholics and other cristian religions I´m in touch with; what the priests tell me during friendly debates is that we shall accept that the bible is the word of the Lord and that Jesus is the savior; you haven´t made yourself clear, so, is these 2 things true to you or the Luteran tradition have huge diferences in this aspects?

-----
Now that's just asinine... That's like me saying I'm tired of arguing with you because you're a mental midget. Like your comment, I have no real proof of that, it's just how I feel at this moment. Of course I'm not saying that because that would just be rude.
-----

If the attempt was to explain that most (some ambiguous quantity greater 50% but less than 100%) philosophers were areligious or aethiests because they didn't write religious doctrine then it failed miserably. Let's blindly accept your "most" claim, now just because "most" philosophers chose to pursue questions that interested them, and were not religious in nature does not allow someone to definitively say what their spiritual beliefs were or weren't. As I have being point it out, there is no debate or argues when talking about beliefs; I was just backing up my statement that arguing that while some philosophers could be religious in nature and accept a church like god but still write essays that deny it is a non-sense. Anyway, if you believe, there is no argument, no discussion, just forget it, as you probaly have already did.

However, if we don't blindly accept your "most" claim then you still have yet to quantify or back it up. In fact, I really don´t have to in this specific. This statement was just an opposition to the "I have studied philosophy and bla bla bla and seen that must be a god... and if you can´t see it you need to read more". Take some steps back and you back up this before asking me. Of course that with some skill you can do this in an unsatisfatory way, but that´s true for my statement too, and that´s the real point that you seem to not see and only stress the dogmatic part of these posts.

And I repeat your words to back up mine:
And as for me "know[ing]" what you said to be false, I have a derth of history on my side that demonstrates to the contrary your belief that "...we can´t say most philosophers were not religious man and don´t even believe in religion like gods".

Personally I'd start by figuring out that whole "most" problem.

- If some statement can be used to prove everything, does it prove anything at all?

[Brasuca-RJ]

No. I don't see that. I see that you have a caricature of Christians in your head as Bible-thumping maniacs. Even if I agreed that it's "traditional" to divorce your beliefs completely from reality, I still wouldn't see how it has any relevance to this thread or my posts. A caricature is your mind. I´m taking into account what my debate group express, group composed of priests and avarege religious guys. The only thing really of any relevance in this thread is what you got in the quizz, so, you lost the perspective if we were meant to remain strictly in this thread subject. Do you really remember why we two started to arguing each other?


This post of you is perfect in the sense that it talks to yourself; every single questioning about me actually refers to you. You simply don´t want to debate, be honest first with yourself and then, if it´s not asking too much (probaly is), with me.

Are there any honest agnostics or athiests on this thread? Are there any honest cristian on this thread wanting a debate? The answer is very clear. You just make rides and rides and loose the focus. What was your answer to the quizz? If you agree or disagree it´s secundary and we can discuss, but them we will need to bring more and more new things to this thread. And one side alone can´t decide whats important and whats not to the discussion.

[Bartleby]

I'm tired of this RJ, you don't understand me and I'm done trying understand you. The blurb about my attending a Jesuit university illustrated why I took those philosophy and religious classes in the first place, no more, no less. As for Lutheran's the bible is the word of God (and by that we mean our understanding of it, during the sermon the pastor says things like "listen for the word of God" and then quotes scripture in order for you to hear the written word and try to understand it's relevance and meaning. It's all about interpretation. A for that part about philosphers not being able to be religious and denying a god or some supreme power exists, I agree. The debate/argument between those who believe is over "what" that god(s) or supreme power is and how we as individuals of a said spiritual association should conduct ourselves as well as all relevant metaphysical subjects. As for the "most" claim, if you said it and you can't back it up then the point is moot, but I do agree someone who argues very well can make a poor argument look better than it is. If you believe I stress the dogmatic points then I think you missed the point. I am not trained in a particular type of religious understanding, I wouldn't know the first chapter from the last in the bible my church uses, all my religious classes were philisophical and/or ecumenical in nature. The search for universal truths and recognition of similarities. I'm so tired of this I don't even know what I'm writing anymore... I'm done, sorry about the dig again (although you come off very condescending) I'm sure we'll run into each other on the boards another day. Last post for me.

[Eiger]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing when people who profess that they deeply DO NOT believe in a heaven or hell are so horribly offended by beliefs that say they are going there?

Nope, I think it's kind of funny, too. The only thing that's offensive is when people tell someone that they're going to hell. Just the holier than thou attitude which is so obnoxious. The actual belief is harmless.

[Andarcel]

I don't know why I bother. You refuse to clarify your gibberish and then accuse me of not responding to you. You haven't given me anything to respond to.

"Every single question" about you actually refers to your posting. No question I've asked has anything to do with me; it's an attempt to figure out what you're talking about, as a second-grader could tell. Your sloppy logic makes this even more difficult.

Take for example You just make rides and rides and loose the focus Not just gibberish, but illogical. There never has been a focus. Every time I hit one topic, such God being inferred from data in the same way an electron is, you meander off in a new and contradictory post that generally contains at least one wholly indecipherable sentence which you will not elucidate.

Or take If you agree or disagree it´s secundary and we can discuss, but them we will need to bring more and more new things to this thread. Hopeless vagueness. If I agree or disagree with what? What are you talking about?

You can't tell me I'm disinterested in debating when you haven't managed a single point that stood for more than one response. Your one feeble attempt with the electron you yourself admit was rhetoric rather than substantive.

[Eiger]

!!!
What about me?!? What I leave for a week or so and no-one remembers me? Bah.

But you have such a cute little way of being annoying that's endearing to all of us... :lol:

[Brasuca-RJ]

... As for the "most" claim, if you said it and you can't back it up then the point is moot, but ... I think I started understanding what you said a bit. If so, when I questioned if you believed that the bible is the God´s words you should express firmly that yes. I "read" you have doubts about it, look to our previous posts and try to see if you get what I mean. And finally about the motive we started arguing, that statement "most philosophers..." was referring to a previous post of one of our board buddies. As I have argued with him before I wanted to show of that you can´t really evangelize just by spoting philosophy content or general thinking. But my (bigger) point is that we can´t justify anything just with thoughts and analitical research. We have to into consideration and deal with the accidents (empiric) otherwise all of our conclusion shall be empty.

"All knowledge start in the experience." - Kant.

Edit: About the dig, don´t worry; I´m virtually imune to personal attacks cause of my background.

[Andarcel]

The only thing that's offensive is when people tell someone that they're going to hell.Why? What offends you about it?

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Why? What offends you about it?
Oh comon.. even I can see how that is offensive. Let's not be silly.
Say someone says to you, I think you are a horrible person. Wouldn't that offend you??
Same if someone says, You're going to hell. Basically it means in their head that you're a piece of crap and a horrible person, at least to the atheist or non-believer.
You're going to hell basically is the equivalent of any other derogatory insult. And if you say, why does any insult bother you, then that defeats the purpose of this thread lol..

[Eiger]

Why? What offends you about it?I believe it was pretty clear in the post - the holier than thou attitude, it's arrogant and condescending. Arrogance and condescension tend to be pet peeves for many folks.

Hmm, I detect something else going on here. Any issues we should talk about Andarcel? Let me know if you've got one.

[Booms]

Why? What offends you about it?

Did you even actually bother to read the rest of Eiger's 4-sentence post?

[Andarcel]

I believe it was pretty clear in the post - the holier than thou attitude, it's arrogant and condescending. Arrogance and condescension tend to be pet peeves for many folks.

Hmm, I detect something else going on here. Any issues we should talk about Andarcel? Let me know if you've got one.
Yes, Eiger, this is really about me wanting to work out my issues with you. I suggest you have your intuition checked. "Arrogance and condescension" indeed.

If someone holds the belief that you're going to hell, I don't follow how it makes them any more arrogant than someone believing that smoking will kill you. In each case someone believes that something will happen to you as a consequence of your lifestyle. One is empircally verifiable, the other is not, but that doesn't make it condescending.

And telling people they're going to hell is rarely equivalent to telling them they're a terrible person in a moral context they accept. I suspect Eiger understands this.

[Andarcel]

Did you even actually bother to read the rest of Eiger's 4-sentence post?
I was looking for something a little more explanatory, because the connection between holier-than-thou and the belief that someone will go to hell is loose at best

[Eiger]

Yes, Eiger, this is really about me wanting to work out my issues with you. I suggest you have your intuition checked. "Arrogance and condescension" indeed.

If someone holds the belief that you're going to hell, I don't follow how it makes them any more arrogant than someone believing that smoking will kill you. In each case someone believes that something will happen to you as a consequence of your lifestyle. One is empircally verifiable, the other is not, but that doesn't make it condescending.

And telling people they're going to hell is rarely equivalent to telling them they're a terrible person in a moral context they accept. I suspect Eiger understands this.
Ok Andarcel. Here's the original post: Nope, I think it's kind of funny, too. The only thing that's offensive is when people tell someone that they're going to hell. Just the holier than thou attitude which is so obnoxious. The actual belief is harmless.

See the part where I think that people being offended by the belief is funny? The last sentence says "The actual belief is harmless".

So your whole second paragraph refers to something I didn't say.

As for your third paragraph, I think Halcyon's Dawning re-iterated my position on that one quite well.

Looks like you stepped in the pile o doo doo this time. :lol:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Oh comon.. even I can see how that is offensive. Let's not be silly.
Say someone says to you, I think you are a horrible person. Wouldn't that offend you??


It would indeed if I believed they had grounds for saying it.


Same if someone says, You're going to hell. Basically it means in their head that you're a piece of crap and a horrible person.
You're going to hell basically is the equivalent of any other derogatory insult.


Blatantly spoken, yes. Yet, Jesus made it very clear that the unfaithful would indeed perish. Paul also mentiones in scripture that we should correct one another in love - and edify each other on the path of faithfulness. So, there would have to be some qualification in this. I for one have thanked those people who have given me stern rebukes in life. I for one believe Andarcel is justified in asking the question.

[Eiger]

I was looking for something a little more explanatory, because the connection between holier-than-thou and the belief that someone will go to hell is loose at best
Hehe - it was just a quick response - not intended to be a philosophical thesis! You really should just quit on this one. You've really done a good job of staying fairly neutral and impersonal until now.

[Andarcel]

Ok Andarcel. Here's the original post: Nope, I think it's kind of funny, too. The only thing that's offensive is when people tell someone that they're going to hell. Just the holier than thou attitude which is so obnoxious. The actual belief is harmless.

See the part where I think that people being offended by the belief is funny? The last sentence says "The actual belief is harmless".

So your whole second paragraph refers to something I didn't say.

As for your third paragraph, I think Halcyon's Dawning re-iterated my position on that one quite well.

Looks like you stepped in the pile o doo doo this time. :lol:
Oh no! How can I rectify this? Let's see...

"If someone says you're going to hell..."

Thank you for catching that slip, Eiger. Hopefully, you'll also be there to catch me the next time I try to respond to an argument by entering a key phrase in google, looking for sites that seem in opposition, and cutting and pasting the text without apparently actually reading either the website or the original post.

[BhsCrew]

Yes, Eiger, this is really about me wanting to work out my issues with you. I suggest you have your intuition checked. "Arrogance and condescension" indeed.

If someone holds the belief that you're going to hell, I don't follow how it makes them any more arrogant than someone believing that smoking will kill you. In each case someone believes that something will happen to you as a consequence of your lifestyle. One is empircally verifiable, the other is not, but that doesn't make it condescending.

And telling people they're going to hell is rarely equivalent to telling them they're a terrible person in a moral context they accept. I suspect Eiger understands this.

The reason all this was started was someone said that Christians getting offended by the quiz mocking them for believing in God was silly. The idea was that Christians believing that athiests are going to get tortured in hell for the rest of eternity is at least as offensive as athiests believing that religion is a scam and there is no God.

Personially I don't see either as particuarly offensive. Niether belief has any effect on changing reality. No matter how much Athiests believe that religion is a scam and God a creation of man, it doesn't increase the chance of God not existing and religion being a scam.

Likewise no matter how much Christians believe that Athiests are going to hell, it doesn't increase either the chance of Hell existing or the chance of the Athiests ending up in it.

[Halcyon's Dawning]

Blatantly spoken, yes. Yet, Jesus made it very clear that the unfaithful would indeed perish. Paul also mentiones in scripture that we should correct one another in love - and edify each other on the path of faithfulness. So, there would have to be some qualification in this. I for one have thanked those people who have given me stern rebukes in life. I for one believe Andarcel is justified in asking the question.
Stern rebukes are not the same as "You're going to hell"
I believe Eiger meant the statement not as a loving, correcting statement, but rather as an insult, from one who believes they are superior.
The tone in my post(and Eiger's) really wasn't that hard to get, AoA. "Go to Hell", vs. "you will go to hell if.."
For those who need to be taken by the hand, let me say that yes, it is good to tell someone when they are doing something wrong, and tell them the truth. To blatantly tell them, however, that they are going to hell, is wrong, and only what God should do.

[Andarcel]

Hehe - it was just a quick response - not intended to be a philosophical thesis! You really should just quit on this one. You've really done a good job of staying fairly neutral and impersonal until now.
I'm not neutral and rarely impersonal in the classic sense of the word. Have you been reading my posts at all?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger - I don't think Andarcel is getting "personal" per se, he is standing up for his position on the matter, and by the looks of it, is doing a good job.

As far as the whole "hell" thing goes, that should come later in the discussion. The gospel is good news - God doesn't send anyone to hell - we're pretty much born into it. We can discuss this matter if u like, as many see it problematic.

[Eiger]

Oh no! How can I rectify this? Let's see...

"If someone says you're going to hell..."

Thank you for catching that slip, Eiger. Hopefully, you'll also be there to catch me the next time I try to respond to an argument by entering a key phrase in google, looking for sites that seem in opposition, and cutting and pasting the text without apparently actually reading either the website or the original post.
Everyone slips now and then. No big deal. However, when peristence exposes motivation and previously undisclosed animosity it gets a little uglier. Too bad.

Anyway, feel free to have your way with me. It's time for me to leave for the weekend. I won't be back until Monday. Have a good one!

[Booms]

Just to throw in my opinion on the whole going to hell thing, telling someone that they are going to hell is an insult.

Roughly translated, it means "I don't think you're a good person and I believe that you are going to spend all eternity suffering."

I may not believe in hell, but its still insulting when someone thinks that I deserve that kind of punishment for my actions/beliefs.

[Eiger]

I'm not neutral and rarely impersonal in the classic sense of the word. Have you been reading my posts at all?
Pardon me, I should have said objective rather than neutral. Perhaps I'm mistaken on the impersonal - must have missed it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Stern rebukes are not the same as "You're going to hell"


If it is not, please give me an example of what is. :idea:


I believe Eiger meant the statement not as a loving, correcting statement, but rather as an insult, from one who believes they are superior.


Yes, that is what he meant.


The tone in my post(and Eiger's) really wasn't that hard to get, AoA. "Go to Hell", vs. "you will go to hell if.."


THis concerns content, and tries to do away with tone. If it were only about tone, your point is well taken.


For those who need to be taken by the hand, let me say that yes, it is good to tell someone when they are doing something wrong, and tell them the truth.


Agreed.


To blatantly tell them, however, that they are going to hell, is wrong, and only what God should do.

Jesus said "you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears". We can never pronounce an ultimate "sentance", but we can point out the direction they are heading. Yet, I would never approach an atheist with that, only a professed believer, as the believer knows of Christ, and "nobody can come to the Father, except through Christ".

[Halcyon's Dawning]

If it is not, please give me an example of what is. :idea:

Saying something like, your actions are directed towards hell. Or, what you are doing is wrong and can harm you + reasons why. Not just a blatant, "YOURE GOING TO HELL whether you like it or not because I say so."




THis concerns content, and tries to do away with tone. If it were only about tone, your point is well taken.[QUOTE]
the content was fine. "You're going to hell" vs. "Your deeds could lead you to hell". Two different standpoints.

[QUOTE=AgeOfAbnegation]Jesus said "you can tell a tree by the fruit it bears". We can never pronounce an ultimate "sentance", but we can point out the direction they are heading. Yet, I would never approach an atheist with that, only a professed believer, as the believer knows of Christ, and "nobody can come to the Father, except through Christ".
Exactly what I and Eiger were actually both saying, if you read the posts..
Did you read what Eiger had posted, or just what I had posted? Because it has to be taken in context with both posts.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Did you read what Eiger had posted, or just what I had posted? Because it has to be taken in context with both posts.


Yes I did, and I agreed that it would be an insult. I simply offered a qualifier in that the doctrine of hell had more substance than another sort of insult, and it need not be spoken in the context of malice.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Yes I did, and I agreed that it would be an insult. I simply offered a qualifier in that the doctrine of hell had more substance than another sort of insult, and it need not be spoken in the context of malice.

What alot of people fail to realize though, not one person on this planet is in a position to tell someone else that they are going to hell. If it is meant as "advice"(i.e. If you wish to commit murder, you will go to hell), then that is one thing.

Now, if someone just says quite blatantly, you are going to hell. It is most certainly not their place to make such a judgement. That is Gods judgement, not a persons. Anyone has a right to be offended at that. It takes a high degree of arrogance to assume the position of God, if only for a moment.

Now, there is usually a "I am superior to you athiest" attitude that sometimes accompanies it. It can be compared to the underlying motive of Andarcels seemingly honest question. His true motive was exposed when he decided to add the following lines:"Thank you for catching that slip, Eiger. Hopefully, you'll also be there to catch me the next time I try to respond to an argument by entering a key phrase in google, looking for sites that seem in opposition, and cutting and pasting the text without apparently actually reading either the website or the original post"

It was an honest question, with an underlying tone of arrogance. In this case he blatantly baited Eiger into a small arguement solely so that he could take a few cheap pot shots at him that has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed. Ignore the baiting, but see the arrogance behind it.

Now, you and I could both make quotes on the subject of judging another human, but I think you see what I am getting at.

Edit: Since I tend to ramble, here is a short version. :lol:

If you tell someone they are going to hell, you had better make very sure you are without sin. Otherwise you become just another arrogant hypocrit.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hey Dragon, where have you been?


What alot of people fail to realize though, not one person on this planet is in a position to tell someone else that they are going to hell.


You are absolutely correct. Hence, as I stated in a reply to Halcyon above:

"We can never pronounce an ultimate "sentance", but we can point out the direction they are heading."


If it is meant as "advice"(i.e. If you wish to commit murder, you will go to hell), then that is one thing.


Yes, as also indicated with my quote above.


Now, if someone just says quite blatantly, you are going to hell. It is most certainly not their place to make such a judgement. That is Gods judgement, not a persons. Anyone has a right to be offended at that.


100% agreed.


Now, there is usually a "I am superior to you athiest" attitude that sometimes accompanies it. It can be compared to the underlying motive of Andarcels seemingly honest question.


Assuming his underlying motive may be pushing it. I don't believe he has that outlook.


His true motive was exposed when he decided to add the following lines:"Thank you for catching that slip, Eiger. Hopefully, you'll also be there to catch me the next time I try to respond to an argument by entering a key phrase in google, looking for sites that seem in opposition, and cutting and pasting the text without apparently actually reading either the website or the original post"


I was the first to point out Eiger's shortcoming in adopting "google search", or "coles notes" philosophy. I believe Andarcel's intention was to promote intellectual honesty.


It was an honest question, with an underlying tone of arrogance. In this case he blatantly baited Eiger into a small arguement solely so that he could take a few cheap pot shots at him that has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed. Ignore the baiting, but see the arrogance behind it.


Again, I would disagree that his tone overshadowed the content of his posts, but I will let him speak in his own defence.


Now, you and I could both make quotes on the subject of judging another human, but I think you see what I am getting at.

Yes, I clearly have no quarrel with you.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Hey Dragon, where have you been?

Bah, the baby decided she wanted me to stay away from the forums a little more. You wouldn't think something so small would have so much control, but there it is. I guess it doesn't matter who wears the pants in the family, it is who wears the daipers. :lol:

Assuming his underlying motive may be pushing it. I don't believe he has that outlook.

I was the first to point out Eiger's shortcoming in adopting "google search", or "coles notes" philosophy. I believe Andarcel's intention was to promote intellectual honesty.


The difference is you posted directly after the fact. His post was directed at you, and you responded and pointed it out. I would call that perfectly acceptable in a debate.

Andarcel decided to do it long after it happened at a time that it did not have anything to do with him and the subject had long been settled. What Andarcel did is take a cheap shot. If we were all boxing right now, he would have just slapped Eiger in the face after the bell was rung. That is what I have a problem with. That would be like me going back and finding something Andarcel had done wrong from a few days or even weeks ago, and then bringing it into this thread, that would be completely wrong and it would be incredibly cheap. It was no longer pertinent.

[Andarcel]

Actually, my true motive was irritation that Eiger was ducking the question for a nit-picky point and then gloating after having made a horrendous mistake himself out of pure intellectual laziness. But he's successfully managed to turn a moment of irritation into a campaign of persecution against him. Oh well. I'll live with the flame. I'm curious though, why as soon as I asked the question, he assumed I had something against him personally. It's really quite odd, given that I've said nothing against him before.

Now, you and I could both make quotes on the subject of judging another human, but I think you see what I am getting at.

It was an honest question, with an underlying tone of arrogance. In this case he blatantly baited Eiger into a small arguement solely so that he could take a few cheap pot shots at him that has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed. Ignore the baiting, but see the arrogance behind it.

You and I both know what I'm getting at. No more necessary on that topic. But I should observe that that's as silly a leap of logic as me claiming that Eiger's gloating meant he was out to bait me by personalizing this as much as he possibly could. I have made one personal comment in the entire line of argument; count how many have been made against me, without anything like the substantiation I can produce.

BTW, I almost never attribute personality sources for forum behavior.

Perhaps I should clarify what I was trying to get at before everyone decided to play obstructionist and personalize the arguments. I think telling someone to go to hell is blasphemous because I'm Christian. I also think taking offense at being told you're going to hell when you don't believe in it is absolutely absurd, and always have. It implies moral superiority only under the belief structure of the person telling you you're going to hell. If the key reason is, as usually the case, over something you don't regard as a moral imperative, such as abstinence or believing in God, then that person can think you a horrible guy on those grounds, you can sanguinely agree to the facts of the case, and be untouched by his conclusion.

If an alien called you a slimeless vertebrate, would you be offended?

Personally, I know that if a Buddhist told me I was condemned to reincarnation as an earthworm for stepping on one, I can't imagine being offended. But, as we can see in this forum, it's just commonly accepted. And when someone dares to question it, the result is villainization.

Finally, on the affect of the messenger. Despite Eiger's clear implication that saying "you're going to hell" is usually done smugly, most peope who say this are deeply impassioned. Either 1)They are out to save your soul from what they see as a terrible mistake, or 2)They are outraged and infuriated. I don't see the condescension in either case.

Oh, and giving me the benefit of the doubt is quite ironic, Eiger, when your first reaction to my question was to assume some personal assault. Not much benefit of the doubt there.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Andarcel - A fair explanation.

Dragon - Gald to hear that the baby is doing well. We've got another gnome in the guild :p. I'm actually encouraging gnomes at the moment :flip:

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I'm curious though, why as soon as I asked the question, he assumed I had something against him personally. It's really quite odd, given that I've said nothing against him before.

Not sure and it is a good question. I can't speak for him, but as soon as I saw the post after he already listed he reasons, I can only assume he thought the same thing I did when you asked him "why?"... it simply seemed like bait. It was the first time you had decided to engage Eiger in conversation in this particular thread, it was a question that already had the answer listed in the post you quoted.

You and I both know what I'm getting at. No more necessary on that topic. But I should observe that that's as silly a leap of logic as me claiming that Eiger's gloating meant he was out to bait me by personalizing this as much as he possibly could. I have made one personal comment in the entire line of argument; count how many have been made against me, without anything like the substantiation I can produce.

For one, the first line you quoted was directed only at the statement "You are going to hell".

For two, I never called you arrogant. I called what you were doing arrogant yes, but you will know if I make a personality call if I say "You are arrogant Andarcel". I never dodge a subject and I speak my opinion. I do indeed make an insult to someones personality when they show their personality. You can find me call out and insult many a racist on this forum. The thing is I am, and will never deny being, a prick. I will resort to attributing personality sources for forum behavior when people make their personality known through their forum behavior. Again, I can be a prick and I am proud of it, however if someone brings up me doing or saying something that was out of line I ALWAYS admit that I am wrong. Likewise if I ever make a show myself as arrogant, as rude for no reason, or as racist, then I would expect another forum member to put me in my place. If you decide to be arrogant, I WILL call you on it. You have not, even though your post itself came off as such.

I wouldn't call my belief in your baiting a leap of faith at all. It might not have been your intent, but a quick check back through the posts here show otherwise. You may not have meant it, but it is there in black type. I can't read minds so in a forum we have to resort to judging someones intentions by the words they type, which I did.

As for people personally insulting you, I don't like when anyone insults the personality of another when it is not warrented. However you seemed to take care of the problem quite well, no imput was needed from me. You had others backing you otherwise rest assured I would have been behind you when people decided to gang up on you.

In closing, regardless what you meant, that is what is shown. I checked and rechecked again before making this post to see if I was mistaken. It still looks the same. I thought it was an incredibly cheap shot meant to insult him for a past mistake that he had already admitted to. I will defend anyone when someone uses such a cheap tactic.

BTW, I almost never attribute personality sources for forum behavior.

See above.

I'm guessing this was in reference to you thinking I called you arrogant? I almost never do it either so I guess even if I had, even though I didn't and I'm sorry that you took it that way, we are in the same boat.

[Andarcel]

Really? Whose arrogance could have been behind my posts if not mine? Pure sophistry.

In this case he blatantly baited Eiger into a small arguement solely so that he could take a few cheap pot shots at him that has absolutely nothing to do with what was being discussed.

You assigned a motive to my posts and therefore to me which is not in fact there "in black and white." No such interpretations are. You made assumptions about me which you have not begun to substantiate. And then you claim you never made them. When someone tells me why I'm doing something, they are in fact making a personality judgment. Either support it or retract it, but don't try to pass it off as some statement I made that clearly proclaims my purpose. My mistake was in assuming that a question could be asked and receive a straightforward answer that actually makes the logical connections from A to B to C. That appears to count as baiting here. That's pretty sad.

[Sweetpea]

Oh please you guys! This is ridiculous! Eiger clearly made a statement which was fairly obvious in it's intent and doesn't look like it was intended to spark any sort of real debate. Andarcel baited him as Dragon notes, and Eiger noted it for what it was due to Andarcel's comments in that other thread. I can't say I blame him for wanting to get in a shot after Andarcel's comment that he's a "real piece of work". Eiger didn't start the personal comments, Andarcel did after Eiger's mistake, which to his credit, he readily admitted fault. What goes around, comes around. Just take your lumps and move on, before you look even more foolish. Enough already.

[BhsCrew]

Really though. Aren't we discussing a quiz? What'd you get Sweetpea?

[Sweetpea]

Really though. Aren't we discussing a quiz? What'd you get Sweetpea?

I was a [sob] heretic! :hanky: Can you believe that? Mean, horrible, nasty little quiz. Hurt my feelings. How could I be one of those? :lady:

[Andarcel]

Oh please you guys! This is ridiculous! Eiger clearly made a statement which was fairly obvious in it's intent and doesn't look like it was intended to spark any sort of real debate. Andarcel baited him as Dragon notes, and Eiger noted it for what it was due to Andarcel's comments in that other thread. I can't say I blame him for wanting to get in a shot after Andarcel's comment that he's a "real piece of work". Eiger didn't start the personal comments, Andarcel did after Eiger's mistake, which to his credit, he readily admitted fault. What goes around, comes around. Just take your lumps and move on, before you look even more foolish. Enough already.
Where did I call Eiger a "piece of work"? Perhaps I'm having amnesia.

Maybe we should know what we're talking about before we jump to someone's defense.

Eiger jumped on a point that really had nothing to do with my post. He started crowing over it. I pointed out that he was in no position to gloat. Now this is somehow evidence that all I want to do is bait Eiger. Dtrangely enough, I'm the ONLY one here who's made any effort to discuss the topic as well as the people. But I guess it's all a subtle part of my plan to hound Eiger.

When someone actually wants to talk about going to hell and statements on it, I'll post again.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger clearly made a statement which was fairly obvious in it's intent and doesn't look like it was intended to spark any sort of real debate. Andarcel baited him..


I don't see how Andarcel asking Eiger "why" can necessarily be dubbed as baiting.

[Sweetpea]

http://forums.rpgforums.net/showthread.php?t=174886&page=8&pp=25

Edit: just figured it out, and almost fell off my seat laughing! Eiger, you're priceless. The "natural law of reason" AoA is talking about as absolutely nothing in common with Aquinas' natural law. That's the problem with Google knowledge: used carelessly, it just makes a fool of you.

it wasn't "a real piece of work" that's just the meaning i put on it in my own head i guess. reading through this forum, i've noticed a couple other places that you appear to be dogging him, too. can't remember where, but i just saw one a couple minutes ago. persnickety

[Sweetpea]

I don't see how Andarcel asking Eiger "why" can necessarily be dubbed as baiting.

it was petty. he read eiger's post the way he wanted to read it. he wanted to take a stab at him and was in so much of a hurry that he didn't actually "listen" to what eiger was saying. he was just being argumentative, maybe "baiting's" too strong, but he was hoping to start something. you can practically see him at the keyboard banging it out. but then maybe that's just my woman's intuition and you guys are just too analytical to see it.

[BhsCrew]

Oh no! How can I rectify this? Let's see...

"If someone says you're going to hell..."

Thank you for catching that slip, Eiger. Hopefully, you'll also be there to catch me the next time I try to respond to an argument by entering a key phrase in google, looking for sites that seem in opposition, and cutting and pasting the text without apparently actually reading either the website or the original post.

Is this the post we're talking about? All I saw was Eiger laughed at Andarcel for misreading his post, and Andarcel sniped back by bringing up how Eiger looked up the wrong thing back on the 'Believe in God' thread.

Eiger then said that Andarcel had done a good job of being neutral and impersonal until that snipe, which he meant as a compliment. Andarcel responded that he isn't neutral or impersonal in his posts. Eiger said that he meant to say objective, and that was that. Why are we still discussing this?

I have no problem with people believing that I'm going to hell. I don't get offended by someone telling me I'm going to hell but if they kept bringing it back up while we were talking it would prevent any kind of lasting conversation or friendship. However since none of my christian friends have ever told me that I'm going to hell I haven't had any problems with this.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

you can practically see him at the keyboard banging it out. but then maybe that's just my woman's intuition and you guys are just too analytical to see it.

Conversely, perhaps your "intuition" overshadows Andarcel's expressed intention for intellectual consistency, which I'd say, as a philosopher, he has demonstrated throughout the post. Yet, you do have a point that the genders perceive differently. The tone was elevated, but I go strait for the text as a source of intention, overshadowing the tone.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Andarcel sniped back by bringing up how Eiger looked up the wrong thing back on the 'Believe in God' thread.


I for one laud Andarcel for noting that consistency in style. As I mentioned earlier, I was the one who first pointed out the "google search" philosophy mentality. He was right for pointing out that one carries his style with him, in all posts. I'd say that the posting style would underpin its content.


Eiger then said that Andarcel had done a good job of being neutral and impersonal until that snipe, which he meant as a compliment.


Then Eiger misunderstood. This has nothing to do with "personal" arrgumentation. In order to treat such subject matter, we must argue and debate without an emotional underpinning. One thing I can tell you about Andarcel is that he's not out to get anyone. He does however strive for consistency.


Andarcel responded that he isn't neutral or impersonal in his posts. Eiger said that he meant to say objective, and that was that. Why are we still discussing this?


Well, you brought it up. :uhhuh: My purpose here is to emphasize that the emotional aspect of this was over-emphasized.


I have no problem with people believing that I'm going to hell. I don't get offended by someone telling me I'm going to hell but if they kept bringing it back up while we were talking it would prevent any kind of lasting conversation or friendship.


I'll offer you a new idea.. Namely, the nature of friendship. Tell you one thing, I became a christian when I was 21. Before that, I had a regular group of friends who I'd go clubbing with, etc. After my epiphany, I quickly realized that my friendships were based on utilitarian aims - we banded together for a certain activity, not necessarily for each other per se. That would be an interesting subject - the nature of friendship. Maybe we could start that thread.


However since none of my christian friends have ever told me that I'm going to hell I haven't had any problems with this.

Well it's good that they didnt. However, I wouldn't mind discussing more your post a page or so ago back about ddetachment from this concept. Indeed, one cannot be insulted about something that seemingly has no relevance. Anyway, ttyl.

[BhsCrew]

I'll offer you a new idea.. Namely, the nature of friendship. Tell you one thing, I became a christian when I was 21. Before that, I had a regular group of friends who I'd go clubbing with, etc. After my epiphany, I quickly realized that my friendships were based on utilitarian aims - we banded together for a certain activity, not necessarily for each other per se. That would be an interesting subject - the nature of friendship. Maybe we could start that thread.

Well it's good that they didnt. However, I wouldn't mind discussing more your post a page or so ago back about ddetachment from this concept. Indeed, one cannot be insulted about something that seemingly has no relevance. Anyway, ttyl.

Yeah I don't think that one can be insulted by something that they think has no relevance. Any athiests getting insulted by people thinking they will go to hell, means that they aren't as sure of their own beliefs as they thought. Continuing the same thought there is no reason for a Christian to insist that an Athiest is going to hell if the Christian is sure in his beliefs. So AoA, Discuss away.

Oh I went ahead and started that friend thread.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You've spoken well, I have nothing further. lol - I'm suprised to see you did indeed put the thread up :p. I guess I'll head over :).

[Manwe]

Atheist. :) Haha that actually is me in RL. Accurate :)