So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"? That's your defense? My defense in said post is that the bible regulates the situation back then (when slavery was common), however expressed no support of the act of enslavement. Where is the support for this? You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days" That's Old Testament. When referring to the Christian bible, the New Testament is implied. The Old Testament was meant for the time before the coming of Christ (which by those practicing Judaism is THE bible since they don't consider Jesus as the son of God and are still waiting for one (the reason for 2 religions - Christianity and Judaism - instead of one)). I already linked it in this post but here's a rather brief explanation in regards to the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544That's the dumbest argument christians have ever made... This whole notion of the New Testament overwriting the Old Testament is complete horseshit nonsense that is not supported anywhere in the bible or dogma of christianity You cannot possibly say you believe the creation story, flood, exodus, and 10-commandments are 100% true and accurate, but the other 603 commandments in the Old Testament don't count... that's bullshit cherry-picking to the extreme Besides, Jesus himself said, "Not a jot or tittle of the Law will change until I return" (speaking of Mosaic law, the Old Testament laws!) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. That's the dumbest argument christians have ever made...
This whole notion of the New Testament overwriting the Old Testament is complete horseshit nonsense that is not supported anywhere in the bible or dogma of christianity I'd have to disagree: Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in the New Testament. <...> Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the savior of humanity whose coming as Christ or the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChristianityYou cannot possibly say you believe the creation story, flood, exodus As metaphors for creation of the universal system (governed by the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) and a conscious species within said system, the downfall due to conscious species' inability to control itself and then the humanity's search for purpose. and 10-commandments are 100% true and accurate I never claimed that. I believe that part of it was either lost as history progressed (there isn't an original copy in existence, just a bunch of early copies) or lost in translation as it went through numerous people with different cultural backgrounds. but the other 603 commandments in the Old Testament don't count... that's bullshit cherry-picking to the extreme The general consensus seems that it is not to be used for moral purposes , but more as a "prophecy" that was already fullfilled. Also, in terms of the 10 commandments: “This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3). The Ten Commandments were essentially a summary of the entire Old Testament law. Nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly repeated in the New Testament (all except the command to observe the Sabbath day). Obviously, if we are loving God, we will not be worshipping false gods or bowing down before idols. If we are loving our neighbors, we will not be murdering them, lying to them, committing adultery against them, or coveting what belongs to them. Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.htmlBesides, Jesus himself said, "Not a jot or tittle of the Law will change until I return" (speaking of Mosaic law, the Old Testament laws!) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15). Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html |
|
|
|
Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men" And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote: However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. FINALLY!!! something with a tiny bit of substance (albeit completely wrong) So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"? That's your defense? Where is the support for this? You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days" FINALLY!!! something with a tiny bit of substance (albeit completely wrong) (After I requoted it 2 times) So, you are claiming that although the bible condones slavery, it was "the good kind of slavery"? That's your defense? My defense in said post is that the bible (New Testament, see this post regarding the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544) regulates the situation back then (when slavery was common), however expressed no support of the act of enslavement. Where is the support for this? You claim it's in the bible, but it's not... slavery in the bible is very cruel and quite descriptive... it included things like, "you are allowed to beat your slave so long as he does not die within 2 days" That's Old Testament. When referring to the Christian bible, the New Testament is implied. The Old Testament was meant for the time before the coming of Christ (which by those practicing Judaism is THE bible since they don't consider Jesus as the son of God and are still waiting for one (the reason for 2 religions - Christianity and Judaism - instead of one)). I already linked it in this post but here's a rather brief explanation in regards to the Old Testament: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544 |
|
|
|
Are you ready to debate slavery in the bible, or are you still trolling?
Here ya go (spoiler: there is no simple and concise answer): <...> If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible? You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.
Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...
[X]Bold statement with no evidence [X]Previous arguments dismissed You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google? Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide) Slavery: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property. More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery See this for my answer to your "evidence": What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with): Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men" And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote: However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. <...> |
|
|
|
(still trolling)
Are you still here? Didn't you say that you were leaving? I bid you a good day for I'm tired of participating in another discussion
I'll let myself out.  First quote is crossed out (with a short note) if you're slow on the uptake and I would've if you were to stop spreading the butthurt of getting beaten in a discussion against a Christian. Besides I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I'm trying to prove that you are a pseudo-intellectual hypocrite to others who unfortunately stumble upon this discussion. Feel free to resign this as trolling just like you did with all the arguments of mine you couldn't refute and all the arguments of yours you couldn't back up - we wouldn't want new ideas in our "proper scientific community", don't we  ? |
|
|
|
P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.
Being a mod does not make one superior in any way... You say I run away and shit... have I? Am I not here? You are the one who does nothing but insult me... can you try attacking my argument for once? I have told you several times now that if you want to debate a topic that is good... just pick a topic besides insulting me... Have you tried staying on topic a single time? We were talking about slavery in the bible and you jump in with a 3-page long post which has nothing to do with slavery... go troll someone else asshole P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll.
Being a mod does not make one superior in any way... If I was a troll (which breaks the rules), I wouldn't have been selected as a mod or would've been kicked out. However, let's stay on topic and also add in content relevant to the topic's name (feel free to continue though). You say I run away and shit... have I? Am I not here? No, you just seem to plug up your ears and go "lalalalala I can't hear you". You are the one who does nothing but insult me... can you try attacking my argument for once? Oh boy, here we go: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14336544#msg14336544https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14354149#msg14354149<The point at which I realized that not only you have failed to include sources, you weren't planning to do so after I pointed out> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14354772#msg14354772 <----- Regarding the argument as well as lack of sources within your claims All of them "attack" your argument or the validity of your arguments' basis. It's just that you don't respond or respond with more source-less and evidence-less claims or just your pathetic "tl;dr" deflection. I have told you several times now that if you want to debate a topic that is good... just pick a topic besides insulting me... I would if you'd stop ignoring my arguments against the claims you've put out. Also, a single topic contains several sub-topics which are used for the formulation of an argument - exactly what you did when you started making various claims (which I provided rebuttal for, which you said is too many topics). Have you tried staying on topic a single time? We were talking about slavery in the bible and you jump in with a 3-page long post which has nothing to do with slavery... go troll someone else asshole Cough, cough... Have you tried taking comprehension classes? The following is entirely about "slavery in the bible" (excuse me for actually providing a comprehensive perspective with the discussion of evidence rather than a watered down and inaccurate "this is not that" statement): <...> If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible? You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.
Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...
[X]Bold statement with no evidence [X]Previous arguments dismissed You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google? Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide) Slavery: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property. More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery See this for my answer to your "evidence": What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with): Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men" And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote: However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. <...> |
|
|
|
Guess it's easier to fight with a moron, isn't it?
You are a child who thinks we are fighting... I'm ignoring you, because you are trolling You aren't even attempting to have a debate... BADecker is at least trying to debate, however poorly You are simply attacking me, and trying to derail the conversation with 3-page long spam posts You are a child who thinks we are fighting... I wasn't fighting, I was participating in a discussion that you started and refuting your claims. You're the one who just decided to take your ball and go home when you felt the heat coming.
I'm ignoring you, because you are trolling Sure, bud. I'll say what I said to the rather dense conspiracy theorist trickyriky: That warped view of the world again.... Keep telling yourself that - would be hard to fall asleep if you didn't.
You aren't even attempting to have a debate... BADecker is at least trying to debate, however poorly I am trying to discuss, it's just that you keep repeating "tl;dr" like a broken record and ignore any reasoning above the intelligence level of middle schooler.
You are simply attacking me, and trying to derail the conversation with 3-page long spam posts Yeah, because source-less and specifically your claims are OK, but claims backed by reasoning, arguments, sources and different perspectives is totally spam. /sarcasm Anyway, unless you actually have something substantial to add, with sources and evidence of course, I think I proved my point of you not looking to discuss but to bash religion, Moloch, duke of hypocrisy, deflection, ignorance and (although much more borderline than most) pseudo-intelligence - enjoy your titles. I'll let myself out. P.S. Extra points for calling a moderator of the forum you are discussing in a troll. |
|
|
|
|
Bump. Only several hours left until the end of the auction!
|
|
|
|
tl;dr
I hope you realize nobody reads tl;dr posts... Troll me all you want with them, nobody will ever read it... I'll answer anyone who is remotely civil and can keep it concise... How many times have I replied to BADecker? And he's a moron... <image snip> I hope you realize nobody reads tl;dr posts... Seems like organofcorti did, he even responded to several of my points: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14368732#msg14368732 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14368401#msg14368401. Guess you're the only dodgy, cherry-picking, hypocrite atheist in this discussion with the attention span of a child. Troll me all you want with them, nobody will ever read it... Trolling's against the rules. If you think this is trolling, report my tl;dr posts, I dare you. Or is it that I just provide arguments, evidence and perspective that isn't beneficial to the agenda you're trying to push? Funny, how you call out fundamental Christians as intolerant to the perspective of others, yet you call me a troll. I'll answer anyone who is remotely civil and can keep it concise... There is no concise in a discussion on such a broad topic as religion (specifically the morality of Christianity). And civil went out the window the second you started a thread called "Christianity is Poison" with memes equating any kind of Christian to the extreme fundamentalists that represent the worst parts in any religion. How many times have I replied to BADecker? And he's a moron... Guess it's easier to fight with a moron, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
...Scientific journals (meant for getting the full picture of a scientific or historical discovery, with it's nuances and possible errors) are from "3,000 to 10,000 words in length"...
And with all this trolling, you still refuse to pick a topic for debate... As for scientific journals... I have no problem with a 10,000 word paper, so long as it sticks to a single topic... which they do... it often takes a lot of words to debate a single topic... The problem is you jump all over the place, accusing me of this or that... if I don't respond to everything, you accuse me of cherry-picking... but, I cannot possibly fully refute a 3-page post, providing supporting evidence for every claim, without making my own 100-page-long post! This is the situation I am avoiding... if you want to debate a single topic at a time, PICK A FUCKING TOPIC TO DEBATE WITH ME! ------------------------------------------------------- If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible? Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...
[X]Bold statement with no evidence [X]Previous arguments dismissed You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google? Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide) Slavery: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property. More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery And with all this trolling, you still refuse to pick a topic for debate... And as did I: I wanted to specifically debate on every topic brought up by you in your posts that I refuted in mine. If you don't want to debate on multiple topics, don't put out multiple claims.
As for scientific journals... I have no problem with a 10,000 word paper, so long as it sticks to a single topic... which they do... it often takes a lot of words to debate a single topic... The topic is whether Christianity is bad ("poison") or not and why? There's plenty of sub-topics you opened up in regards to the central topic by making claims.
The problem is you jump all over the place, accusing me of this or that... I provide counter arguments to your arguments about "Christianity being bad". That's not jumping all over the place, that's the format of the discussion: refuting of claims made by the opposing side.
if I don't respond to everything, you accuse me of cherry-picking... Because you only pick out my arguments which you feel you can completely defeat and not even mentioned any other arguments to your claims. I think this sums this up: It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention<...> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
but, I cannot possibly fully refute a 3-page post, providing supporting evidence for every claim, without making my own 100-page-long post! If you need 100 pages, then do so. Weren't you the one going on about science, you know, that constantly has these massive discussions of evidence and credibility of such to actually reach the truth?
This is the situation I am avoiding... if you want to debate a single topic at a time, PICK A FUCKING TOPIC TO DEBATE WITH ME! As I mentioned: "Is Christianity bad or not?" (as in what the title hints at), where there is plenty of arguments to be made and plenty of them to be countered.
If you want me to pick, how about slavery in the bible? You mean the Christian bible (The New Testament)? Because it does overwrite the Old Testament as it was meant as a prophecy (referred to as "gospel") for the coming of Jesus Christ.
Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me...
[X]Bold statement with no evidence [X]Previous arguments dismissed You say I did not provide evidence for this claim, but I did... I said christianity had preached it... the bible supports slavery in at least a dozen places... do you need me to quote the exact verses for you, or are you capable of using google? Here's the link again since you must have missed it (evidence you claim I didn't provide) Slavery: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his property. More slavery in the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery See this for my answer to your "evidence": What you haven't proven is this (I'll bold and underline your statement I'm concerned with): Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament Since, I'm rather bored to wait, I'll get the Wikipedia mention on the New Testament out of the way. It is said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men". However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. First of all, I've looked at the passages that refer to this: In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, "as to the Lord, and not to men" And all the passages linked, the translation in several English versions seems to use the word "servant" rather than "slave", which could be both interpreted as lost in translation (beneficial to your side) and as to cover (regulate, not approve of ) slavery back in the day of Christ (which was a common practice at the time) as well as the current voluntary employment. There is however no positive (a.k.a. reinforcing) mention of the act of enslavement. From what I can logically deduct, said writings were meant to address the status quo, rather than encourage the act of slavery (taking new slaves). This view is also reinforced taking in consideration the following part of the quote: However, masters were told to serve their slaves "in the same way" and "even better" as "brothers", to not threaten them as God is their Master as well. Then again you decided to pick a target that is easy for you to "tear up", while in reality it is up for speculation and thus open to quite a lot of theological discussion (of which I now participated in). Guess the historical reasoning (in regards to your claim about Christianity being the sole cause of the Dark ages (my counterclaim: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14354149#msg14354149)) or actually providing proof to your other unsubstantiated claims (that I pointed out, twice: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14365514#msg14365514 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412734.msg14378127#msg14378127) is a bit too difficult. Still better something than the "tl;dr" bullshit you've been putting out. P.S. I'll quote a saying (that will address your concern regarding "too many topics" (actually counter arguments of the arguments you made yourself) and "too long posts" (actually required to refute all the unsubstantiated claims you've made)) attributed to Harry S. Truman: "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". |
|
|
|
tl;dr
What part of tl;dr do you not understand? The part where a civilized human being, who happens to pride himself on following science, can't seem to read through a post that is 2 times shorter in word count (original, not content written by you, or stated in previous posts of similiar length) than a short high-school essay in a discussion, where scientific proof is required to present a credible statement. Anyway, here's a few fun facts: - Scientific journals (meant for getting the full picture of a scientific or historical discovery, with it's nuances and possible errors) are from "3,000 to 10,000 words in length". Source: http://www.informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html
- Picking ideas up and using them at face value without any research is what fundamentalist Christians (as well as fundamentalists from other religions) do
- Discussing without providing at least credible sources makes your claims untrustworthy
- Ignoring the opposition's arguments in a discussion for being "too long" while praising science (full of nuance,small errors that do matter and countless reading hours of discussion on a single discovery) makes you look uneducated, pretentious, hypocritical and rather thick.
Need a tl;dr for this as well, bud? |
|
|
|
A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat" Also, title: Christianity is Poison The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month... If you read the OP you would know this... It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh? As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that... Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking... If you would like to debate a specific claim... let me know which one you most object to, and I will provide supporting evidence... If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why? If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen The title was a response to the "Atheism is Poison" thread which had been constantly bumped as the top thread for over a month... If you read the OP you would know this... And as I mentioned in the post of mine you just quoted ("Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW."), the OP changed the title to "Atheism and Health", as apparently his intent wasn't to attack Atheists.
It's comparable to christians putting up a 10-commandment statue, and refusing to take it down... until some atheist comes along and puts up a statue of Baphomet right next to it... suddenly christians are ready to take both of them down... funny how hypocrisy works, eh? I don't have any experience of such statues being put up on public space, so can't really comment on that except it seems to have been done by fundamental Christians which I don't really agree with on a lot of situations.
As I explained... if you have something in specific you would like to debate, I'm all for that... And as did I: I wanted to specifically debate on every topic brought up by you in your posts that I refuted in mine. If you don't want to debate on multiple topics, don't put out multiple claims.
Nothing you have said has debunked any of my claims... in fact, you provided zero evidence to support any of your own claims... you simply said I was wrong; that's not debunking... Sigh, OK, let me go through it yet again (I'll ignore my answers which are open to theological and/or philosophical discussion as you can't really prove those by definition): Evidence-less claims:Do you really want to compare the 2000 year history of christianity murdering half the world... Source? I do agree that Catholic church has done quite a few horrible things during the Middle Ages, however your claim seems rather bold with no evidence to back it up. This is a common misconception...
We have already established that do not steal/murder are based in atheism/philosophy, rather than christianity...
I propose that all morals are based in such things... christians also did not invent the concept of the golden rule, "treat your neighbor as yourself", etc... Provide solid evidence otherwise your claim is rather pointless. The only influences that christianity has had on society are negative... all of them... there is evidence to back up this claim [X]All previous arguments in my post ignored [X]Bold statement with no evidence Christianity has also preached that slavery is lawful and not a bad thing... in both the old and new testament, so don't get all, "but the new testament doesn't say that" on me... [X]Bold statement with no evidence [X]Previous arguments dismissed ...with the 1,000,000 year history of atheists making advances in science, medicine, philosophy, morality, etc, etc, etc?!? You do understand that quite a few scientists were or are Christians - Blaise Pascal (Pascal's law (physics), Pascal's theorem (math)) and Isaac Newton (Physicist, discoverer of gravity) to name a few. Also, some of these scientists (namely Theodosius Dobzhansky) criticized creationsim and argued that science and faith does not conflict (which is a stance I can firmly stand behind). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technologyI'm sorry you don't understand history... or much of anything...
The Dark ages had a single cause... Christianity... Christians attacked anything that was non-christian for 300 years! Don't pretend it didn't happen! I'd have to disagree. Although the Catholic church did a lot of heinous things during the Dark Ages, which did harm the spread of knowledge, I think the much bigger reason was the fall of the Roman Empire: It emphasizes the demographic, cultural and economic deterioration that supposedly occurred in Western Europe following the decline of the Roman Empire Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29The main issue in terms of knowledge is the fact that after the fall of the Roman empire, quite a lot of research and literature was lost, setting back science rather far back. The first answer by Humphrey Clarke, MA in Modern History - University of St Andrews in this: https://www.quora.com/Did-Christianity-cause-the-Dark-Ages gives quite an interesting analysis. I suggest reading through as it goes through several possible arguments such as the Catholic church not accepting science. The conclusion is rather relevant to the discussion as well: To conclude then, the two Christianity guilt theories suffer from a lack of evidence. They persist purely due to their illustrious pedigree and the fact that people insist on making the past fit into a modern framework.
If you are just here to troll, which appears to be the case... why?
Just because I disagree and provide counterclaims to yours, doesn't mean I'm trolling. That's a discussion.
If your God was upset with me trolling His religion... pray that He kills me with a giant lightning bolt or something... because that'll never happen
Your only view of religion seems to be in regards to, as I mentioned, "zealously religious fundamentalist nuts" who interpret the everything in the bible literally, force others to follow their religion, attempt to restrict freedom of speech, etc.. You seem to ignore the fact that there actually are rational/moderate religious people, who defend the right to freedom of speech, analyze and discuss on possible interpretations of whatever religious document they have, discuss with the critics of religion rather than silence them and whose faith doesn't clash with science. An example would be my view as previously stated in one of the posts in this thread: In fact, I'd say the the current definition of religion would be the search for who created the system we are living in. I think the best way to describe it would be comparing it to computer software: imagine an extremely complex computer simulation, with it's rules and parameters, running constantly with the objects (with a crap ton of variables, methods and other OOP features implemented) inside acting independently (but predictably due the fact that author of the program knows what code he wrote and how it performs) based on their variables and the surrounding objects. The self-aware objects inside decide analyze the system and due to being withing that system and unable to detect anything outside it, deducted that since they can't detect anything within the system that there is no creator outside it. Seems familiar? |
|
|
|
This forum doesnt moderate political views no matter what they are.
Is this correct for salafi/ISIS propagandists as well? May I use ISIS flag as user pic? Just wondering a typical rural fool's opinion.  As long as the content of such post/thread does not break the forum's rules located here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=703657.0 (the most relevant rule here would be "8. No threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats.") and/or nobody provides a valid court order for the post/thread to be removed (ask the head admin theymos regarding all legal issues), it's allowed. Also, yes it's allowed to use an ISIS flag as a user avatar (if you feel like putting yourself on every watch list for potential terrorists, the forum doesn't want to stop you), here's an example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=434490. Regarding a court order to get an avatar removed, I'm not sure but probably the same rules apply as if it was a post (again, ask theymos regarding legal issues). |
|
|
|
<snip>
I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.
<snip>
On the "antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible" part, does this mean that to you the bible is not infallible? I know this varies from Christian group to group, (sect? not sure of correct terminology there, no offense meant) and I'm interested in which groups believe the bible is infallible and which do not. Yes, I see some parts of the bible, specifically from the Old Testament, as obsolete, written for a time that passed long ago (considering the Old Testament was meant as a prophecy (also known as gospel) for the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Testament is considered as the Christian bible by most) and quite a lot as just not meant for literal interpretation (both from the Old and the New Testament). Technically, I don't belong to any group/sect/branch of Christianity, though still consider myself Christian. I used to be a Roman Catholic (the most popular religion in my country) but due to quite a few ideological differences and the ever present stagnation as time goes by I decided to just roll on my own, with a somewhat similar ideological basis to the branch I believed in. I don't specifically know which groups/sects/branches consider the entire bible (both Testaments) to be infallible, but I think this quite well describes the core beliefs of Christianity, while everything else is up to interpretation: The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins; and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed). This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture. Source: http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/christianity-central-beliefs.htmlRather than "I believe" or "I know", my beliefs could be best described as "I don't care". That is: "Since an omnipotent god is by definition unprovable, I can't prove gods do or do not exist. However I have no interest in unfalsifiable propositions, and so do not care about/have no interest in gods and their religions". That doesn't really fit into the two-axis belief system you've described, and I think generalising beliefs in such a way is likely to cause confusion by over-simplification. Then it seems you lie on the agnosticism axis right in between theism and atheism. To be honest, that's better than any kind of gnosticism, be it religious or atheistic IMO. |
|
|
|
P.P.S. Moloch, king of cherry-picking and master of ignoring arguments, you seem to have forgotten to answer to the following arguments, based on actual sources, after throwing out yours so boldly, some of which without anything to back it up:
I try to avoid tl;dr posts... If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things? It's cherry-picking for you to say the bible is good/holy, because you ignore all the bad stuff it says... I could easily pick out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals? I try to avoid tl;dr posts...
If you have something in specific you would like to debate, please be specific and short... I will not debate 20 different topics each post... 1-2 tops A.K.A. "I put something out without any evidence, got it debunked with evidence and now am too lazy to actually discuss with someone who can actually take the heat" If I did not respond to something in your 3 page long post... it's probably because I didn't read most/any of it The fact that a Christian (be it a moderate one) happens to use actual reason and scientific (in this case historical) proof (with sources) to refute someones claims more than an Atheist does amaze me. As for cherry-picking... that's not me, that's the bible... it says both good and bad things... how is it cherry-picking if I point out a few bad things? Cherry picking as in ignoring the claims I provided counter arguments to. Also, title: Christianity is Poison " Good and bad", eh? Also, the guy you were annoyed with changed the name of the topic BTW. It's cherry-picking for you to say the bible is good/holy, because you ignore all the bad stuff it says... Umm, the problem is I'm not saying the Christian bible is entirely good: it's a book written thousands of years ago. If it was completely undeniably "good", there wouldn't be as many branches of Christianity as today. I could easily pick out 101 things that are immoral in the bible... yet people ignore all that immoral stuff, and call it a book of morals? I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say. P.S. Your claims, in general, seem to reveal this "all or nothing" mentality which suggests that you are leaning towards gnostic atheism, which, taking all the old scientific theories debunked and replaced by new, currently more accurate ones, seems silly. A chart for an easier explanation:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
