pizzahut451 said:
vlad321 said:
As I said, morals are the exact same as beliefs. The simple fact you gave me 2 relgions that have the same morals does not prove that claim. It just shows that 2 religions have a very similar belief. Furthermore, I don't see how you can judge those pagan religions, and call people who disagree with them "good," you have as much evidence for YOUR morals as they do.The ONLY reason why you call people who have christian morals and not aztec morals "good" is because christians killed off the aztecs, not the other way around. I guanratee you, 100%, you would think that human sacrifice is very moral had the aztecs taken over Europe.Actually, that compression proves my point very good I'd say, I have showen a a difference between a religous beleif and morality.Do you care to say how my comprassion is bad? And where did I judge those pagan religions? And like I said, im pretty sure that Aztecs would agree with Jesus's morals, only thing on which would they might disagre with is is the practice of worshiping. And we didnt kill off Aztecs, they converted to our religion. That only further proves my point that they didnt disagree with Jesus's morals, otherwise they wouldnt convert to our religion :) And dont say that they were forced to, because the convertion to christianity happend after all the wars and conquests in Aerica were over.
Furthermore, Christ is supposed to be the son of a virgin ( to be honest, she was probably a whore trying to not get killed by her husband if he found outI dont think she was a whore. Do you have any evidence for this or do you just wanna unsult Christianity? Im pretty sure she wasa virgin.) and god. The same god that had existed very much before he was born, and that is outlined in the Olt Testament. The validity of Christ rests solely on that god,LMAO, hell no. You seriously have no clue about christianity, do you? and that god's validity rests solely on fairy tales, something like 40ish books depending on the church. Define ''the vaildity of Christ''? What kind of vaildity do you mean He was a historicly proven person, is he not? He was also the only sinnles person ever to walk on Earth, something not possible of you are a normal human and not a son of God. Did he have to be the son of God to teach the righteous morals to the people? Those fairy tales are what make the difference between Christ being a son of god and a virgin, and Christ being an amazing con artist and a son of a whoreAnd yet, I already explained the difference between the fairy tales and the New Testament. New testament follows the life events that actually happend of the person that actually existed.Fairy tales are exactly oppsite. Let's face it, the latter is infinitely more believeable than the shit from the Old Testament, again due to the lack of any information that the bullshit in it could ever happen.
Also I know everythign there is to christianity that pertains to their evidence, and none of it is reproducible and observable.Christianity never aimed to prove the existance of God, I already explained why would God never give any observable evidence to the living people. You can't even observe such a basic foundation as the "soul," much less reproduce it.Of course, you couldnt, why the hell could you? I mean do you even know what a soul is? Its the one thing non-biological in your bady, the only part of you that lasts forever. Its your conscience, as in wheather you feel bad or good when you did something good or wrong.I also don't see how a catholic priest proposing the idea of the Big Bang is somehow self-ownage, considering he proposed it given evidence from Einstein. In fact, it proves my point further. The people didn't know jack shit until such evidence was brought up.Actually,Einstein refused the idea of spreading universe. The catholic priest was the first one to intorduce that idea. And it is a self pwnage because you talked about how Christians provide no evidence for existance of God, and yet Big Bang was originally mean to thoerize the Gods creation of Universe.
Your ability to not understand is astounding me. How do we not have evidence of alien life? We have evidence of how life comes about, what is necessary for life like ours to prosper, and many other such things. We can estimate the size of the universe and the fact there are many millions of galaxies, with billions of stars, each of which may have many planets. Statistically, there is a very high chance of there being life.Yes, there is a chnace and I am 100% sure there is an alien life, but there is no real observable evidence on the existance of it, so going by your amazing logic, it would be wrong to consider that alien life exists until we get information and evidence on it.Our knowledge of outside of our solar system and the universe is extremly limited Furthermore, faith is not information and evidence.Never said it was. Faith is a bullshit feeling/emotion that humans exhibit because they are too dumb and try to make themselves seem more important than they are.More than 5 billion people disagree with you. Apparently most people have problems realizing that they are utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things.They dont. I think everyone knows that we are alost nothing in the universe. I also like how with your brilliant understanding you came to my conclusion, but somehow tried to pass it off as your argument. No belief has any evidence, and is therefore wrong.So atheism is also wrong? Faith doesn't make a belief right. I would also LOVE to hear how mathematically, there is a greater probability that there is a being associated with creation, because there are far more combinations of possibilities where there is no being than when there is. Being associated with creation? In order for theism to be right, out of 100 of Gods out there only one of them has to exist, for atheism to be right every single one of these Gods must be non existant.
Lastly, you REALLY need to work on your reading skills because I never said that an atheist is less likely to go to hell. In fact, I never mentioned hell in any of my arguments until you brought it up because you failed to read. Do you really want me to go 4-5 pages back and show you where you said ''atheist person is a lot less in Hell than the theist person.'' ?
P.S. My original point is that everyone with a belief is as right as fairy tales. In other words, everyone knows absolutely jack shit about our existance, and the creation of such existance. If any set of religious beliefs are correct, then so are fairy tales by the exact same damn arguments. If fairy tales are wrong, then so are all religious beliefs, by the same exact arguments. To use some technical language. The problem of the validity of religion can be reduced to to the problem of the validity of fairy tales.Events and characters in New testament existed and happend (thou it is true that some things other pagan religious characters had were described to Jesus by the church). Events and characters in fiary tales never happend and never existed. PERIOD
|
|
If you are going into an argument at least be curteous enough to do some basic fact checking instead of pulling misinformation out of your ass, please. "We didn't kill the Aztects, but converted them?" Are you joking or do you really believe that load of shit? Since you don't know something something that simple let me reduce it to just a very single point. Is human sacrifice moral in christianity? It is moral to the aztecs and they think of it as "good" and anyone who disagrees as an idiot.
As to why Mary is not a virgin here are 3 undeniable facts: Back in those days adulterers, especially women, would be severely punished. It takes a man and a woman to conceive a baby. People want to live and survive, as well as their children. This is undeniable, reproducible, and observed evidence. I think you know where this is going, Mary slept with someone other than her husband, went "oh fuck imma die," and to save her ass she lied as to who the child belinged to. There you go, insurmountable evidence mary wasn't a virgin.
I also liek how you are laughing when you didn't understand anything, yet again. Let me outline it with smaller sentences and words for you. Christ is god's son. This can only be true if god, the specific way you think he exists, exists. Christ isn't the son of god if god isn't what you think it is. Therefore, Christ's validity rests on god existing in the first place. Did you understand that now? Furthermore, correct me if i am wrong, but there wasn't much talk about Jesus until he was 30-ish, except that one incident at the market. Gee, I wonder what an adolescent boy does between the ages of 12 and 30. Let me give you a hint, lots of drinking and fucking up (usuallyliteral fucking too). Just like with Mary, saying Jesus is sinnless is laughable given the overwhelming evidence against it.
Also, you obviously don't know of any fairy tales that have basis in real life events and people. Robin Hood and King Arthur are the ones you would be most familiar with. There were some more in other cultures, but given your astounding lack of knowledge in the areas of the Aztecs, I won't even bother. Also, why are you not a muslim? Mohammed was just as real as Jesus, and he didn't have all that many gaps in his life as Jesus. Sure he went to some cave, ate some mushrooms, and probably saw the archangel, but why are his teachings not good enough for you?
As for alien life, do you know what obeservable evidence even means? To quote myself: "We have evidence of how life comes about, what is necessary for life like ours to prosper, and many other such things." That IS observable evidence. The number of planets in the universe? Also observable. Again, I am surprised at your astounding ability in not knowing much about a whole lot of things. For another instance of this, you still don't seem to realize that the Big Bang was proposed AFTER there was evidence of its existance, and it doesn't matter what Einstein believed, just his results matter. Given that evidence, the priest came up with the theory. WHich, by the way, has a hell of a lot more evidence than a "soul." Tell me, how is a soul not different than a unicorn? Can you disprove to me the existances of unicrons and fairies and leprechauns?
I am also surprised that only 5 billion people have blind faith, because I am sure there is 6.5 billion idiots out there. Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't make it so. I did say atheism is also wrong. However you show even more lack of understanding. Yes, there may be 100 different theories about god right now, most probably more. I actually find it utterly laughable that you think that the only possible cosmic beings are the ones that humans can imagine and pull out of their ass. Let me tell you, there are FAR FAR more possibilities where there is a sentient force which caused the creation than you could ever wrap your head around. The thing is though, there is an even bigger subset of possibilities which have nothing to do with a sentiennt being at all. The thing is, a person who believes in the existance of a non-specific being that created the universe, is FAR FAR more right than you. You are just simply wrong because you are one spec in the middle of infinity. At least the person who believes there is some form of god doesn't specify what it actually is. Christians are extremely specific, and they doomed themselves to just being wrong. As for atheists, they have a far greater than probability of being right than you, or any muslim, or hindu, or Aztec,etc. Solely because all the possibilities that allow for creation without a sentient force are so many, and religious beliefs are so specific.
My words were "an atheist person is a lot less wwrong than a religious person" which ties up with the above.
P.S. Please, for whatever you believe in, go do some fact checking before you write a reply. You pull a lot of shit out of your ass, and it is really tiring having to correct you all the time.
