By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How to Destroy an Athiests in a argument! (Updated with poll)

 

Who won?

The Athiest 40 70.18%
 
The creationist 17 29.82%
 
Total:57
spaceguy on 31 December 2012
Player1x3 said:
spaceguy said:
KungKras said:

Ok. And what about the amalek women and children who were supposedly slaughtered too.

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

And what about those innocent camels and oxes, what did they ever do to deserve getting killed (If they weren't to be eaten) :(

Is this moral because god commanded it? Was it a logcal thing to follow god's command?


nope the bible is pretty mindless.

Amaleks arent part of the Christian Bible, but nice try tho.

I don't care what religion you want to post. They all have no clue and are taking a stabe in the dark. The people who follow are apparently the ones that need some help in logic.



Around the Network
KungKras on 31 December 2012
Player1x3 said:


Like i said before, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This was the concept of law that was very popular on Middle East, not just among abrahamic followers, and its not exclusive to any religion. If they slaughtered their wives and children, their own wives and childeren had to be slaughtered too. I am not saying I agree with it, but that was the accepted ethic back then and it wasnt ony exclusive to a jewish religion.

What about Abraham. It was totally moral for him to be willing to sacrifice his son, should god have commanded it, regardless if he did it or not.

When the crusaders rallied to march aganst antioch, they shouted "God wills it" becasue that's what the pope told them. The motivation of the 911 bombers were rewards in heaven. Considering how these people viewed the world, their actions were logical.

If god today ordered you to kill a schoolbus full of children, and you are 100% sure that it is god who ordered you (because he showed you heaven or whatever) would it be logical for you to follow his command?



I LOVE ICELAND!

Player1x3 on 31 December 2012
spaceguy said:
Player1x3 said:
spaceguy said:
KungKras said:

Ok. And what about the amalek women and children who were supposedly slaughtered too.

"2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

And what about those innocent camels and oxes, what did they ever do to deserve getting killed (If they weren't to be eaten) :(

Is this moral because god commanded it? Was it a logcal thing to follow god's command?


nope the bible is pretty mindless.

Amaleks arent part of the Christian Bible, but nice try tho.

I don't care what religion you want to post. They all have no clue and are taking a stabe in the dark. The people who follow are apparently the ones that need some help in logic.

Great argument, Im convinced !



Player1x3 on 31 December 2012
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:


Like i said before, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This was the concept of law that was very popular on Middle East, not just among abrahamic followers, and its not exclusive to any religion. If they slaughtered their wives and children, their own wives and childeren had to be slaughtered too. I am not saying I agree with it, but that was the accepted ethic back then and it wasnt ony exclusive to a jewish religion.

What about Abraham. It was totally moral for him to be willing to sacrifice his son, should god have commanded it, regardless if he did it or not.

When the crusaders rallied to march aganst antioch, they shouted "God wills it" becasue that's what the pope told them. The motivation of the 911 bombers were rewards in heaven. Considering how these people viewed the world, their actions were logical.

If god today ordered you to kill a schoolbus full of children, and you are 100% sure that it is god who ordered you (because he showed you heaven or whatever) would it be logical for you to follow his command?

If God, (by abrahaic definition) is a creator of life and heaven, has a perfect, unlimited knowledge and morals, and he actually did spoke to Abraham,then yeah, everything he says is moral and should be done. It wouldnt be only illogical not to do it. But you're making some really dumb and outrageous hypothesis to make your point, try to get more intact with reality. And God didnt allow for Abraham to kill his son, so I dont know why you brought this up, when you're trying to make a point that God, religion=evil killing

As for crusaders, they can claim to have done it the name of God and Jesus, and yet their acts still went directly against God's and Jesus's teaching. Christ actually predicted an event simmilar to the Crusades happening and he clearly denounced all the participants in it. Nowhere does it say in the Christian bible that invading and plundering lands are God's word. 

You see , the difference between Stalin and crusades is that the Stalin's ideology actually supported his acts while the crusaders didnt. And thats why anti-theism (the strong form of atheism) is billion times worse than any abrahamic religion, and it should be treated as such



KungKras on 31 December 2012
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:


Like i said before, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This was the concept of law that was very popular on Middle East, not just among abrahamic followers, and its not exclusive to any religion. If they slaughtered their wives and children, their own wives and childeren had to be slaughtered too. I am not saying I agree with it, but that was the accepted ethic back then and it wasnt ony exclusive to a jewish religion.

What about Abraham. It was totally moral for him to be willing to sacrifice his son, should god have commanded it, regardless if he did it or not.

When the crusaders rallied to march aganst antioch, they shouted "God wills it" becasue that's what the pope told them. The motivation of the 911 bombers were rewards in heaven. Considering how these people viewed the world, their actions were logical.

If god today ordered you to kill a schoolbus full of children, and you are 100% sure that it is god who ordered you (because he showed you heaven or whatever) would it be logical for you to follow his command?

If God, (by abrahaic definition) is a creator of life and heaven, has a perfect, unlimited knowledge and morals, and he actually did spoke to Abraham,then yeah, everything he says is moral and should be done. It wouldnt be only illogical not to do it. But you're making some really dumb and outrageous hypothesis to make your point, try to get more intact with reality. And God didnt allow for Abraham to kill his son, so I dont know why you brought this up, when you're trying to make a point that God, religion=evil killing

As for crusaders, they can claim to have done it the name of God and Jesus, and yet their acts still went directly against God's and Jesus's teaching. Christ actually predicted an event simmilar to the Crusades happening and he clearly denounced all the participants in it. Nowhere does it say in the Christian bible that invading and plundering lands are God's word. 

You see , the difference between Stalin and crusades is that the Stalin's ideology actually supported his acts while the crusaders didnt. And thats why anti-theism (the strong form of atheism) is billion times worse than any abrahamic religion, and it should be treated as such

First of, anti-theism is as much the extreme form of not believing in a deity as anti-semitism is the strong form of not being jewish. Also, even if you are anti-theist like Christpher Hitchens for example, there is still no moral justification for killing people.

What you admitted in the bold part illustrates the point I'm trying to make. You can have perfectly normal people, and with religious motivations they can commit horribly immoral acts (as in causing carnage and misery) and inside the framework of their faith, it's perfectly moral.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Around the Network
spaceguy on 31 December 2012
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:


Like i said before, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This was the concept of law that was very popular on Middle East, not just among abrahamic followers, and its not exclusive to any religion. If they slaughtered their wives and children, their own wives and childeren had to be slaughtered too. I am not saying I agree with it, but that was the accepted ethic back then and it wasnt ony exclusive to a jewish religion.

What about Abraham. It was totally moral for him to be willing to sacrifice his son, should god have commanded it, regardless if he did it or not.

When the crusaders rallied to march aganst antioch, they shouted "God wills it" becasue that's what the pope told them. The motivation of the 911 bombers were rewards in heaven. Considering how these people viewed the world, their actions were logical.

If god today ordered you to kill a schoolbus full of children, and you are 100% sure that it is god who ordered you (because he showed you heaven or whatever) would it be logical for you to follow his command?

If God, (by abrahaic definition) is a creator of life and heaven, has a perfect, unlimited knowledge and morals, and he actually did spoke to Abraham,then yeah, everything he says is moral and should be done. It wouldnt be only illogical not to do it. But you're making some really dumb and outrageous hypothesis to make your point, try to get more intact with reality. And God didnt allow for Abraham to kill his son, so I dont know why you brought this up, when you're trying to make a point that God, religion=evil killing

As for crusaders, they can claim to have done it the name of God and Jesus, and yet their acts still went directly against God's and Jesus's teaching. Christ actually predicted an event simmilar to the Crusades happening and he clearly denounced all the participants in it. Nowhere does it say in the Christian bible that invading and plundering lands are God's word. 

You see , the difference between Stalin and crusades is that the Stalin's ideology actually supported his acts while the crusaders didnt. And thats why anti-theism (the strong form of atheism) is billion times worse than any abrahamic religion, and it should be treated as such

First of, anti-theism is as much the extreme form of not believing in a deity as anti-semitism is the strong form of not being jewish. Also, even if you are anti-theist like Christpher Hitchens for example, there is still no moral justification for killing people.

What you admitted in the bold part illustrates the point I'm trying to make. You can have perfectly normal people, and with religious motivations they can commit horribly immoral acts (as in causing carnage and misery) and inside the framework of their faith, it's perfectly moral.




GhaudePhaede010 on 31 December 2012

Great, funny and entertaining. 5*



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

TheProphet on 04 January 2013
KungKras said:
TheProphet said:
 

Of course it's not worthy of your time because you wisely observed that you were caught in a contradiction and decided to cut you loses and abandon this sinking ship of an argument.

Well, there is a bit of overlap in cosmology since the Koran and Christian bible rely on the Jewish bible. 'In the beginning' was stated by all so they  all recognize a divine being creating the universe, and they are all better explain  reality than atheism.

Where the Christian bible out shines the others in the understanding of how God wipes unbelievers off the face of the earth. The story of Sodom and Gommorah has a very crude association between God's destruction and disobedient societies. It just says bluntly don't do this or else. The New Testament explains how people who abandon God will abandon biblical morality and perish. As we know from Western civilization, which has abandoned Christianity, it has destroyed the traditional family upon which society is built. As a result of no-fault divorce, pornography, and abortion the Western family has a fertily rate of about 1.6, or 16 children for 20 parents, or a 25 percent extinction per generation; which will wipe out Western civilization in about 200 years.  So the die has been cast, God has delivered his judgement. Western civilization will be wiped off the face of the earth in 200 years and there is nothing anybody can do to prevent this. So welcome your Muslim immigrants, they are your replacements, the chosen ones of God. Or if you live in the U.S. the Hispanics are your replacements. Praise the Lord. 

 

No, it's not worthy of my time because you have no idea how flawed your reasoning is, especially when dealing with the eleven-dimensional.

So you really do belive that the best ones at overpopulating the planet wins.... I really can't make a better argument against your position than just showing people this argument of yours, so you go ahead and believe your crazy stuff, but don't be surprised that anybody who has half a brain won't ever take you seriously.


Incredible. So you believe a society is a winner if it goes extinct. Don't tell that to too many people because they will think you are totally out to lunch.



KungKras on 04 January 2013
TheProphet said:
KungKras said:

No, it's not worthy of my time because you have no idea how flawed your reasoning is, especially when dealing with the eleven-dimensional.

So you really do belive that the best ones at overpopulating the planet wins.... I really can't make a better argument against your position than just showing people this argument of yours, so you go ahead and believe your crazy stuff, but don't be surprised that anybody who has half a brain won't ever take you seriously.


Incredible. So you believe a society is a winner if it goes extinct. Don't tell that to too many people because they will think you are totally out to lunch.

No, I have this radical notion that truth isn't objectively determined by who makes the most babies.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Player1x3 on 05 January 2013
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:
KungKras said:
Player1x3 said:


Like i said before, eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. This was the concept of law that was very popular on Middle East, not just among abrahamic followers, and its not exclusive to any religion. If they slaughtered their wives and children, their own wives and childeren had to be slaughtered too. I am not saying I agree with it, but that was the accepted ethic back then and it wasnt ony exclusive to a jewish religion.

What about Abraham. It was totally moral for him to be willing to sacrifice his son, should god have commanded it, regardless if he did it or not.

When the crusaders rallied to march aganst antioch, they shouted "God wills it" becasue that's what the pope told them. The motivation of the 911 bombers were rewards in heaven. Considering how these people viewed the world, their actions were logical.

If god today ordered you to kill a schoolbus full of children, and you are 100% sure that it is god who ordered you (because he showed you heaven or whatever) would it be logical for you to follow his command?

If God, (by abrahaic definition) is a creator of life and heaven, has a perfect, unlimited knowledge and morals, and he actually did spoke to Abraham,then yeah, everything he says is moral and should be done. It wouldnt be only illogical not to do it. But you're making some really dumb and outrageous hypothesis to make your point, try to get more intact with reality. And God didnt allow for Abraham to kill his son, so I dont know why you brought this up, when you're trying to make a point that God, religion=evil killing

As for crusaders, they can claim to have done it the name of God and Jesus, and yet their acts still went directly against God's and Jesus's teaching. Christ actually predicted an event simmilar to the Crusades happening and he clearly denounced all the participants in it. Nowhere does it say in the Christian bible that invading and plundering lands are God's word. 

You see , the difference between Stalin and crusades is that the Stalin's ideology actually supported his acts while the crusaders didnt. And thats why anti-theism (the strong form of atheism) is billion times worse than any abrahamic religion, and it should be treated as such

First of, anti-theism is as much the extreme form of not believing in a deity as anti-semitism is the strong form of not being jewish. Also, even if you are anti-theist like Christpher Hitchens for example, there is still no moral justification for killing people.

What you admitted in the bold part illustrates the point I'm trying to make. You can have perfectly normal people, and with religious motivations they can commit horribly immoral acts (as in causing carnage and misery) and inside the framework of their faith, it's perfectly moral.

Anti theism is an open opposition against Theism and Theists (people who believe in God), and the opposition can appear in multiple ways. One of them is a physical opposition on a national level, which is what Stalin and other atheist leaders did. ''Anti'' means the opposition of, which isn't just a strong form of disbelief, but also an opposition to the other belief, and that's clearly what communism/marxism is to religion.

And antisemitism has more to do with race  and heritage of Jewish people, rather than jewish religion. Whereas anti theism is only connected to a religion and just Theism in general.

And how can something be ''horribly immoral'' if it comes from The Creator of Morals himself ? If like you said, we are 100% sure that it was an abrahamic God (all knowing God, which has unlimited knowledge and has created the objective morals) that told people to do so, only a complete retard wouldn't follow his orders. It's a completely other thing if someone says ''God told me so'' or ''this is what HE WOULD HAVE wanted'' or ''the book that we wrote/compelled says so'' and when God himself with a complete certainty speaks to people directly.