Official Everybody Edits Forums

AzurePudding

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

@AzurePudding: Yes, I'm allowed to make atheists look bad when I'm arguing AGAINST them. Kinda what everyone does. Big Crunch doesn't make a difference, as proven by your last paragraph. Where the hell did that come from. And not knowing how something happened doesn't make God not exist either. Remember how I said I'm arguing that we're going nowhere? I wasn't just saying that. I meant it.

Gee, arguing against your own side.   I guess that's why we're getting no where.

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: Religious Tolerance

And as for the part about God always existing, and I don't want to refer to this again. PLEASE. LOOK. AT. THE GODDAMN FLOWCHART. GOD DEFIES EVERYTHING BY DEFINITION.
There's no explanation for the supernatural, BY DEFINITION.

No matter how you slice it, your theory and the Big Bang Theory are both incredibly similar. God defying the laws of nature is simply an illogical explanation for your theory; not an argument to suggest they are completely different.

In other words:
"Matter is created by God, which always existed + Time = Today (via breaking the laws of nature. How? God defies laws of nature.)"
as compared to
"Matter always existed + Time = Today (via following all laws of nature. How? We don't know.)"

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Toby

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

@Toby: First off, a reminder that those aren't my words. They're someone else's. Secondly, your point about the beginning of the universe is...? Are you saying that nothing existed before the Big Bang/whatever happened? EVERYTHING came into existence at one point. And as for the part about God always existing, and I don't want to refer to this again. PLEASE. LOOK. AT. THE GODDAMN FLOWCHART. GOD DEFIES EVERYTHING BY DEFINITION.
There's no explanation for the supernatural, BY DEFINITION.

No. Again, I'm saying I DON'T KNOW what happened before The Big Bang. Also, asking what was around "before" the universe began is nonsensical because there is no before the universe began - there was no time before the inception...
Also the metaphysical argument is complete bollocks. If God is metaphysical and can't be tested for then he's as good as not there.

Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen.

"But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry.

Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves."

At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

You're saying there can't be evidence for God because he's untestable; that a world without God would be the same as the world with God (if you disagree with this you're saying God is testable and therefore not metaphysical). So then you're also saying that God is completely inconsequential and may as well not exist.

No-one takes the non-cognitivism/metaphysical argument seriously anymore. I'm sure it sounded clever when your parents / teacher told you it, but it doesn't hold logically at all.

Like seriously, think about it. For even a second.

xputnameherex

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

GOD DAMMIT. I accidently clicked off the chatbox and pressed backspace and lost all my progress, with a really awesome looking and awesomely stated post (take my word for it). So excuse me as I paraprhase everything really fast because I dont feel like rewriting the like 10 paragraphs I just wrote.,

@azurepudding: Do you even know what English is?

@TakoMan: Correct, do you now see why this is going nowhere.

@Toby: Were the millions of people lying who said "My eyes were opened". Who said "I had a revelation." Who were once Firm atheists than devout religious. Who changed their career after years in the making, to serve the lord. Yeah, a lot of people lied when they said "God spoke to me" I dont deny that. But to group every single thing into that category just because you can't stand the idea that God might exist, that you'd argue that he doesn't on a forum, (Again, I'm arguing that we're not proving anything here), is silly.

Toby

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

@Toby: Were the millions of people lying who said "My eyes were opened". Who said "I had a revelation." Who were once Firm atheists than devout religious. Who changed their career after years in the making, to serve the lord. Yeah, a lot of people lied when they said "God spoke to me" I dont deny that. But to group every single thing into that category just because you can't stand the idea that God might exist, that you'd argue that he doesn't on a forum, (Again, I'm arguing that we're not proving anything here), is silly

I have nothing against religious people. But when people like you and soccerfan start making stuff up (Evolution having evidence against it, masses of athiests converting to religion) then I have a problem.Your beliefs come from your parents and you never separated from them. If you'd been raised elsewhere you'd have a different religion.

You reached the position your defending without any real critical thinking, which is boring. You can't argue for a position you hold whne you reached it without evidence. So stop trying.

Millions of people leave / are leaving religions too, especially in America where it's slowly slipping away in the younger generations. It's not a point in either one's favour.

xputnameherex

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

1. The Church believes in evolution, ****.

2. Masses of atheists do convert to theism. Don't be ignorant, I respect that many theists convert to atheism.

3. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, so likely, no.

4. OMFG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!! CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND A **** SIMPLE FLOW CHART! EVIDENCE IS NOT NEEDED FOR GOD BY **** DEFINITION.

5. Correct.

Zoey2070

Moderation Team

From: Shakuras

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 5,511

Re: Religious Tolerance

1. The Church believes in evolution, ****.

2. Masses of atheists do convert to theism. Don't be ignorant, I respect that many theists convert to atheism.

3. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, so likely, no.

4. OMFG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!! CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND A **** SIMPLE FLOW CHART! EVIDENCE IS NOT NEEDED FOR GOD BY **** DEFINITION.

5. Correct.

Wow okay stop flaming first of all. Calm the **** down and if you want banned, honestly, just leave. Stop being an asshat.

1. A lot of people don't.

2. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Stop being so militant.

3. Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray are pretty popular. Popularity != Good

4. boo hoo is da wittle babi havin a bad dai? Seriously? Your flowchart was honestly incredibly stupid.

@Zoey: Very annoying to decipher. . So here goes, trying to get every point you made in there: Yes, we might never know what's up with the universe. So? As for 'leaving it blank,' it is perfectly justifiable to accept something because there is no other way something can happen, due to conservation of matter (which only god can defy). God didn't say, "Hey guys. We revolve around the sun. Cool huh!" (This is brojesus). Your quote is kinda irrelevant, it wasn't God who said it. And everyone already knew the   earth was round, he only wanted a route to India. He had no fear except people.

Um, wow. My head hurts from hitting it and saying 'this guy is literally asking to be banned'.
If God can, theoretically, defy the conservation of matter, then there's absolutely no point of it even existing because wow no if one thing can, then anything can.
Isn't the Bible apparently written by god?

Okay, and let's say that God can defy science because apparently flowcharts are always right no matter how condescending they may be.
Hey, does that make you a flow chart...?

Okay, if God can defy science, then whatever he defies wouldn't be science because we'd know that it can be defied in some way which could most likely be recreated, therefore that would be changed. Then it wouldn't be considered 'science', and therefore God can't defy science if what he's defying isn't science. Does that make sense?
And do you have any proof that God can defy science? Oh right because evidence isn't needed.

That's actually a really, really odd thing. We've got an immortal being that can do anything but refuses to show hisself and that's okay because he doesn't need to.

But then how would we know of his existence if he's never shown himself, since there's no evidence? It's sort of like Schrodinger's cat. We don't know if it's alive or dead until we open the box. How the hell did the idea of a god even get started if we have no knowledge of it?

If you manage to stay unbanned (doubtful), then you're still welcome in this topic because I really want to know what you think of my last 4ish paragraphs. oh goddamnit.

Anyway, I guess it all boils down to the fact that we have no proof and therefore it's socially acceptable to worship anything because after all it may or may not be a deity by definition.

Last edited by Zoey2070 (Nov 27 2012 2:07:57 pm)

---

proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂   ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe    [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?          

Ban XPutNameHereX

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

1. The Church believes in evolution, ****.
2. Masses of atheists do convert to theism. Don't be ignorant, I respect that many theists convert to atheism.
3. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, so likely, no.
4. OMFG WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!!! CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND A **** SIMPLE FLOW CHART! EVIDENCE IS NOT NEEDED FOR GOD BY **** DEFINITION.
5. Correct.

Wow okay stop flaming first of all. Calm the **** down and if you want banned, honestly, just leave. Stop being an asshat.
1. A lot of people don't.
2. You seem to be contradicting yourself. Stop being so militant.
3. Twilight and 50 Shades of Gray are pretty popular. Popularity != Good
4. boo hoo is da wittle babi havin a bad dai? Seriously? Your flowchart was honestly incredibly stupid.

@Zoey: Very annoying to decipher. . So here goes, trying to get every point you made in there: Yes, we might never know what's up with the universe. So? As for 'leaving it blank,' it is perfectly justifiable to accept something because there is no other way something can happen, due to conservation of matter (which only god can defy). God didn't say, "Hey guys. We revolve around the sun. Cool huh!" (This is brojesus). Your quote is kinda irrelevant, it wasn't God who said it. And everyone already knew the earth was round, he only wanted a route to India. He had no fear except people.

Um, wow. My head hurts from hitting it and saying 'this guy is literally asking to be banned'.
If God can, theoretically, defy the conservation of matter, then there's absolutely no point of it even existing because wow no if one thing can, then anything can.
Isn't the Bible apparently written by god?
Okay, and let's say that God can defy science because apparently flowcharts are always right no matter how condescending they may be.
Hey, does that make you a flow chart...?
Okay, if God can defy science, then whatever he defies wouldn't be science because we'd know that it can be defied in some way which could most likely be recreated, therefore that would be changed. Then it wouldn't be considered 'science', and therefore God can't defy science if what he's defying isn't science. Does that make sense?
And do you have any proof that God can defy science? Oh right because evidence isn't needed.
That's actually a really, really odd thing. We've got an immortal being that can do anything but refuses to show hisself and that's okay because he doesn't need to.
But then how would we know of his existence if he's never shown himself, since there's no evidence? It's sort of like Schrodinger's cat. We don't know if it's alive or dead until we open the box. How the hell did the idea of a god even get started if we have no knowledge of it?
If you manage to stay unbanned (doubtful), then you're still welcome in this topic because I really want to know what you think of my last 4ish paragraphs. oh goddamnit.
Anyway, I guess it all boils down to the fact that we have no proof and therefore it's socially acceptable to worship anything because after all it may or may not be a deity by definition.

1. Not the church.
2. How so?
3. That was a response to that I would not be born back into Christianity.
4. Read #6.
5. No, God did not write the Bible.
6. As for the part about him defying science, then "science wouldnt even exist" or whatever. ... ... Seriously. There's something. ****. Wrong with you. God. Defies. Science. By. Definition.... We. Cannot. Explain. Why. By. Definition. Thanks for following the **** flow chart. No thank you for saying "YOUR FLOW CHART IS STUPID."
7. As for the part about evidence, read post before Toby's most recent. He. Does. Show. Himself.
(Btw, I came back because they only banned me for a day, and said, "Cool down," as if I've never thought of raging before, or as if I've never heard of proxies before)

Last edited by Ban XPutNameHereX (Nov 27 2012 2:51:02 pm)

Saintcool

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

3. Christianity is the most popular religion in the world, so likely, no.

I have to call bs on that:
Christianity = 2,331,509,000
Buddhism = 3,103,644,616

Before you say things like that, do your research.

Last edited by Saintcool (Nov 27 2012 2:58:10 pm)

Zoey2070

Moderation Team

From: Shakuras

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 5,511

Re: Religious Tolerance

1. Not the church.
2. How so?
3. That was a response to that I would not be born back into Christianity.
4. Read #6.
5. No, God did not write the Bible.
6. As for the part about him defying science, then "science wouldnt even exist" or whatever. ... ... Seriously. There's something. ****. Wrong with you. God. Defies. Science. By. Definition.... We. Cannot. Explain. Why. By. Definition. Thanks for following the **** flow chart. No thank you for saying "YOUR FLOW CHART IS STUPID."
7. As for the part about evidence, read post before Toby's most recent. He. Does. Show. Himself.
(Btw, I came back because they only banned me for a day, and said, "Cool down," as if I've never thought of raging before, or as if I've never heard of proxies before)

Woops, I forgot to elaborate on the 'bible' bit because I forgot what I quoted and didn't finish that thought. Oh well.
And seriously? If you wanted to so thoroughly leave this community, log the **** out and be on your way instead of posting 9 times in a row and then making a new account. The you being a flowchart thing was a joke. You are a joke. Your flow chart is a joke. Re-read what I said involving science. Think it through.
Definition of God:
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3
: a person or thing of supreme value
4
: a powerful ruler
-
[source]
I don't see any thing regarding 'defying science by definition'. Science is flexible and changes. Religion does not change very often. Science would change according to what God evidently defies.

Also, I saw something incredibly sad on facebook that said in extreme paraphrasing 'THE BIG BANG THEORY IS STUPID GOD IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND YOUR PUNY BRAIN CANNOT HANDLE THAT. FACT.'

perhaps i should link her to religious tolerance and be done.

edit: also about the church thing can you please specify a church or did you already do that? Because there is no 'The Church' because seriously it seems that there's a billion different churches.

Last edited by Zoey2070 (Nov 27 2012 3:08:11 pm)

---

proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂   ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe    [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?          

Alex

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

just thought I'd butt my head in here and say that there is a pretty common belief that god and science can coexist

not the god from christianity or similar religions, but tons of people(see:most agnostics) believe that modern science has a   pretty good understanding of our universe, but that it and the laws the govern it are by design

not my views personally, but it's a very common belief and it isn't impossible I guess

Shift

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

This thread has devolved from "Religious Tolerance" to "Christianity vs Science." Just saying, there's a big difference.

2. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I won't argue with you there, but you need to see the irony. One of the main tenets you've used to support your side is that Christianity fails to recognize widely accepted scientific facts such as evolution. Basically, you're debasing religion on the grounds that it refuses to adapt. However, you seem to have forgotten how to adapt, as well. I know we're not supposed to speak with absolutes, but it's a known fact that science, as far as we know it, is incomplete and needs to progress. Therefore, it's certainly possible that theories such as the conservation of matter are dead wrong.

If you want to start calling "contradiction," then at least don't contradict yourself simultaneously.

Zoey2070

Moderation Team

From: Shakuras

Joined: 2015-02-15

Posts: 5,511

Re: Religious Tolerance

This thread has devolved from "Religious Tolerance" to "Christianity vs Science." Just saying, there's a big difference.

2. You seem to be contradicting yourself.

I won't argue with you there, but you need to see the irony. One of the main tenets you've used to support your side is that Christianity fails to recognize widely accepted scientific facts such as evolution. Basically, you're debasing religion on the grounds that it refuses to adapt. However, you seem to have forgotten how to adapt, as well. I know we're not supposed to speak with absolutes, but it's a known fact that science, as far as we know it, is incomplete and needs to progress. Therefore, it's certainly possible that theories such as the conservation of matter are dead wrong.

If you want to start calling "contradiction," then at least don't contradict yourself simultaneously.

I do suppose you have a very good point there (about the conservation of matter being dead wrong) and I would say I was being ironic on purpose but I'm not going to lie. I just didn't want to dismiss number 2 completely.
Is this contradiception?

---

proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂   ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe    [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?          

soccerfreak006

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I have to agree with xputyournameherex. You guys are saying that nothing can be made of nothing, like how science says matter cannot be made or destroyed. But, you guys are saying that god defied that, that he was always there. But you guys are saying that the big bang just happened, nothing was there before it. You are being hypocritical. Oh, and how you say god defies science, science is when you use a theory to define something until it is disproven. And God made science.

Nou

Member

Joined: 2015-02-24

Posts: 2,762

Re: Religious Tolerance

I was gonna type a response but after xputnameherex's angry post I realized we're dealing with 12 year olds here, so I'm not gonna bother.

---

No u.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I have to agree with xputyournameherex. You guys are saying that nothing can be made of nothing, like how science says matter cannot be made or destroyed. But, you guys are saying that god defied that, that he was always there. But you guys are saying that the big bang just happened, nothing was there before it. You are being hypocritical. Oh, and how you say god defies science, science is when you use a theory to define something until it is disproven. And God made science.

Not everyone here does, the big bang had a cause, and the universe was created was finite matter. You can claim it was a god as much as you can claim it was a banana, because YOU don't know, no one here does. It was something, obviously something related to science. Religion is just an old way of explaining how the world works. Anyone here claiming it came from nothing is an idiot who doesn't update themselves with science.

If I was god, and I saw the Earth become scientific like it is now, I would be proud.

D-rock2308

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I feel that before anyone can say anything about a different religion you must prove that it is true and follows no other religion because yours is the "right" one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re … traditions

Good luck.

Toby

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I was gonna type a response but after xputnameherex's angry post I realized we're dealing with 12 year olds here, so I'm not gonna bother.

QFT.

That and them just repeating their arguments without actually addressing what I said makes it pretty pointless to continue.

soccerfreak006

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

Let's get this topic back to "tolerance". If I really had the choice, I wouldn't, but this is Zoey's topic. I don't think that she meant this to be an argument. let's go back to what this was supposed to be about.
saintcool: Christianity is much larger than buddhism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Last edited by soccerfreak006 (Nov 27 2012 5:31:39 pm)

Legoking2000

Member

Joined: 2015-04-19

Posts: 649

Re: Religious Tolerance

This is funny because like stated above, there really is no "tolerance" going on at all.   Everyone calm down and think about what you're about to post before this gets nasty.   Personally I don't care what people look like, eat, sound like, believe in (religiously).   We were all created equally, so how can one religion created by a man be supreme to another religion created by an equal man?   It doesn't make sense to me but we all have our preferences so I guess equality infringes on your freedom.

Yeah doesn't make sense to me either.

Shift

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I see treejoe decided that since his side of the argument lost he would try repeating it. Nice job.

For that reason Toby pretty much spoke for me, but I have this addition:

I do suppose you have a very good point there (about the conservation of matter being dead wrong) and I would say I was being ironic on purpose but I'm not going to lie. I just didn't want to dismiss number 2 completely.
Is this contradiception?

All I aim to do is make people see both sides.

Lol, yes, contradiception. Perks of being a skeptic, I guess.

Last edited by Shift (Nov 27 2012 5:57:17 pm)

Tako

Member

From: Memphis, Tennessee, USA

Joined: 2015-08-10

Posts: 6,663

Website

Re: Religious Tolerance

I have to agree with xputyournameherex. You guys are saying that nothing can be made of nothing, like how science says matter cannot be made or destroyed. But, you guys are saying that god defied that, that he was always there. But you guys are saying that the big bang just happened, nothing was there before it. You are being hypocritical.

We are saying in your theory, god always existed, and in our theory, matter always existed. We're not claiming impossibility. Nobody is. Just that it's not likely.

You've miraculously managed to ignore my and everyone else's main point - it isn't about proof. It's about logic and reason and probability. If god exists because purple elephants dance on the moon, that's great - completely possible - just don't tell us it's logical or reasonable and try to argue for it.

Oh, and how you say god defies science, science is when you use a theory to define something until it is disproven. And God made science.

Yes, that is your theory. It's good to reiterate. Except the science bit. That's not what science is.

-----

Let's start from square one again.

The Big Bang Theory and the Christian theory are both unproven and have little to no evidence to support it. The key differentiation is that the Big Bang Theory is orthodox, while the Christian theory is irrational and illogical.

You ignore this and continue to assert it as truth. Why assert it as truth at all if you do not have reasoning or logic?

What makes your theory more right than an invisible pink unicorn, or a matrix programmer, or the big bang? What are you arguing here? Where is your justification?

If you think the beginning of time is this big blur of random events and things no human can understand, and that from this you can say anything you want, then you're sadly mistaken. That's what the world has issue with in religious theories, there is no reasoning.

That and them just repeating their arguments without actually addressing what I said makes it pretty pointless to continue.

Where's the fun in them understanding you? They're just trying to say something and getting frustrated when we don't fully understand them.

-----

From reading that OP you'll find that this isn't about "religious tolerance" per se, rather the pros and cons of each. This is the con part. I already said my pro part, and there's nothing to debate in that.

---

Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

AzurePudding

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

@azurepudding: Do you even know what English is?

Yes I do.   This is a discussion topic, not a bashing topic, kthx.

treejoe4

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

I see treejoe decided that since his side of the argument lost he would try repeating it. Nice job.

For that reason Toby pretty much spoke for me, but I have this addition:

I do suppose you have a very good point there (about the conservation of matter being dead wrong) and I would say I was being ironic on purpose but I'm not going to lie. I just didn't want to dismiss number 2 completely.
Is this contradiception?

All I aim to do is make people see both sides.

Lol, yes, contradiception. Perks of being a skeptic, I guess.

How have I lost?

Shift

Guest

Re: Religious Tolerance

How have I lost?

I never said you lost; rather, I said your side of the "contradiction" argument lost. Perhaps using the term lost was a bit too condescending, and I certainly didn't mean it like that. However, I already posted a reply to a post very similar to yours, and so I'd suggest you read it. Zoey agreed with me on the hypocrisy of the subject.