> Justinian I wrote:

> Econ,

In case you haven't realized this about avo, but he's trolling. He isn't dumb and has produced strong arguments in the past over the years, but his recent track record over the past few months has been one of trolling and deliberately arguing in circles.

people in here often cant read, so i have to repeat myself, they continue to ignore the important words and when i repeat, they claim im arguing in circles. the airplane thread in general was a good example, there was a failure to communicate, so repition was needed, eventually there was an understanding.

> > avogadro wrote:

> > "I haven't met every religious person in the world and personally taken account of their views on every subject, so according you, until I do meet that last religious person, then I am generalizing."

> no even then you would be generalizing. if i meet everything, of a group, i could describe them, and if it isnt true about all, it would be a generalization. in reality theres 1 similarity with all Christians, they believe in Jesus. there's 1 similarity with all religions, they believe in something. everything else you post is a generalization, not because you havent met all religious people, but because all religious people arent like how you describe.

Not any person belonging to any group is the same. Yet the vast majority of religious/Christian/Muslim people believe in the same things. You are saying the only thing that Christian's have in common is that they believe in Jesus. I dare say that they share a lot of similar/identical beliefs past that! Part of the "delusion" in the title of this thread (well I have discussed many things that fit under the 'delusion' and 'destruction' in the title) is how God / Jesus hasn't done / didnt do anything to make sure that all these branches of the church join together and love the same God/Jesus and their teachings; instead certain groups (notice I didn't say all) hate each other because of their way of looking at/following the big fella upstairs.

For those who believe that the Pope is the closest man to God, surely you must follow his teachings and those of the Vatican, otherwise you are not living as God intended. Naughty naughty!

>> "I'm an uneducated hick because I haven't heard of this one particular theologist? Nice one, shows how much class and good be-nice-and-love-everyone-morals religion has given you. I looked him up, but I didn't feel like buying any books. Eventually some info came back to the 6000-yrs old world and I stoped looking. In the end, I couldn't find anything to justify us saying that this man's guesses and wild stabs in the dark come anything close to Hawking. This is already a rediculous claim that you are making, I can't believe I'm replying to this one."

> im not claiming he is comparable to Hawking. He is the inventor of the Big bang theory, Georges Lema

> avogadro wrote:

> i would agree with all of this, if alot of the things you bring up in the original post, were some of those things that most religious people believe in, but they arent.

Based on my experiences, readings, etc, they are. Based on your experiences they are not. Shall we do paper-rock-sissors?

> doesnt the latter statement in this quote disprove the orignal statment? there is no unified church, there is no unified beleifs for christians, except for what the definition of the word is, which is a beleif in Jesus.

It's not intended to; it's meant to say that while there are a lot of common beliefs there are also alot where they differ. I'm still wanting to know why God, in his infinite wisdom, did not make it clear the exact system that is to be followed.

Also keep in mind this thread is not just talking about christians, it's talking about all religions and how the supreme-being that different religions believe in is similar, yet somehow different enough, that many believers must renounce all other religions, and some kill because of it. It's just bloody-minded stubborness of "well I'm obviously right, and everyone that doesn't agree is wrong."

> yeah, sorry about that, for some reasont he end of his last name got cut off... 

np.

>  which church? im assuming you mean the catholic church? they didnt "reject" the big bang theory. they also didnt say "this is how it happened! definitely" but a member of the church did propose the theory, and the church didnt oppose or reject the theory or him.

I shouldn't have said 'church rejects big bang', I'm happy to say that. But for some reason many individuals I've talked to, hence the reason for developing my conclusions (generalisations, for your sake) still doubt the Big Bang. If the church accepts and teaches the big bang (and many other theories) then shouldn't everyone in that church sign up to it, otherwise they are starting yet another sub-religion. God once again decided not to tell us about these things?

Of course if we go into how & why, that's another issue. I believe flint (maybe you also) is like "well we don't understand the singularity, so therefore it must have been created by a super-natural being, who consequently sent this fellow Jesus to earth to talk about him" Where as people like me are like "we don't understand the singularity, I hope the LHC is successfull, I can't wait to get some more info"

I'm happy to have learned something, as has the church. After the church's embarrassing record with 'earth is centre of the universe', witchcraft etc,  they now instead twist science to fit in with theology.

> making very negative generalizations about a group of people is not a good way to promote discussion. if i say "niggers are dirt" im not promoting discussion about black people.

If I had said "religious people are idiots" then you'd be right, but I've not said that.

> avogadro wrote:

> instead you said religion is a delusion which with association means religious people are delusional.

Only with regards to one unsubstantiated belief that they have. Otherwise, no.

> why would an all-powerful, all-knowing being want to do that? what would be his motivation?

He's concerned by tripe things such as people taking his name in vain, yet he won't do anything to prevent people killing each other over the proper way to worshop him. I would have thought that would be pretty good motivation. He has a very screwed up values-system.

I often woundered about many of his motivations..... What is his motivation for playing with little people when he has the whole universe to play with? Why make little people like us call him Lord and worshop him? He's obviously very self centered and has a real confidence problem.

> well, i know for a fact that the Catholic church does not teach creationism for example, and Catholicism is the largest sect of christianity, so you're wrong. you are uneducated on the matter.

That's just lovely, but again you are picking religion apart and dividing it apart. I have provided a wide range of examples of things that followers of different  religions/branches of christainity tend to do. You are trying to narrow it down.

As per the paragraph above, your arguement that one group of christians, or one particular religion is right, and the others are wrong, is just plain worthless.

> twist science? can you give examples of what you mean?

Countless. Talk to flint, or look up a few websites. I'm not providing any because your argument will go back to "oh those other christians think that, not me", which is not relevant.

> the Catholic church does not say that the big bang definitely happened, they recognize it for what it is, the most popular explanation for the creation of the universe currently available. they dont teach it as part of religion, maybe they learned from past mistakes of associating popular beliefs with religion, such as the earth being the center of the universe.

People thought that the earth was the centre of the universe because that's what the church told them, not the other way around, otherwise there wouldn't have been that whole Galileo fiasco. The church was proven to be wrong.

This is getting a little silly.   It is unfortunate that you have chosen to only respond to a few of the points I made in the last post (and all posts before that I guess). It would be interesting to read your responses on a wider range of the topics.

> > "He's concerned by tripe things such as people taking his name in vain,"
> says who?
God.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain"

> > "your arguement that one group of christians, or one particular religion is right, and the others are wrong, is just plain worthless"

> where did i argue that?

Almost every post before this one. See below, the 'not every christian believes that' point

>> "People thought that the earth was the centre of the universe because that's what the church told them, not the other way around, otherwise there wouldn't have been that whole Galileo fiasco. The church was proven to be wrong."

> Galileo was not in trouble until he explained how his findings did not contradict the church, because then he was interpretting the church's teachings which was the church's job. the church did not just one day say, the earth is teh center of the universe, it was a beleif even before the time of Jesus in many cultures.

ummm nup. "Cardinal Bellarmine, acting on directives from the Inquisition, delivered him an order not to "hold or defend" the idea that the Earth moves and the Sun stands still at the centre."

>> "I'm not providing any because your argument will go back to "oh those other christians think that, not me", which is not relevant."

> thats not my argument. my argument is the vast majority of christians dont beleive that, so stop generalizing and saying christians beleive that. yes, theres some christians that beleive that, but theres also some New Zealenders that beleive that. and a generalization that New Zealenders beleive that, is just as valid.

heheh. This point is funny, the way you go back to NZers. NZers that believe these things would be mostly christian (although I am pleased that the % of religious people in NZ is not that high, and is continuing to drop (yet most of us thought Iraq, for example was a bad idea. But if GW had a message from God to invade there, then good on him )). A vast majority of christians believe in the same things. Talking snakes, creationism, a big boat with lots of animals (must have been a shite load of bugs on this big boat - how did they load up, did God compel the animals to walk onto this boat and not eat each other?), Jesus returning to earth, condoms=bad, etc etc. If they don't believe in these things, then they are not following the teachings of the vatican & God, or otherwise they have made up their own sub-branch of the religion (based on what evidence? Their own made up beliefs?) which just shows how silly religious beliefs can be.

>>"Only with regards to one unsubstantiated belief that they have. Otherwise, no."

>well with a series of beleifs. and calling people delusional in the OP obviously doesnt encourage debate, and there has been no debate about religion you have failed to get religious people to debate about religion at all.

Are you not debating? As I said in the OP, I didn't write that massive post for the 'benefit" of the IC community.

> avogadro wrote:

> you are beyond help, i show you the largest sect of christianity in the world by far doesnt beleive in what you claim almost all christians beleive in and you still say it. you are a moron, an idiot, and a bigot; good day sir.

Hahaha thanks   You may be saying that most christians don't believe in the stuff that I am claiming they do, and I recognise that you are telling me that... it may be true with regards to a few of the things I have said (I wish you had told me which points, for example perhaps Catholics don't believe in the arc? or that someone can split the sea in half? or that there were talking snakes? - perhaps I would have learnt something else). You have failed however to notice that

1. The bible and scripture says these things happened. You haven't told me why it's ok for most Christians not to beleive this. If the Bible says it..... you are free to choose whether it happened or not......?

2. You have debated a very narrow range of the subjects I have raised. I wish you had chosen to reply to some of the other points from my OP and some of the others since then. Oh well

and

3. I have said that all religions and branches of chrisanity are mythological; you are still dividing it up.... dividing it up as if God & Jesus have said that it's ok for these different groups to argue and disagree over the best way to worshop them.

God says that everyone must call him Lord and not take his name in vain (how did you not know that was one of the commandments??) but yet he is not concerned that people will disagree, argue, hate, and in some cases kill over other aspects of the "proper" way to worshop.

Obviously this conversation could not have ended in any other way, no agreement or anything. But I thank you for your time and efforts in replying.

>  the bible and scripture is a collection of books written by different men with different intentions. most of the stories were not supposed to be historical accounts any more then the story of the tortoise and the hare.  for example, we are reasonably sure that the first creation story was written by a priest during the time that the jews were exiled in Babylon. The story was written to put an emphasis on the importance of the sabboth, because when the Jews were in babylon there was a flood of cultures, but keeping the sabboth holy was something that distinguished themselves, and was a way to keep their cultural identity.

Please educate me! Why do these stories that are in the Bible hold such important sway if they were written by men with their own intentsions, and not by God? If these men had their own intentions, how do you know that they didn't just make the whole God and Jesus thing up? Still want to know why God (in his wisdom) - the guy who cares enough that we must call him by the right name - does not seem to care if he's vauge on how he is to be worshoped, or what we aremeant to believe.

> thats because prior to now i've only discussed your gross generalizations, which you continue to defend. it is these generalizations, that create an obstacle for any serious discussion.

nice excuse. I have mentioned many times that they are my conclusions, which are based on my observations; you are not going to move this 'obstacle' without talking about the specific observations that have lead to these conclusions.

You are also generalising. You have said a few times "generalizations, most christians do not believe this" yet you have offered nothing specific, no examples, and so have not convinced (or even attempted to convince??) me that the majority of Christians do not in fact believe that it was God (edit: entering a new example here; talking snakes gets boring) who sent the plague of frogs, locusts, or kill first-born.... yet did/did not send the boxing day tsunami or Katrina? (edit: If you don't like that example, replace it with one of your own, eg a man was created from dust, a woman from his rib, etc)

"...because you believe in a greater being does not make you a decent person, at all."

And that goes beyond an ad hominem and is attempting to poison the well.  There is no "debate" here but simply a fallacious soapbox.  Go back to your atheist websites where you are copying and pasting information.  Perhaps they will find you "logical".

> > Red Phoenix wrote:

> > "...because you believe in a greater being does not make you a decent person, at all."

> And that goes beyond an ad hominem and is attempting to poison the well.  There is no "debate" here but simply a fallacious soapbox.  Go back to your atheist websites where you are copying and pasting information.  Perhaps they will find you "logical".

Nice one. I ony know of one atheist website, and I haven't got around to visiting it yet. Something about God not loving amputees... whydoesgodhateamputees.com perhaps? I can't remember.

But, unlike many people, I am able to admit when I have learnt something or made a mistake. In this instance I will say that I should have said:

"...because you believe in a greater being does not necessarily make you a decent person, at all."

or

""...because you believe in a greater being does not make you, [enter a person's name here - can't remember who I was talking about at this point], a decent person, at all."

But thanks for trying anyway Phoenix

> Econ wrote:

> > > Red Phoenix wrote:

> > "...because you believe in a greater being does not make you a decent person, at all."

> And that goes beyond an ad hominem and is attempting to poison the well.  There is no "debate" here but simply a fallacious soapbox.  Go back to your atheist websites where you are copying and pasting information.  Perhaps they will find you "logical".

Nice one. I ony know of one atheist website, and I haven't got around to visiting it yet. Something about God not loving amputees... whydoesgodhateamputees.com perhaps? I can't remember.

But, unlike many people, I am able to admit when I have learnt something or made a mistake. In this instance I will say that I should have said:

"...because you believe in a greater being does not necessarily make you a decent person, at all."

or

""...because you believe in a greater being does not make you, [enter a person's name here - can't remember who I was talking about at this point], a decent person, at all."

But thanks for trying anyway Phoenix

Ok, you rehprased your ad hominem.  Was there anything else? 

"But thanks for trying anyway Phoenix"

Thank you for trying to make a polemical statement without any weight.