Page 2 of 4
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:09 am
by Thriller
Sandman is considering religeon in the context of; beleifs held in faith.
SO technically he is right since no beleif in god is technically an act in faith, because it is a metaphysical idea most people are pledging their faith in when they say they are 'rationalists' "atheist" or "Agnostic". But were mostly talking semantics. Definitions may change..
You guys just made me agree with sandman; i feel dirty now.... it's not comming off!!!
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:23 am
by [KMA]Avenger
i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 7:29 am
by Thriller
[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 8:26 am
by [KMA]Avenger
i was referring to you agreeing with him...not that it's a bad thing
enough of my spam
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 8:29 am
by Hitchkok
Thriller wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
it never fails to amaze me to what capacity of self deceipt people are capable.
you do know that making someonr look smaller doesn't actually make you bigger, don't you?
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 8:51 am
by [KMA]Avenger
i would hope that everyone who visits this part of the forum would be aware of that.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:16 am
by Thriller
Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
it never fails to amaze me to what capacity of self deceipt people are capable.
you do know that making someonr look smaller doesn't actually make you bigger, don't you?
You haven't been around this section long enough to have read all his stuff.
I admit i can be condesending but my viriol is quite cathartic when discussing things with bigots and the ignorant.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:21 am
by Hitchkok
Thriller wrote:Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
it never fails to amaze me to what capacity of self deceipt people are capable.
you do know that making someonr look smaller doesn't actually make you bigger, don't you?
You haven't been around this section long enough to have read all his stuff.
I admit i can be condesending but my viriol is quite cathartic when discussing things with bigots and the ingorant.
i always find insults a little more intricate then "hey, you're stupid" much more satissfying.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:31 am
by Thriller
Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
it never fails to amaze me to what capacity of self deceipt people are capable.
you do know that making someonr look smaller doesn't actually make you bigger, don't you?
You haven't been around this section long enough to have read all his stuff.
I admit i can be condesending but my viriol is quite cathartic when discussing things with bigots and the ingorant.
i always find insults a little more intricate then "hey, you're stupid" much more satissfying.
I use all kinds of satirist remarks in alot of my posts but no one seems to get them.... usually if i just come and say it, its because they just won't get it any other way. Read some of sandmans responses to other posts nad you'll see that understanding even some basic premesis is severly lacking.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:43 am
by Hitchkok
Thriller wrote:Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:Hitchkok wrote:Thriller wrote:[KMA]Avenger wrote:i couldn't believe what i was reading!
OK PAL...WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL THRILLER?
using the term "religion" to desrcribe non beleif is a far stretch for which i'm sure sandman is not capable or arguing for. But they can be descibed as a faith.
it never fails to amaze me to what capacity of self deceipt people are capable.
you do know that making someonr look smaller doesn't actually make you bigger, don't you?
You haven't been around this section long enough to have read all his stuff.
I admit i can be condesending but my viriol is quite cathartic when discussing things with bigots and the ingorant.
i always find insults a little more intricate then "hey, you're stupid" much more satissfying.
I use all kinds of satirist remarks in alot of my posts but no one seems to get them.... usually if i just come and say it, its because they just won't get it any other way. Read some of sandmans responses to other posts nad you'll see that understanding even some basic premesis is severly lacking.
yea, well, call me when you drive someone into a racist tantrum.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:55 am
by MEZZANINE
Hmmm my last post didnt seem to offend anyone.... must try harder, or maybe just a bit more direct
I have been called arrogant a few times in this forum, but my arrogance is insignificant when compared to the supreme arrogance of anyone who claims to speak for a god.
TBH this thread is only an excuse to argue and poke fun at people with opposing views. People who believe in various religions will not be convinced that their beliefs are delusional in a few posts on a game forum, and those who require scientific proof that things exist like me will not be convinced that any god exists unless someone shows empirical evidence.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:15 am
by Thriller
Hitchkok wrote:yea, well, call me when you drive someone into a racist tantrum.
Why so serious....
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 11:30 am
by Psyko
Maybe what everyone should be debating are Belief Systems instead of "Religions". A Belief System can be anything from a theology, ideology, philosophy, or life stance; it would encompass Christianity, pagan belief systems like Wicca, debatable religions/philosophies like Buddhism, as well as the atheist perspective.
Just saying...
You do that and you can stop arguing semantics and get down to the real debate.
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 12:18 pm
by DaDeuceIsLoose
Brdavs wrote:The whole atheism = religion debate lol. It`s the same as with science...
Religion knows it cant qualitativly elevate itself on the higher level ergo it tries to disqualify and discredit them by equating them to itself, to drag them down so to speak.
They actually fall back on the last "but you`re no better" straw citing "credible sources" like creation.com. Lol, just lol.
Personally, i use math and science to prove God, not the other way around, but thats just me xD
Re: the religious question/debate.
Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 12:29 pm
by Hitchkok
DaDeuceIsLoose wrote:Brdavs wrote:The whole atheism = religion debate lol. It`s the same as with science...
Religion knows it cant qualitativly elevate itself on the higher level ergo it tries to disqualify and discredit them by equating them to itself, to drag them down so to speak.
They actually fall back on the last "but you`re no better" straw citing "credible sources" like creation.com. Lol, just lol.
Personally, i use math and science to prove God, not the other way around, but thats just me xD
i'd like to see that prove.