will athiesm be fall of america?

[Yosodog]

Is OP a troll?

 

y u trollin op

[Caecus]

Christianity was the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Captain_Vietnam]

for example. athiest say no god? where morals from without god???

 

athiesm lead to moral nihalism! moral nihalism means people commit crime and sin! 

[The Governor]

captain_vietnam, you're so stupid it actually causes me physical pain to read what you write.

 

Also a reminder to not attack other users here, no matter the circumstances. It is flaming and against the rules. This is a discussion about a topic, not a user.

I’ll try being nicer if people on the forums try being smarter.

[Captain_Vietnam]

captain_vietnam, you're so stupid it actually causes me physical pain to read what you write.

 

I’ll try being nicer if people on the forums try being smarter.

oh wow personal attack no debate???!

 

i said

 

for example. athiest say no god? where morals from without god???

 

athiesm lead to moral nihalism! moral nihalism means people commit crime and sin! 

athiesm has no morals. athiesms lead that so people live for themselves and in sin? american fall due to people trying to only live for themselves?

[Lannan13]

Christianity was the fall of the Roman Empire.

One of the reasons. There were a ton of other reasons like, lack of Central government, ethnical division, and the Germannian invasion. Even if it did last it wouldn't have survived Islam or the Mongols.

[Lannan13]

captain_vietnam, you're so stupid it actually causes me physical pain to read what you write.

 

I’ll try being nicer if people on the forums try being smarter.

Come on now. You know that Ad Homs won't get you anywhere. If you want to actually debate the point you need to refute the argument. If you care not to wrestle with those in the forum by making intellectual or decent posts then please exit the thread so that you may not feed the trolls. 

[Jack Mcfloyd]

for example. athiest say no god? where morals from without god???

 

athiesm lead to moral nihalism! moral nihalism means people commit crime and sin! 

if you fond out that there is 100% no god would you kill someone, i have morals i am a athiest

[Lannan13]

if you fond out that there is 100% no god would you kill someone, i have morals i am a athiest

Agreed, just because there is no "higher power" doesn't mean that people become savages. There are consequences like jail that would ruin your life. I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend time and would rather be out in the real world doing what I normally do.

[durmij]

if you fond out that there is 100% no god would you kill someone, i have morals i am a athiest

 

The argument from morality is one of the weakest arguments for either side. Morality is far too complex to be tied to one facet of a person.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

oh wow personal attack no debate???!

 

i said

 

athiesm has no morals. athiesms lead that so people live for themselves and in sin? american fall due to people trying to only live for themselves?

Ever heard of Humanist Secular Morals? You know the ones that aren't influenced by fairytales or myths?

[durmij]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For !@#$ sakes, if you're going to run your mouth about a a subject you know nothing about, at least learn to spell it. You were 2 for 22 in the last 4 posts. And don't blame google translate, athiest isn't a word so translate won't use it.

 

 

athiest athiesm

 

 

 

athiesm athiesms

 

 

2 for 26, is this deliberate? And also you can't call out people for not debating when you are just spamming the thread and not actually engaging.

Edited January 6, 2016 by durmij

[Captain_Vietnam]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 for 26, is this deliberate? And also you can't call out people for not debating when you are just spamming the thread and not actually engaging.

 

very funny. point out my use of words instead of engage me why should i respond to that athiest? 

[Lannan13]

very funny. point out my use of words instead of engage me why should i respond to that athiest? 

You just did.

[Caecus]

Christianity is founded on the basis of Christ as a savior figure, to which He does nothing less than having been conceived without seminal infusion, chemically changing water into ethanol without nuclear fusion and catalysts, having traveled upon water without high surface tension hydrophobic feet coverings, and resurrected Himself from being brain-dead and physically dead for more than 3 days (Jesus must have had some major muscle cramps when He woke up, not including the holes in the hands).

 

All of which happens in an era that still used muscle-powered transport and had a literacy rate that makes West Virginia look good. And the faith wants you to take a book, which has been passed around and translated so many times that some might even call it dirty, and believe that every science/reason defying event that transpired is real and you should go congregate every 7th day of the week to reinforce your faith in it. 

 

 

 

In contrast, Immanual Kant, while a Christian himself in the early years, was very much an agonist by the time he was writing his Critique of Pure Reason. Immanual Kant is the father of ontology, a school of ethics taught in even the most basic philosophy classes. To call Immanuel Kant immoral due to his lack of faith in religion is like calling a strip club without a DJ a Hooters. 

 

 

All ethical arguments in philosophy is based on one thing, and that is reason. You can thank St. Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Rene Descartes (And I'm only counting the Christians!). 

[Kraggen]

Morality is a human creation, just like religion, and Jesus of Nazareth may have been a real man but if he indeed was a prophet he was a false one, akin to all before and after him. 

[durmij]

Yo, that religious morality putting in work son

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/woman-beats-disabled-man-with-his-own-cane-because-he-said-he-doesnt-believe-in-god-police/

[Captain_Vietnam]

Yo, that religious morality putting in work son

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/woman-beats-disabled-man-with-his-own-cane-because-he-said-he-doesnt-believe-in-god-police/

is there proof she did it?

[durmij]

is there proof she did it?

 

Enough that the police sustained the charges over 3 months and followed through with the warrant.

[Fox Fire]

 

Clearly this meme was made by someone who is completely science illiterate. 

 

 

athest believe universe come from nothing.

 

Not true. Most atheists I know would say the universe was always there. Let's take Stephen Hawkings idea that the universe created itself. Why is that so hard to believe? Like it's somehow hard to believe that the universe, something we know for a fact exists, created itself, but the idea that some God created the universe is somehow more believable? It's laughable is what it is. 

I would personally say the universe itself is as close to God as it gets. The totality of everything is divinity. 

 

but athiest is faith and not right one. 

 

No it's not. Atheism does not rely on faith by any means. It simply relies on facts, hence the rejection of God, since there are no facts about God.

 

 

universe must have cause that athiest dont know. so we ask that cause is god. god does not need cause as hes infinite and beyond time and cause and efffect.

 

I will counter that by saying that existence does not need a cause for the same exact reasons you listed why God does not need a cause.

This train of thought is the result of relying too heavily on logic to explain something illogical. The fact that anything exists is entirely unexplainable but logic dictates that there must be a beginning point. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it doesn't matter where we place that point because we can always ask the ever present, age old question: "why"?

My assumption is that there was never a beginning to existence and there will never be an end.

 

The rest of your post is purely idiotic. I'm not even sure why I bothered responding to what I have.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Fox Fire

[Captain_Vietnam]

 

Clearly this meme was made by someone who is completely science illiterate. 

 

Not true. Most atheists I know would say the universe was always there. Let's take Stephen Hawkings idea that the universe created itself. Why is that so hard to believe? Like it's somehow hard to believe that the universe, something we know for a fact exists, created itself, but the idea that some God created the universe is somehow more believable? It's laughable is what it is. 

I would personally say the universe itself is as close to God as it gets. The totality of everything is divinity. 

universe create itself? so thing pop out of thin air? does random objects appear when you walk down street??? that make no sense!

[Fox Fire]

universe create itself? so thing pop out of thin air? does random objects appear when you walk down street??? that make no sense!

It didn't come out of thin air. Mostly because the air itself is a part of existence. It didn't come from anything, it was always there. 

You know what doesn't make sense? God. Particularly the Abrahamic God. Anything of such omnipresent omnipotence could not reasonably have such human qualities. The sun is far more massive and great than any living being, yet it does not moralize. It doesn't give a !@#$ what anyone does because it doesn't "think". Yet none the less it is far more powerful than any person or thing we could possibly create. The idea that a God, which precedes all things, would think and behave in human like fashion is ridiculous. Humans are petty, insignificant things highly bound by natural instinct. If God is truly greater than us, all knowing even, I find it extremely difficult to believe that it would hold in significance concepts like morality or "proper" human etiquette that defies scientifically proven nature.

When you walk down the street does some bearded man in sky pop out of the clouds and say "hi"? 

If so, I'd seek professional help.

[Fox Fire]

Well Homosexuality isn't against the Bible, but is supported by the Bible.

 

Citation needed. The Bible makes it quite clear in several different books that homosexuality is a sin. It also says that homosexuals will not go to heaven and that homosexuals should be executed. 

See Genesis, Romans, Levictus, Corinthians and Timothy. But then we get into the debate about which parts of the bible actually apply to Christians, which is an absurd argument that not even Christians themselves can seem to make a decision on.

I do know that I've never seen homosexuality promoted in the bible.

 

 

accusation of troll is not arugement. i can do same to ibrahim

 

look at feminism. it make sense from economic view to have jobs like cleaning and cooking to woman and men do strong labour jobs. but in athiest feminist society we have woman doing job men should do and vis visa. it ineffective from economics view and society is less productive as a result. liberalism is virus. 

Practice proves this false. When women are empowered, societies progress. 

[durmij]

Remember when we had a thread about atheism and both sides actually engaged in discussion and it wasn't just the endless posting of tired memes and misinformation? Good !@#$ times.

Edited January 7, 2016 by durmij

[Lannan13]

Citation needed. The Bible makes it quite clear in several different books that homosexuality is a sin. It also says that homosexuals will not go to heaven and that homosexuals should be executed. 

See Genesis, Romans, Levictus, Corinthians and Timothy. But then we get into the debate about which parts of the bible actually apply to Christians, which is an absurd argument that not even Christians themselves can seem to make a decision on.

I do know that I've never seen homosexuality promoted in the bible.

 

 

Practice proves this false. When women are empowered, societies progress. 

Genesis

 

Now before we look at Genesis 2:21-24 and automatically condemn Gay Marriage let's take one more look at it. It states that Eve came from the rib of Adam so that the man shall leave his parents and find women. This doesn't mean that a man has to marry a women, but actually fallows Plato's theory of androgyne. [2] Escentially it is that the man leaves his parents to go out and to look for their other half. Now this means that the person can look for a male or female. It matters not their sexuality as long as it they find their other half. This is a methaor throughout the Bible.

 

"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:21-24

 

The Bible verse states that Women has come from man and that once the man has come of age he is to look for the rib. This does not mean that a man should go and find another female, but it is to find a missing half of the person. This is obvious as my coming of age interpertation of the verse. Now to further explain the second part of Genesis that I assaulted.

 

Many people state that men and women are meant to have sex and that anything else would be against God's will, but that is simply not so. Why's that you may ask? Well let's look further in the Book of Genesis and observe Lot and his wife. In Genesis 16 Lot's wife ask's him to find another wife to impregnate as she is barren. In Genesis 25, he marries Hagar and Katurah whom of which the Bible describes her as being concubine. Now what that means is that the person is polygamous, but they have a status lesser than that of a wife. So we can see that God permitted Lot to enter a Polygamous marriage with now 3 wives. The Bible shows here that it cannot be true about what Pro is saying in terms of Furtality as Lot maintains his marriage to his first wife even if she is infertile.

 

Sodom

 

Now let's observe Sodom and the acts of Sodomy.

 

They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them. Genesis 19:5

 

Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Genesis 19:8

 

Now one immidately rushes to say, "Ha, there, that condems it," but once again that is incorrect. Sodomy was orginially a sexual act of anal and/or oral sex between two people. This happens between heterosexual couples on an everday basis. it's wasn't until the Mid Evil times that the Christian and Jewish communities used this to attack homosexual couples due to the Pagan acceptance of homosexuality during this time.

 

"Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." [Heb. 13:2]

 

The Bible actually uses Lot's story to show that one must entertain guests and treat them well. That not doing so is a violation. Sodom is actually rementioned in the New Testiment in the Book of Ezekiel.

 

"Saith the Lord GOD...Behold, this was the iniquity of ... Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness ... neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good". - Ezekiel 16:48-50

 

Now look closely and we can see that the abomination is idol worshipping and human sacrafice, not homosexual acts. The society of Sodom was known for its materialistic and uncharitable nature. There is a story in the BIble when a starving man is coated in honey only to be stung to death by bees. 

 

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 

Now, before you come at me like an evil mob we have to observe one key thing here. In the Biblical times rape was a form of punishment that would occur after the battle. Not just to the women, but the men of the defeated military. This wasn't just to be immoral, but this, as God has permitted, allowed as a form of humiliation of the defeated nation. God was angry with Sodom not because of the fact that the two men wanted rape him, but rather to punish Sodom due to the fact that he was punished for no reason. That's like in the 1800s when blacks were lynched and they never committed a crime. It has the same corrilation. You see many times throughout the Bible that reference Sodom and Gamorrah out of the Hospitality example, NOT homosexuality and rape. 

 

Leviticus

 

Now this is the greatest part in the BIble that "condems" homosexuality to say that they must be stone to death. (Leviticus 20:13) What people don't know is that during this time there was a great number of Pagans living in the Palestine area. These Pagan Priests were called Kedoshim. What they would do in their practices is cross dress and take on the role of a female. They would even casterate themselves, but where it get's to the highest relivence is during the holy rites they would do anal sex. [3] Leviticu's condeming this practice was not condeming homosexuality, but actually this Pagan religion. It was later misinterperated for the condeming of homosexuality. Leviticus also bans a long list of other things depicted bellow.

 

Now to clear this up this was a Pagen religion of the Canaanites. Now why is this a huge issue you may ask? Throughout the BIble Canaa is give bad name and it is because of the Israelites invasion of the area which was controlled by the Canaanites. [4] The Canaanites were polytheistic and practiced this religion and the Israelites tried to condemn the religion by outlawing their Priests practices in Leviticus 20:13. My opponent is also incorrect with his interpertation here as he provides no evidence stating that what I claim is flase, but since he didn't you can extend my arguments across the board.

 

I know that we aren't debating about what was on the chalkboard, but this goes to show you that it's rediculous if you are saying that Gay Marriage is sinful without saying that these other things aren't also against God's will.

 

Let's observe these verses in Hebrew.

 

Ve"et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to"evah hi.

 

Ve"ish asher yishkav et-zachar mishkevey ishah to"evah asu shneyhem mot yumatu dmeyhem bam.

 

Now let's translate to English.

 

18:22 And as to the masculine, don"t lay on the sex-bed, it is a to"evah.

 

20:13 And one who lays with the masculine on the sex-bed, the two of them do a to"evah; they shall surely die, their blood is in them.

 

Now in the Bible there are a total of 166 references to to'evah. It means wicked man. This was not referencing gay marriage nor gay sex it was referencing the religious rites of the Canaanite Priests.

 

Samuel and David

 

Here I will prove that David loved Jonathan so much to the point to where if Jonathan then it would be the greatest love story in the Bible according to Theologians.

 

“When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.†(1 Samuel 18:1-4)

 

Here we can see that Jonathan loved David more than his own soul. This is something that is extremely important especially since many Christians beleive that the soul is the most important thing that a person owns that is what goes to Heaven or Hell. So the fact that he loved David as much as his own Soul is key here to so an important relationship between the two with this amount of love.

 

“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.†’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.†(1 Samuel 20:41-42)

 

Here we can see just how intament the relationship got between these two men. Here they kiss and they indeed knew that this would be the last time that they would see each other as Jonathan would later die in combat. The key part here is that they show that their decendents shall be together showing almost that of a gay marriage, and even sex, between the two.

 

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely! 

In life and in death they were not divided; 

they were swifter than eagles, 

they were stronger than lions. 

How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle! 

Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. 

I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan; 

Greatly beloved were you to me; 

your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.†

(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27)

 

Here we can continue the furthering of the homosexual relationship as it shows the love between the two men surpassed that then a man and a women. Proving that of a homosexual relation.

 

This is yet another approved example of homosexuality in the Bible any attempt to argue otherwise would be that of arguing that God looked down upon David which was false since God had blessed him and with God being omnipotent we can see that God would've known about the homosexual relationship and would not have gifted David as much as he has.

 

 

2. (http://www.hebcal.com/sedrot/kedoshim)  

3. Rendsburg, Gary (2008). "Israel without the Bible". In Frederick E. Greenspahn. The Hebrew Bible: new insights and scholarship. NYU Press