10 Reasons You Should Never Have a Religion

[TraderZones]

Quote from karol88:

of course not....you love to debate, don't you?

stu, until now I didn't know this was your favorite subject. Arguing with you is pointless, chances are you will reject, criticize everything I say, and always find something to turn against me. This and the fact that you're knowledgeable about this subject, makes it difficult to debate...I doubt I can come up with any logical proof that will satisfy you. Believe me or not, despite my "blind" faith (which didn't originate because of knowledge, i was too young to understand)...there are things I disagree and wonder about...but the faith is still there, it won't go away. There is nothing to argue about. call it delusional, glad to know your opinion.


That is why I just said before. stu doesn't debate. He just yells louder and louder, instead of saying much with traction. Again, I have him on ignore, so whatever...

 

[karol88]

Quote from TraderZones:

Quote from karol88:

of course not....you love to debate, don't you?

stu, until now I didn't know this was your favorite subject. Arguing with you is pointless, chances are you will reject, criticize everything I say, and always find something to turn against me. This and the fact that you're knowledgeable about this subject, makes it difficult to debate...I doubt I can come up with any logical proof that will satisfy you. Believe me or not, despite my "blind" faith (which didn't originate because of knowledge, i was too young to understand)...there are things I disagree and wonder about...but the faith is still there, it won't go away. There is nothing to argue about. call it delusional, glad to know your opinion.


That is why I just said before. stu doesn't debate. He just yells louder and louder, instead of saying much with traction. Again, I have him on ignore, so whatever...

he's a difficult case...reminds me of lawyer i know...the harder I try the worse it gets

 

[stu]

Quote from karol88:

he's a difficult case...reminds me of lawyer i know...the harder I try the worse it gets

You seek a debate?
You made your point
ok I gave my opinion
You said you didn't get my point
I explained my point
you say it's pointless

you sure it's a debate you want?

 

[karol88]

Quote from stu:



you sure it's a debate you want?

didn't I write earlier "I'm giving up"?

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from FeenixRizin:

explain the premise...

love thy neighbor?


what science book ever taught you that science boy?


thunder dog .... like calling........

======================
a]Good discussion,FeenixRizin, its not just the Christians who say some things hard to believe;
the very idea [difficult to believe]of a nickname, thunderdog. 12-18-08

Karol1988,good logic;
reading people,not looking only on a small sample.

c] I like the medical science evidence. Sure some Christian medical doctors give some time to free medical missions.Makes one wonder.

But some people blame/disbelieve God, because since Paul Weyrich helped Dr.Falwell start moral majority,& Christian Coalition.

They just cant get over God healing a Jewish kid ;
[for free,gave that blind Jewish kid sight], in Chicago , of all places. And not healing Paul Weyrich, who lost 2 legs, but helped Dr Falwell, of Old Time Gospel Hour.

Dont know why God does it that way??Maybe that Chicago Jewish kid was like Jabez, named that by his mother who bare him in sorrow. NIV notes Jabez name sounds like Hebrew for pain .!st Book of Chronicles capter 4 evidence.

Jabez called upon the God of Israel;
got his pain free prayer answered.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

stu has evidence of non God, didn't you know that?

I call it his opinion, and he calls it evidence.

By now, I would have thought that stu and his fellow atheists and their atheist faith was not a subject of debate at all...they are true believers just a deeply as any theist I have ever met...except those atheists who find themselves in a foxhole

Debates begin with a common ground, agreement on the definitions of terms...and with atheists and theists, there really is no common ground when it comes to the question of God and non God.

For God's sake, I have tried to have these discussions with stu and others over the years, but it is impossible until accepted definitions of the word God are agreed upon.

An example is that I provide a definition of God that God is the greatest, and stu says his God Gilbert is God+1 implying that something can be added to God.

My definition of God is that God cannot be added to, and stu adds +1 to God to get Gilbert...so how is a debate possible when there is no starting point of agreement?

Good luck to any theist who can get stu and his mates to come up with a definition of God that both sides would agree with...

Quote from stu:

You said you were willing to learn. Do you do that by giving up?

My point is a very simple one and it is this ...
God is nothing more than unfounded opinion held in the face of evidence to the contrary.
So to use God seriously, as a real or possible reason for anything which you actually observe, is delusional.

If God in that way is not delusional, nothing is, and there is no need for the word.

What point don't you get about that?


...but as one who is willing to learn, you didn't even ask yourself why must there be "something" ?


Earlier you jumped to conclusion about what I do and don't understand. Now you tell me what I have faith in. No wonder you don't get the point.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from karol88:

he's a difficult case...reminds me of lawyer i know...the harder I try the worse it gets

I made the mistake of debating him earlier. Reality had little effect. It is hard to say much when your opponent is little more than a very loud, blank stare.

 

[stu]

ZZZzzz had evidence of God, didn't you know that?
I call it his unsupported opinion.

ZZzz defines God and disallows any other definition. I improve ZZZzzz's best definition by making the exact same definition adding +1 to it.
Every bit as valid or invalid as ZZZzzz's definition is, but in a ZZZzzz debate no one else is allowed to make a definition.


His definition of God is that God cannot be added to.
My definition is, his definition of God can be added to.
There is the debate.
But no, rather ZZzz will go into Troll mode producing absurd remarks and images nothing to do with the matter at all other than to attempt to win any argument in his world by any means including losing it.

Thus the religious psyche takes its t(r)oll on rational debate.

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

stu has evidence of non God, didn't you know that?

I call it his opinion, and he calls it evidence.

By now, I would have thought that stu and his fellow atheists and their atheist faith was not a subject of debate at all...they are true believers just a deeply as any theist I have ever met...except those atheists who find themselves in a foxhole

Debates begin with a common ground, agreement on the definitions of terms...and with atheists and theists, there really is no common ground when it comes to the question of God and non God.

For God's sake, I have tried to have these discussions with stu and others over the years, but it is impossible until accepted definitions of the word God are agreed upon.

An example is that I provide a definition of God that God is the greatest, and stu says his God Gilbert is God+1 implying that something can be added to God.

My definition of God is that God cannot be added to, and stu adds +1 to God to get Gilbert...so how is a debate possible when there is no starting point of agreement?

Good luck to any theist who can get stu and his mates to come up with a definition of God that both sides would agree with...

 

[stu]

Quote from TraderZones:

That is why I just said before. stu doesn't debate. He just yells louder and louder, instead of saying much with traction. Again, I have him on ignore, so whatever...

now there's a crashing irony by someone who unremittingly alters text to shout .

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Great example of why debate with stu is useless...

Quote from stu:

ZZZzzz had evidence of God, didn't you know that?
I call it his unsupported opinion.

ZZzz defines God and disallows any other definition. I improve ZZZzzz's best definition by making the exact same definition adding +1 to it.
Every bit as valid or invalid as ZZZzzz's definition is, but in a ZZZzzz debate no one else is allowed to make a definition.


His definition of God is that God cannot be added to.
My definition is, his definition of God can be added to.
There is the debate.
But no, rather ZZzz will go into Troll mode producing absurd remarks and images nothing to do with the matter at all other than to attempt to win any argument in his world by any means including losing it.

Thus the religious psyche takes its t(r)oll on rational debate.