If Jesus came back down to Earth selling peace and love and shit, do you think we would crusify his ass again?

I vote yes. In fact, I think 50 Cent would crucify him on his own by acting like a cross. I bet God would cry like a little girl.

Let the voting begin.

I vote you're drunk.

i second that vote

I think Jesus would beat the shit out of Kanye West.

quote:Originally posted by Sgt. Lag:

I think Jesus would beat the shit out of Kanye West.

I'd beat him to it, nevermind the pun.

Jesus WILL kill a monster with a javelin.

If they killed him back then with 2 bits of wood and 3 nails, imagine what we could do with nuclear weapons.

He'd be called a heretic, but I doubt he'd be crucified.

quote:Originally posted by niggersexual:

He'd be called a heretic, but I doubt he'd be crucified.

If he came to the middle east I highly doubt he wouldn't be crucified.

I bet jesus would burn the middle east to the ground and then bitch slap chuck norris!!!

Jesus comes back and the Nukes fly.

He'd be strapped into a straitjacket, locked into a padded cell, and loaded full of drugs. Then we could all go watch him drool.

I would personally craft the nails.

This t-shirt (http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=494)says it all.

quote:Originally posted by chubbyman25:

Originally posted by niggersexual:

He'd be called a heretic, but I doubt he'd be crucified.

If he came to the middle east I highly doubt he wouldn't be crucified.

Actually, if he went to the Middle East, He would probably be sliced up into thin pieces or fed to birds.

I've gotta say that he would be put away in the loony bin in the western world!

In the middle east they'd stone him though.

I don't think jesus is nearly as bad as 99.999% of the sheeple that follow him though http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

No, this isn't anti-Christian rhetoric at all.

In fact, it's downright respectful...wouldn't you agree, Lost ?

Jesus aint comming back (on acount that he was a carpenter who went insane... or something similar) but im shore theres a few nut jobs out there we can crucified.

no, I think we can safely say he wouldn't be crucified.

see, jesus is a coarse bastard, he tells the shit like it is (if you read it correctly, the new testament is one of the foremost works of comedy ever written. most people never realize it's a joke- yes, this means YOU TOO you fucking elitist athiest asshole). his attitude throughout his teachings is not "oh you lovely people you", his attitude is more along the lines of "what the fuck are you doing that for? it doesn't work, here's why, here's what you do instead, now fuck off, I'm gonna go talk to daddy."

edit (part one):

you have to realize, the bible is the original entertainment cult-hit.

that being said, I think it'd be interesting to see who'd get to him and kill him first- the catholic church for exposing their religious bullshit, the protestant church for exposing their attempt at holiness by disassosiation with the catholics, the islamic world (just because it would piss off everybody else and they're so deathly afraid of listening to christians that they kill 'em on sight- the ultimate "so THERE" terrorist attack, if you will, with jesus executed by machete and his body found next to an american embassy)

(edit part 2: I'm talking about islamic states, such as afghanistan, saudi arabia, Qatar, etc. they really don't like us (americans, christians, 'free thinkers', whichever you are)).

also worth including are the hindus/buddhists, because his coming back would make them all look like the fools they are (I live in a buddhist country- arguably the most buddhist country in the world <thailand>, and they're greedy materialist fucks who try to compensate by acting high and mighty when they wear orange, so fuck off), the taoists because... wait, no, taoism is dead. nevermind.

actually, realistically, I think the athiests would kill him first, because they're the ones who have the most to fear, because if he came back, it would mean the house of cards they've been refusing to believe in would come down around their ears.

[This message has been edited by Choscura (edited 02-15-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, this isn't anti-Christian rhetoric at all.

In fact, it's downright respectful...wouldn't you agree, Lost ?

What the hey, at least, we're acknowledging that he may come back. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Of course.

Although, I think we'd be a little more creative this time. A lot more CGI and less real bullshit.

Of course He would be crucified again. That's the whole point. Just like if Adam didn't sin, the next in line would. That's the whole point. And given the fact that you people are utterly obsessed with His non-existance by rabidly and fanatically attacking His personage and deity gives us all the more reason to suppose that you would kill Him all over again. It never ceases to amaze me that those of you who deny Christ just can't stop talking about Him. If you really want Him to go away then stop talking about Him everday of your life. We can only suppose that you really do want to know Him. You must be waiting for that one person to come along who pwns you into submission. It's like little kids who don't want discipline. They actually do and tacitly prompt people to give them that structure, even though they are not consciously aware of it.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

We can only suppose that you really do want to know Him. You must be waiting for that one person to come along who pwns you into submission. It's like little kids who don't want discipline. They actually do and tacitly prompt people to give them that structure, even though they are not consciously aware of it.

What a wonderful bit of logic! Why, it's absolutely irrefutable!

I can only interpret your reply in a thread made by those "rejecting Christ" as a tacit request for an explanation of how ridiculous your beliefs are, and how exactly you can begin your road to rejecting Christ. I mean, it's like those very children who say they don't want discipline, but actually do! They tactily request that disicpline so as to get structure in their lives.

Amazing!





[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

Rust, the sarcasm comes through but your point doesn't, could you be a little more coherent in your refutation?

I'm pointing out how the statement he made was completely ridiculous.

He said that because those who "deny Christ" talk about him in threads on this forum, then it must be that they secretly want someone to save them and teach them the ways of Christ.

I'm saying that, by his logic, because he posts on the thread dealing with what he sees as a denial of Christ, it must mean that he secretly wants people to teach him the ways of "denying Christ".

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Rust, the sarcasm comes through but your point doesn't, could you be a little more coherent in your refutation?

I have to concur with Fundokiller on this one. You don't see how illogical and irrational it is to sit around spending inordinate amounts of time refuting something you alledge doesn't exist to begin with? That would be like me going around starting threads on just how much I don't believe that purple-flying elephants don't exist. Because I don't believe they exist, it gives me no reason to go out of my way attempting to refute a negative, much less think about it. Where's the ambiguity?

taoism isn't dead, not in taiwan at least.

and those "materiallist fucks in yellow robes" are not real buddhists they are just glorified beggars. real buddhists don't sit in subway stations begging while wearing rolexes, and rings with rocks the size of my thumb.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I have to concur with Fundokiller on this one. You don't see how illogical and irrational it is to sit around spending inordinate amounts of time refuting something you alledge doesn't exist to begin with? That would be like me going around starting threads on just how much I don't believe that purple-flying elephants don't exist. Because I don't believe they exist, it gives me no reason to go out of my way attempting to refute a negative, much less think about it. Where's the ambiguity?



1. Atheists lack a belief in god, they do not claim that a god does not exist.

2. Atheists are refuting beliefs or positions, not "refuting something that doesn't exist". You're just blatantly misrepresenting the issue, in order to make it appear unreasonable.

Atheists are refuting the arguments, beliefs, and/or positions of theists; simply because one gives an argument against believing in a god does in no way give validity to the belief one is trying to "refute" -- that's completely ludicrous to say the least.

Moreover, the very fact that theists influence policies in all aspects of society (i.e. political, economic, social, educational to name a few), is reason and justification enough for atheists to provide arguments in the first place.

3. You ignored my point.

If atheists speaking about god means, according to you, that they secretly want to be Christians or are seeking religious guidance from Christians, then you speaking in a thread that is about denying Christ would be an example of you secretly wanting to deny Christ. That's how ridiculous your position is.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Atheists lack a belief in god, they do not claim that a god does not exist.

They only know 'believe' there is no God because it was made evident to them the ridiculous nature of asserting such a definitive claim. I implore you to get your hands on an older dictionary. The usage of definite parameters concerning this has changed dramatically. It's only a recent omission that athiests now claim. Aside from that, where does that leave the agnostic? It was agnostics that determined that no one can reasonably prove or disprove a diety one way or the other. So now where does the distinction lie? That's the only blatant misrepresentation.

Atheists are refuting the arguments, beliefs, and/or positions of theists; simply because one gives an argument against believing in a god does in no way give validity to the belief one is trying to "refute" -- that's completely ludicrous to say the least.

Then what is it that motivates you, for instance, to come in here day in and day out to dispell the fanciful notion of Christianity, and Christianity alone? How does that make a lick of sense?

Moreover, the very fact that theists influence policies in all aspects of society (i.e. political, economic, social, educational to name a few)

Athiests don't influence policies???? They most certainly do and most policies are instituted worldwide by secular influence.

If atheists speaking about god means, according to you, that they secretly want to be Christians or are seeking religious guidance from Christians, then you speaking in a thread that is about denying Christ would be an example of you secretly wanting to deny Christ. That's how ridiculous your position is.

Then perhaps you can explain your motivation for asserting so strongly that a god/God/goddess doesn't exist. And moreover, why Christianity is singled out far more than any other religion. For insatnce, when an athiest wants to ridicule Christian doctrine, they take Jewish Law to show the scrorn and contempt that Christianity imposes on others. But I don't see anyone attacking Judaism. I don't see anyone with leftist ideals speaking out against Islam with same ferocity that is displayed against Christianity. So why is that? The logical deduction is that there is something that clearly stirs alot of emotion in you, for example, that cannot be ignored. So please tell me why a man that walked around denouncing hypocrisy and preaching to be kind to one another incites some sort of irrational hatred against.

[/B]

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

What the hey, at least, we're acknowledging that he may come back. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

This is true...I guess I should count even the small blessings, eh ?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'm pointing out how the statement he made was completely ridiculous.

He said that because those who "deny Christ" talk about him in threads on this forum, then it must be that they secretly want someone to save them and teach them the ways of Christ.

I'm saying that, by his logic, because he posts on the thread dealing with what he sees as a denial of Christ, it must mean that he secretly wants people to teach him the ways of "denying Christ".

The fallacy resides within YOUR logic, not his.

He is already obsessed with Christ...he doesn't need to pretend NOT to be, in order to believe.

In contrast, these kids just can't STOP talking about Jesus, even if it's to try and refute his existence.

I am not obsessed with Scientology, because I am not interested in it.

His point was not only valid, but completely logical.

quote:

Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I have to concur with Fundokiller on this one. You don't see how illogical and irrational it is to sit around spending inordinate amounts of time refuting something you alledge doesn't exist to begin with? That would be like me going around starting threads on just how much I don't believe that purple-flying elephants don't exist. Because I don't believe they exist, it gives me no reason to go out of my way attempting to refute a negative, much less think about it. Where's the ambiguity?

quote:1. Atheists lack a belief in god, they do not claim that a god does not exist.

He didn't say a damn thing about "atheists" in his post.

Also, atheists DO claim God doesn't exist. Knowledge of Him (our culture GUARANTEES this) eliminates the ability of the human mind to "lack belief". Lacking belief would be based on pure ignorance. To hear about the idea of God, one has to then CHOOSE to reject the idea.

I CHOOSE not to believe in Raul, because I have heard about it, and don't agree that it is a supportable belief.

How can you DISBELIEVE something you don't know about ?

quote:2. Atheists are refuting beliefs or positions, not "refuting something that doesn't exist". You're just blatantly misrepresenting the issue, in order to make it appear unreasonable.

Atheists don't refute, they attempt to refute. BIG difference.

We don't have to manipulate the issue to make atheists appear unreasonable. They are innately so.

quote:Atheists are refuting the arguments, beliefs, and/or positions of theists; simply because one gives an argument against believing in a god does in no way give validity to the belief one is trying to "refute" -- that's completely ludicrous to say the least.

I would agree with this, because I argue against religions of all flavors, and my argument does not stand as proof regarding the validity of those religions, however, I argue that a belief is incorrect, not that a deity in association with said belief doesn't exist.

What we see here on totse is a constant barrage of assaults on JESUS CHRIST and GOD Himself. Christians do get attacked, too, but the verbage is clear: it is the DEITY that they seek to destroy, not the belief in the deity itself.

I can no sooner prove that Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, or any other "god" doesn't exist, but I can refute the belief in them, based on the flawed logic, historical texts, or dogma associated with these gods.

If the majority of atheists stuck to disproving Christian "BELIEF" (A.K.A. The Bible), and not the Christian "GOD" (which is IMPOSSIBLE), then you'd have a valid point in relation to Hyroglyphx's post.

But since that is not the case, you don't.

quote:Moreover, the very fact that theists influence policies in all aspects of society (i.e. political, economic, social, educational to name a few), is reason and justification enough for atheists to provide arguments in the first place.

No one said we should censor the opinions of atheists.

Hyro's point was that the rabid interest in refuting God shows a deeper desire to, at the very LEAST, learn more about God...even if the goal is to refute His existance.

And it has been my personal experience that God's most venemous critics end up being His most faithful servants. It's just a matter of educating, and people DO really want to know if God is there, and worth believing in.

This is evidenced all over the world, and proven by the number of adherents. Unlike Islam, we do not raise our children with the threat of DEATH if they do not follow in our Christian footsteps. Everyone is allowed a choice. Everyone has to choose for themself what they will believe in.

We don't pop out of the womb equipped with Christianity.

quote:If atheists speaking about god means, according to you, that they secretly want to be Christians or are seeking religious guidance from Christians, then you speaking in a thread that is about denying Christ would be an example of you secretly wanting to deny Christ. That's how ridiculous your position is.

Except Hyro is a 28 year old man, and is not on a quest to find himself, like most people on this forum are. He is not searching for answers, he is providing information.

You are wrongfully applying YOUR perception to the majority of posters here, when you cannot logically support such an assertion.

You can no sooner say that atheists here are not trying to find out more about God by attacking Christianity with the hope of being convinced that it is the right path to follow, than you can that Hyro is here to be convinced that God does not exist.

Also, he did not START a thread about it, because he is not concerned about it.

Time and time again these threads pop up, and it means something.

Whether you like what it means or not is irrelevant.

His opinion is that there is something deeper going on here, and there is NOTHING to act as proof that there isn't.

You can disagree, but that doesn't prove anything.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-17-2006).]

"And it has been my personal experience that God's most venemous critics end up being His most faithful servants."

Yep........

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

They only know 'believe' there is no God because it was made evident to them the ridiculous nature of asserting such a definitive claim. I implore you to get your hands on an older dictionary. The usage of definite parameters concerning this has changed dramatically. It's only a recent omission that athiests now claim. Aside from that, where does that leave the agnostic? It was agnostics that determined that no one can reasonably prove or disprove a diety one way or the other. So now where does the distinction lie? That's the only blatant misrepresentation.

You, yet again, deliberately misinterpreted what I said. I said they lacked a belief in a god, not that claimed that he didn't exist, nor that they believed he doesn't exist.

As for your suggestion, here:

"Atheism (Page: 95)

A"the*ism (#), n. [Cf. F. athéisme. See Atheist.]

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.



2. Godlessness.

"

--

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913 Edition

You're quite simply incorrect in stating that this is a new definition. It is the definition that has existed pretty much since the term was used. This is clearly seen when we inspect its etymology. "Atheism" comes from the Greek, "atheos" which means "godless", without a god. Being without a god does not mean 'knowing/believing he does not exist'.

quote:Then what is it that motivates you, for instance, to come in here day in and day out to dispell the fanciful notion of Christianity, and Christianity alone? How does that make a lick of sense?

The fact that theists influence my life simply by influencing policies. I feel that pretty much all religions are useless, antiquated belief systems; illogical, and unreasonable. Thus I feel a duty to try to dispel the logical fallacies, and unreasonable arguments theists use when promoting their beliefs; beliefs which influence my life whether a god exists or not.

That position is the most common I've seen with atheists (though of course, maybe not as harsh, or exactly the same); a position which does not indicate an secret desire to be a Christian or a theist, but one that is simply opposed to the general theistic outlook, and thus aims to provide a different one.

quote:Athiests don't influence policies???? They most certainly do and most policies are instituted worldwide by secular influence.

I didn't say otherwise. I understand they do, but whether or not secular positions influence policies is irrelevant since I'm merely saying that Christians do in order to justify an atheists giving an argument against Christianity (i.e. an atheist trying to do away with a belief system that influences his life - one which he doesn't agree with).

quote:Then perhaps you can explain your motivation for asserting so strongly that a god/God/goddess doesn't exist. And moreover, why Christianity is singled out far more than any other religion. For insatnce, when an athiest wants to ridicule Christian doctrine, they take Jewish Law to show the scrorn and contempt that Christianity imposes on others. But I don't see anyone attacking Judaism. I don't see anyone with leftist ideals speaking out against Islam with same ferocity that is displayed against Christianity. So why is that? The logical deduction is that there is something that clearly stirs alot of emotion in you, for example, that cannot be ignored. So please tell me why a man that walked around denouncing hypocrisy and preaching to be kind to one another incites some sort of irrational hatred against

1. This is yet again another logical fallacy, and now you've take it a step further, you're now poisoning the well.

2. If we accept that atheist "attack" Christianity more frequently, that in no way means that they secretly seek to be Christian, which is what you were implying initially.

3. You are now changing your argument to mean that it "stirs emotions inside of them", something which is nothing close to what you initially said. "Emotions being stirred" does not mean that they secretly long for Christ. It could very well be that they have bad experiences with Christianity, or simply that they mainly posses knowledge of Christianity (and not Islam or Judaism) and thus center their arguments on Christianity, or maybe because they feel their life is influenced mainly by Christianity and not by Judaism, Islam et cetera. All three of those examples being very relevant to the average totse user. They mainly come fron Christina families, with Christian background (maybe even Christian education) and come from countries which have a Christian majority.

It comes at no surprise that Christianity is dealt with more often. The argument that it is somehow surprising or indicative of something else, is simply a desperate attempt to attack atheists.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

The fallacy resides within YOUR logic, not his.

He is already obsessed with Christ...he doesn't need to pretend NOT to be, in order to believe.

In contrast, these kids just can't STOP talking about Jesus, even if it's to try and refute his existence.

I am not obsessed with Scientology, because I am not interested in it.

His point was not only valid, but completely logical.

Wrong. His point is neither logical nor valid.

He is claining that the simple fact that an atheists speaks about god means that he longs to believe in a god. That is completely, and undeniably fallicious. If not then I can, without hesitation, say that the fact that he speaks of atheism means that he longs to be an atheist.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

He didn't say a damn thing about "atheists" in his post.

Also, atheists DO claim God doesn't exist. Knowledge of Him (our culture GUARANTEES this) eliminates the ability of the human mind to "lack belief". Lacking belief would be based on pure ignorance. To hear about the idea of God, one has to then CHOOSE to reject the idea.

I CHOOSE not to believe in Raul, because I have heard about it, and don't agree that it is a supportable belief.

How can you DISBELIEVE something you don't know about ?

1. He said "alledge doesn't exist to begin with", which is undeniably aimed at atheists.

2. Atheist do not claim that a god does not exist, at least not all of them. You have been told this countless times before. The most prevalent form of atheism is weak-atheism, which is a lack of belief in a god.

3. Just because I have heard of the idea of a god, does not mean that I have to have a belief on the existence or non-existence of what is being dealt with in that idea.

quote:I would agree with this, because I argue against religions of all flavors, and my argument does not stand as proof regarding the validity of those religions, however, I argue that a belief is incorrect, not that a deity in association with said belief doesn't exist.

What we see here on totse is a constant barrage of assaults on JESUS CHRIST and GOD Himself. Christians do get attacked, too, but the verbage is clear: it is the DEITY that they seek to destroy, not the belief in the deity itself.

I can no sooner prove that Buddha, Allah, Krishna, Zeus, or any other "god" doesn't exist, but I can refute the belief in them, based on the flawed logic, historical texts, or dogma associated with these gods.

If the majority of atheists stuck to disproving Christian "BELIEF" (A.K.A. The Bible), and not the Christian "GOD" (which is IMPOSSIBLE), then you'd have a valid point in relation to Hyroglyphx's post.

But since that is not the case, you don't.

Christian beliefs is centered on the existence of a god; the two go hand in had,. Your point is completely moot since it erronously suggests that the existence of the Christian god is not a tenant of Christianity itself, which is ridiculous. Anyone attempting to refute the existence of the Christian god is also attempting to refute Christian tenants. The two are inseparable, and thus, my point still stands completely.

quote:No one said we should censor the opinions of atheists.

Hyro's point was that the rabid interest in refuting God shows a deeper desire to, at the very LEAST, learn more about God...even if the goal is to refute His existence.

And it has been my personal experience that God's most venemous critics end up being His most faithful servants. It's just a matter of educating, and people DO really want to know if God is there, and worth believing in.

This is evidenced all over the world, and proven by the number of adherents. Unlike Islam, we do not raise our children with the threat of DEATH if they do not follow in our Christian footsteps. Everyone is allowed a choice. Everyone has to choose for themself what they will believe in.

We don't pop out of the womb equipped with Christianity.

Nowhere did I say that he said we should censor the beliefs of atheists.

The fact remains that simply because an atheist deals with matters of the Christian god, does not mean that he longs for Christ or the Christian god. That is logically vacuous. If not, I could say that the very fact that you're dealing with the atheist position shows that really want to lack a belief in god. That's ridiculous.

quote:Except Hyro is a 28 year old man, and is not on a quest to find himself, like most people on this forum are. He is not searching for answers, he is providing information.

You are wrongfully applying YOUR perception to the majority of posters here, when you cannot logically support such an assertion.

You can no sooner say that atheists here are not trying to find out more about God by attacking Christianity with the hope of being convinced that it is the right path to follow, than you can that Hyro is here to be convinced that God does not exist.

Also, he did not START a thread about it, because he is not concerned about it.

Time and time again these threads pop up, and it means something.

Whether you like what it means or not is irrelevant.

His opinion is that there is something deeper going on here, and there is NOTHING to act as proof that there isn't.

You can disagree, but that doesn't prove anything.



And he can disagree and believe that the atheists secretly want to believe in a god, but that doesn't prove anything either. You're dishonestly applying your logic only when it applies to Hyro, but not to atheists.

Again, the fact that an atheists deals with the topic of Christianity, in no way shape or form means that the atheist secretly longs for a belief in Christ. Moreover, I should mention that you have absolutely no knowledge of who the atheists that post here are, not what they believe, nor what they long for. Hence, his claim was not only illogical, but completely ignorant.

As for your comment that there is no evidence proving otherwise, there doesn't need to be any evidence in order to show how his statement is baseless, and logicall fallicious. The very fact that he has absolutely no evidence supporting what he said, and that it is a logical fallacy is enough to support this.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

Jesus HAS come back, many times, under various names.

As a rule, he has been ignored or reviled and killed.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Of course He would be crucified again. That's the whole point. Just like if Adam didn't sin, the next in line would. That's the whole point.

And if Jesus had raised his little finger and called on legions of angels to save his about to be nailed ass, who would God have sent a second time round? Maybe it would have been the illegitimate bastard that God had when he fucked the holy Archangel Gabriella instead of the Holy Ghost.

quote:And given the fact that you people are utterly obsessed with His non-existance by rabidly and fanatically attacking His personage and deity gives us all the more reason to suppose that you would kill Him all over again. It never ceases to amaze me that those of you who deny Christ just can't stop talking about Him. If you really want Him to go away then stop talking about Him everday of your life. We can only suppose that you really do want to know Him. You must be waiting for that one person to come along who pwns you into submission. It's like little kids who don't want discipline. They actually do and tacitly prompt people to give them that structure, even though they are not consciously aware of it.

Correction dearest, we do this, actually I do this because it's freaking hilarious to watch you roll around justifying and attempting to match up a bunch of very stupid explanations as to why there is a God and how that God operates and why that God operates and why you believe that that God even exists. Entertainment value only. God died to me a long time ago, and right now, not even he could resurrect his dead ass and make me believe.

A) I'm not an atheist.

B) Trolling the religion forum sure makes me want to find Jesus. I am soooo totally obsessed with him.

...morons.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

What a wonderful bit of logic! Why, it's absolutely irrefutable!

I can only interpret your reply in a thread made by those "rejecting Christ" as a tacit request for an explanation of how ridiculous your beliefs are, and how exactly you can begin your road to rejecting Christ. I mean, it's like those very children who say they don't want discipline, but actually do! They tactily request that disicpline so as to get structure in their lives.

Amazing!



So if a girl says no she really means yes?

If Jesus came back where would he show up at and how the hell would we understand that dirty jew

[This message has been edited by Snoil-nine (edited 02-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by abbazabbahellyeafool:



So if a girl says no she really means yes?

If by this you mean rape, then yes.

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Correction dearest, we do this, actually I do this because it's freaking hilarious to watch you roll around justifying and attempting to match up a bunch of very stupid explanations as to why there is a God and how that God operates and why that God operates and why you believe that that God even exists. Entertainment value only. God died to me a long time ago, and right now, not even he could resurrect his dead ass and make me believe.

What justification do I need? The evidence is overwhelming. Why do you come in here? You obviously find the whole religion bit very interesting. I don't see the need for your denial. Just admit it to yourself.

Here's what I think: You believed in Jesus and when life got a little stormy you abandoned Him because you thought He abandoned you. So now, you're angry at the thought that He doesn't exist. Because you're an angry and dejected teenager, you're going to spread as much of the pain as you can because you're envious at people who still have a relationship with God. Does that sound about right?..... (not that you'd ever admit it).

quote:Originally posted by abbazabbahellyeafool:



So if a girl says no she really means yes?



I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that, however, that's exactly what hyroglyphx's logic would entail. Thank you for bringing that example up.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I have to concur with Fundokiller on this one. You don't see how illogical and irrational it is to sit around spending inordinate amounts of time refuting something you alledge doesn't exist to begin with? That would be like me going around starting threads on just how much I don't believe that purple-flying elephants don't exist. Because I don't believe they exist, it gives me no reason to go out of my way attempting to refute a negative, much less think about it. Where's the ambiguity?



Number one. The people who believe in purple-flying elephants don't vote.

Number two. purple-flying elephantism has never inspired a moral panic or war.

Number three. nobody believes in purple-flying elephants, whilst around 4 billion people believe in god.

Number four. purple flying elephantism has never impeded scientific progress.

Number five. I happen to enjoy philosophy

P.S. Rust I recommend you try overload objections to highlight the baseless logic that these posters use.





[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 02-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Canti:

If they killed him back then with 2 bits of wood and 3 nails, imagine what we could do with nuclear weapons.

i dont think nuclear weapons would be used. my guess, he would be sent to the farm (or whatever the cia training camp is called) and used as a introductory 'dummy' for torture.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Number one. The people who believe in purple-flying elephants don't vote.

Number two. purple-flying elephantism has never inspired a moral panic or war.

Number three. nobody believes in purple-flying elephants, whilst around 4 billion people believe in god.

Number four. purple flying elephantism has never impeded scientific progress.

Number five. I happen to enjoy philosophy

P.S. Rust I recommend you try overload objections to highlight the baseless logic that these posters use.





Fundo, your point is moot. The premise still stands that it is illogical and irrational to spend so much time on a forum to demonize someone else's religions. Why are you here? What is the purpose of coming to 'My God?' It appears from my perspective that you either are a polemicist or you have a genuine fascination with religion as a whole. Which is it? You either get a big kick out of destroying the faith of others or you have a genuine interest. Maybe you've never consciously thought about it, in which case, a little introspection couldn't hurt. I don't see a third or fourth option. If you can think of another reason why you're compelled to post here, 'in this specific room,' I'd love to hear it.

I already gave you a possible reason. You, however, chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your pathetic views.

Maybe you didn't understand when I said "I enjoy philosophy". That means I like talking about subjects whose answers are not in the immediate future. as to why this board specifically? that's a stupid question my board choice was arbitrary and I post in several others.

Read other peoples posts you n00b.

you would have to. its destiny.

I think we probably would. If we didn't every country with a religion that says Jesus doesn't exist would bomb us and everything. In other words, we'd suffer. So... why would Jesus come down? We'd just start a war over him and such and destroy eachother.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Maybe you didn't understand when I said "I enjoy philosophy". That means I like talking about subjects whose answers are not in the immediate future. as to why this board specifically? that's a stupid question my board choice was arbitrary and I post in several others.

Read other peoples posts you n00b.

I asked you a very simple question and you can't even answer it, which further solidifies the notion that you are here to either learn something, because you're spiritually bankrupt, you want to argue, or you get a big kick out of destroying people's faith.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I already gave you a possible reason. You, however, chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit with your pathetic views.

Or, it wasn't worth addressing.

Watch who you're calling pathetic there, champ.

quote:Originally posted by abbazabbahellyeafool:



So if a girl says no she really means yes?



Children need structure, and flourish under it.

Women don't need to be raped, and do not flourish once they are a victim of it.

Ass.

Last time they only had wood and stakes. NOW we have artillery and guns. Just imagine.

i think that's a tshirthell t-shirt

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Children need structure, and flourish under it.

¿Qué?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Or, it wasn't worth addressing.

Watch who you're calling pathetic there, champ.

If the reason that completely refutes his assertion wasn't worth addressing, then you've just shown how ridiculous his own possition is. It seems I was correct in stating it was a pathetic point of view after all...

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Children need structure, and flourish under it.

Women don't need to be raped, and do not flourish once they are a victim of it.

Ass.

His point flew over your head. His point was that hyros logic is the equivalent of stating that women mean "yes" when they say "no" to being raped.

Hyro is stating that the fact that atheists spend time attacking theism means they secretly want to be theists; which is the equivalent of saying that a women who spends her time saying no to rape, means that she secretly wants to be raped.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

His point flew over your head. His point was that hyros logic is the equivalent of stating that women mean "yes" when they say "no" to being raped.

No, actually, it didn't. I was refuting his childish point, by redirecting back to hyro's original point, which is nothing like a woman saying no, when she really means yes.

MY point flew over YOUR head.

quote:Hyro is stating that the fact that atheists spend time attacking theism means they secretly want to be theists; which is the equivalent of saying that a women who spends her time saying no to rape, means that she secretly wants to be raped.

I know what he's stating. Very well.

And he is 100% right.

An atheist stands to benefit from being converted to Christianity. A woman being raped doesn't benefit in any way, shape, or form.

That was my point.

It's annoying to explain everything to you 400 times, ya know that ?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If the reason that completely refutes his assertion wasn't worth addressing, then you've just shown how ridiculous his own possition is. It seems I was correct in stating it was a pathetic point of view after all...

There is a possibility that he didn't respond to you because it's not worth address.

Which would mean he found YOUR argument pathetic.

Way to kick the maturity up a notch, there !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, actually, it didn't. I was refuting his childish point, by redirecting back to hyro's original point, which is nothing like a woman saying no, when she really means yes.

MY point flew over YOUR head.

Then you're simply incorrect.

Hyro's point is the equivalent of stating that women mean "yes" when they say not to rape.

X does B, therefore X secretly wants Y.

They are fundamentally the same. Simply replace the variables with the appropriate objects, and you have the same point.

quote:I know what he's stating. Very well.

And he is 100% right.

An atheist stands to benefit from being converted to Christianity. A woman being raped doesn't benefit in any way, shape, or form.

That was my point.

It's annoying to explain everything to you 400 times, ya know that ?

The benefit is irrelevant, it's the fact that he claims that the atheist is secretly wanting to be converted to Christianity which equals the women secretly wanting to be raped that makes them equal.

Whether they benefit in the end is irrelevant; so irrelevant in fact, that it is subjective. It is your opinion that the atheist benefits from converting to Christianity.

Hey, stupid niggers. Get the fuck out of my thread!

The fuck?! We have this communist teenage spic boy and a fat stupid housewife talking about being total pricks. Either get a life now, or stop breathing you worthless fucks.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There is a possibility that he didn't respond to you because it's not worth address.

Which would mean he found YOUR argument pathetic.

Way to kick the maturity up a notch, there !

He failed to address the point which completely refuted what he stated, thus the point still stands. If he thinks a point that refutes what he is saying is not worth addressing then his point of view is pathetic.

That, assuming that I even have to justify my ussage of "pathetic" to you, which I do not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-21-2006).]

Obviously you felt that you had to, or you wouldn't have. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

How ironic that you use the very failure of a logic that hyro used initially!

You said you didn't need to justify yourself to me, but you did.

What else can be concluded ?

That he wanted you to shut-up about the use of the word "pathetic"?

Nothing can be concluded. Thats the point.

Do I need candy? No. Does the fact that I eat candy mean that I need it? No.

I don't need to justify my usage to you. Does the fact that I did mean that I needed to? No.

That he wanted you to shut-up about the use of the word "pathetic"?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

If Jesus came back down to Earth selling peace and love and shit, do you think we would crusify his ass again?

I vote yes. In fact, I think 50 Cent would crucify him on his own by acting like a cross. I bet God would cry like a little girl.

Let the voting begin.

hey snoopy 4 1 fucked up name for 2 u have no clue about any of that shit, 50 cent is a pussy ill take that fucker on any day, you dont understand the consiquences of fiddling with god and the spirit world, whole different can of worms assmunch, dont disgod i weetn total satanist and he still saved me from torture and death, so i vote suck 50 cents dick have him bitch slap u, cry piss and moan about it, go home shoot yourself and go to hell and be satans little bitch boy

quote:Originally posted by Canti:

If they killed him back then with 2 bits of wood and 3 nails, imagine what we could do with nuclear weapons.

you dumbass he was whipped, beat, flogged, and tehn crusifyed which when the arms go it will make you sufficate so he suffocated to death, wannatrade places with him?

quote:Originally posted by Astralis:

I bet jesus would burn the middle east to the ground and then bitch slap chuck norris!!!

no Jesus will save the christian people, like me and then let everyone else suffer in pain, by the way chuck norris is cool