The Messiahcule: or "How I learned to stop thinking and follow Jesus"

[Malitum]

Life on earth is carbon-based. Carbon-12 has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons.
Every carbon atom in your body was made by Satan.

[Kazumi]

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;30414704]Advertisement I found on that jewelry website:

[IMG]http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/af26/a_mutant_hobo/crossfag.png[/IMG]

:colbert:

Basic biology. Come on guys. Are you even trying?[/QUOTE]

:colbert:

Basic trolling. Come on man. Are you even trying?

[Spruce]

[QUOTE=esalaka;30415307]Don't you mean it's full of retarded people?

I'm not claiming it's because people are atheists but damn I've seen atheists that piss me off more than any religious moron ever.

[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]

Also I wonder how this thread isn't "I'M ATHEIST AND PROUD OF IT" yet. I mean I don't hear christians usually doing that and why would you be proud of not believing in deities.[/QUOTE]

Nothing wrong with being proud of your ideology.

[Kalibos]

agnosticism does not fit with the rest of those options it should not be on that poll op

what a stupid thread

[Gook Nukem]

OMG! It made no sense until now! GOD IS AWESOME!!!11

[Master117]

The ignorance in this guy makes me angry. The molecular biologist is probably laughing his ass off though, knowing he successfully trolled a bunch of ignorant Christians.

Also atheists are just as bad as extremist religious people in my opinion. Why do I say this? Well, atheists seem to have this raging fire against religious people because they claim they are "100 percent sure there is a God," however, from an atheist's point of view cannot come up with any logical evidence to support their statement.
Atheists say that they are "100 percent sure that there is no God." Funny, because to me, no atheist has been able to give me any logical or quantifiable evidence why their answer is infallible.

To me, both these statements are based on pure faith since they cannot be proven one way or another.

"You can't prove a negative" is what an atheist will retort with.

Well, what the fuck, what is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that since it can't be proven it's true, then it's automatically false? Why is that? That's not exactly how it works, you know.

Just because something cannot be proven to be true does not automatically make it false.

I cannot empirically prove that a bird landed on my balcony today. I have no evidence whatsoever besides the fact that [I]I[/I] saw it. No one else would have been able to see it based on where it landed.
Does that mean that a bird did not land on my balcony to someone who did not see it happen?

This can be made into a sort of an analogy for religious people. Let's say a religious person claimed to have witnessed an act of God. No one else saw it but them. To them, what they saw was real and true. They can't prove it since it left no outstanding mark on the world, but did it really happen? Yes. To them it did.

Another one. A tree falls in the woods, and yet no one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Well, based on [I]what we [B]currently[/B] know as fact[/I] that movement and collisions within an atmosphere will generate fluctuations in air pressure which can be perceived as sound, and because the tree moved within the atmosphere and collided with another object, we can conclude that it generated a sound. This is deductive reasoning. The funny thing about deductive reasoning is it is not always correct, and since no one was actually there to witness such event, we don't know for 100 percent fact that the tree falling did in fact make a sound.

"But there is scientific evidence that a sound would occur based on the situation." Sure, there is evidence to construed such a conclusion, but evidence does not equal fact.

I personally don't consider myself a religious person. I claim to be a person who simply does not know, and probably never will. I can't tell you if there is or is not a God because I have not observed any outstanding evidence that shows whether there is one, or is not one.

What I can tell you, however, is that it does not fucking matter whether you believe in a higher being or not. As long as you're not trying to [I]force[/I] your views and beliefs down others throats, or wish violence or death upon those who disagree with your beliefs, then it should be a non-issue. We all need to learn to co-exist and get along. Seriously, I'm getting sick of this massive dick-waving contest we call religious debate.

[DireWolf]

[QUOTE=Kalibos;30416507]agnosticism does not fit with the rest of those options it should not be on that poll op

what a stupid thread[/QUOTE]

I suppose if you want to be absolutely technical about it, then "agnosticism" is not a religious belief, persay. But the term "agnostic" is usually connotated with an agnostic atheist. Stop being so literal.

Also, Master117, it's true. You can't prove a negative. And a lot of what you're saying reminds me of Schrodinger's cat. You can't prove what happened to the hypothetical cat, no matter what. I'm not religious, I don't believe in God. In my beliefs, it's a thermodynamic impossibility to have a Christian God in the universe. It doesn't mean there isn't one. I could be blatantly wrong. I could not. The fact of the matter is the burden of proof belongs with the accuser. By being religious, you accuse, or state, that there is a God. Atheists don't have to prove anything. Atheists (or at least the most popular form of Atheism) simply [b] do not believe in a religion [/b]. We're not trying to prove that there is a God. We're not accusing, or stating, anything. Once again, the burden proof is on the shoulders of religious men.

[Dunkus]

-snip-

[Last or First]

[QUOTE=Master117;30418066]The ignorance in this guy makes me angry. The molecular biologist is probably laughing his ass off though, knowing he successfully trolled a bunch of ignorant Christians.

Also atheists are just as bad as extremist religious people in my opinion. Why do I say this? Well, atheists seem to have this raging fire against religious people because they claim they are "100 percent sure there is a God," however, from an atheist's point of view cannot come up with any logical evidence to support their statement.
Atheists say that they are "100 percent sure that there is no God." Funny, because to me, no atheist has been able to give me any logical or quantifiable evidence why their answer is infallible.

To me, both these statements are based on pure faith since they cannot be proven one way or another.

"You can't prove a negative" is what an atheist will retort with.

Well, what the fuck, what is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to say that since it can't be proven it's true, then it's automatically false? Why is that? That's not exactly how it works, you know.

Just because something cannot be proven to be true does not automatically make it false.

I cannot empirically prove that a bird landed on my balcony today. I have no evidence whatsoever besides the fact that [I]I[/I] saw it. No one else would have been able to see it based on where it landed.
Does that mean that a bird did not land on my balcony to someone who did not see it happen?

This can be made into a sort of an analogy for religious people. Let's say a religious person claimed to have witnessed an act of God. No one else saw it but them. To them, what they saw was real and true. They can't prove it since it left no outstanding mark on the world, but did it really happen? Yes. To them it did.

Another one. A tree falls in the woods, and yet no one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound?

Well, based on [I]what we [B]currently[/B] know as fact[/I] that movement and collisions within an atmosphere will generate fluctuations in air pressure which can be perceived as sound, and because the tree moved within the atmosphere and collided with another object, we can conclude that it generated a sound. This is deductive reasoning. The funny thing about deductive reasoning is it is not always correct, and since no one was actually there to witness such event, we don't know for 100 percent fact that the tree falling did in fact make a sound.

"But there is scientific evidence that a sound would occur based on the situation." Sure, there is evidence to construed such a conclusion, but evidence does not equal fact.

I personally don't consider myself a religious person. I claim to be a person who simply does not know. I can't tell you if there is or is not a God because I have not observed any outstanding evidence that shows whether there is one, or is not one.[/QUOTE][IMG]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8136/atheists.png[/IMG]
Let's say that someone claims that there's a teapot sitting in a crater on an asteroid in the asteroid belt. There's no possible way for our telescopes to find it, as it's too small, on a random asteroid, and the asteroid itself has a spin such that its side with the teapot always faces away from Earth. Should we let the claim of existence of such a teapot be "50/50", because "you just can't know for sure, thus believing it doesn't exist is 100% faith"?

How about if I said that there was an invisible, intangible, silent, undetectable dragon in my garage, that breathed room-temperature 'fire', only if nobody was around. Do we say that the people who don't believe in my dragon are just as illogical as the people who [i]do[/i] believe in the dragon?

A bird landing on a balcony is a routine occurrence. It's not difficult in the slightest to believe that a bird landed on your balcony. (Unless if you later added in details for it to be a species of bird that is not native to the area, but it would still be possible for it to have come from a zoo, or simply have gotten EXTREMELY lost.)

Things colliding with other things at least a certain speed and surrounded by gas or liquid produces sound. This is fact.

The belief in god (as it is commonly defined by Judeo-Christian religions) is the idea that the entire universe could not have been created without some superpowered, magical humanoid that transcends space and time making it. It is also the belief that said humanoid made the [b]ENTIRE[/b] universe just for one species, on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one cluster, in the entire [b]FUCKING[/b] universe. [i]Do you even understand how conceited, self-centered, hubristic, and selfish that idea is!?[/i]
It is also the belief that said deity is omniscient, yet allows free will. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent, but sends any who don't believe in it, and any who believe in it in the wrong way, to be tormented for eternity. It is the belief that said deity is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, wants us all to believe it exists, and could prove its existence at any moment, but refuses to show any proof (besides from all of those wonderful events and miracles from when the book was written) out of some idea that "then people wouldn't believe out of faith", as if that's what people should be judged by, faith, not by, oh, [b]being a good person or not[/b]. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and hates suffering, yet allows children to suffer, allows rape, allows starvation, allows murder, allows genocide, and so much more.
Most of all, at least for the Christian god, it is the belief that said omnipotent, omniscient deity had to impregnate someone in order to go down to Earth in human form (as opposed to *poof* "Hey guys"), and sent himself down here in order to be sacrificed in order for him to accept the sacrifice in order to forgive humanity and see the better good in them, and lift the heavier laws and original sin placed on humans that it had put there in the first place and could remove at any fucking moment.
[b]DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW FUCKING IDIOTIC THAT IS.
TO SAY THAT THE DISBELIEF IN THAT IS JUST AS ILLOGICAL AS THE BELIEF IN IT IS TO REJECT LOGIC ITSELF. SO SHUT.
THE FUCK.
UP.[/b]

[Master117]

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;30418684]
Atheists (or at least the most popular form of Atheism) simply [b] do not believe in a religion [/b]. We're not trying to prove that there is a God. We're not accusing, or stating, anything. Once again, the burden proof is on the shoulders of religious men.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately, your definition and my definition of Atheism are incompatible. I am using the textbook definition.
Wikipedia states that "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities."

The Merriam-Webster definition is similar. It states that Atheism is "the doctrine that there is no deity"

Dictionary.com states that Atheism is the "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

So yes, according to the definition of Atheism, Atheists deny the existence of a higher being. They do not believe in God.

Also, yes you can prove a negative.
Here is an example:

Read this:
[url]http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html[/url]
and this:
[url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Since_you_cannot_prove_a_negative_how_can_you_prove_that_God_does_not_exist[/url]
And maybe this:
[url]http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html[/url]

[TheChantzGuy]

I'm atheist, and every other atheist i've ever met has been a fucking dick to everyone who doesn't agree with them.

[Master117]

[QUOTE=Last or First;30419096][IMG]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8136/atheists.png[/IMG]
Let's say that someone claims that there's a teapot sitting in a crater on an asteroid in the asteroid belt. There's no possible way for our telescopes to find it, as it's too small, on a random asteroid, and the asteroid itself has a spin such that its side with the teapot always faces away from Earth. Should we let the claim of existence of such a teapot be "50/50", because "you just can't know for sure, thus believing it doesn't exist is 100% faith"?

How about if I said that there was an invisible, intangible, silent, undetectable dragon in my garage, that breathed room-temperature 'fire', only if nobody was around. Do we say that the people who don't believe in my dragon are just as illogical as the people who [i]do[/i] believe in the dragon?

A bird landing on a balcony is a routine occurrence. It's not difficult in the slightest to believe that a bird landed on your balcony. (Unless if you later added in details for it to be a species of bird that is not native to the area, but it would still be possible for it to have come from a zoo, or simply have gotten EXTREMELY lost.)

Things colliding with other things at least a certain speed and surrounded by gas or liquid produces sound. This is fact.

The belief in god (as it is commonly defined by Judeo-Christian religions) is the idea that the entire universe could not have been created without some superpowered, magical humanoid that transcends space and time making it. It is also the belief that said humanoid made the [b]ENTIRE[/b] universe just for one species, on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one cluster, in the entire [b]FUCKING[/b] universe. [i]Do you even understand how conceited, self-centered, hubristic, and selfish that idea is!?[/i]
It is also the belief that said deity is omniscient, yet allows free will. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent, but sends any who don't believe in it, and any who believe in it in the wrong way, to be tormented for eternity. It is the belief that said deity is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, wants us all to believe it exists, and could prove its existence at any moment, but refuses to show any proof (besides from all of those wonderful events and miracles from when the book was written) out of some idea that "then people wouldn't believe out of faith", as if that's what people should be judged by, faith, not by, oh, [b]being a good person or not[/b]. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and hates suffering, yet allows children to suffer, allows rape, allows starvation, allows murder, allows genocide, and so much more.
Most of all, at least for the Christian god, it is the belief that said omnipotent, omniscient deity had to impregnate someone in order to go down to Earth in human form (as opposed to *poof* "Hey guys"), and sent himself down here in order to be sacrificed in order for him to accept the sacrifice in order to forgive humanity and see the better good in them, and lift the heavier laws and original sin placed on humans that it had put there in the first place and could remove at any fucking moment.
[b]DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW FUCKING IDIOTIC THAT IS.
TO SAY THAT THE DISBELIEF IN THAT IS JUST AS ILLOGICAL AS THE BELIEF IN IT IS TO REJECT LOGIC ITSELF. SO SHUT.
THE FUCK.
UP.[/b][/QUOTE]

Well I was following along until you told me to "shut the fuck up." My goal was to keep this as civilized as possible, but unfortunately it looks like you don't want to keep it such.

Also the fatal flaw in your argument is that from at least the Judaical belief in God (at least what I was taught) is that God does not send anyone to hell or torture them for not believing in him or following his commandments. In fact, Jews do not believe in hell. The closest we have is Gehinom, essentially a purgatory. God's laws and commandments are essentially akin to "don't put your hand on the hot stove or you will get burned." God does not punish you. It's the actions you take that lead to your demise and God is only trying to warn you not to take those actions.
Why is it set up this way? Why can't God just make it so we don't have to follow some of what seems to be absolutely ridiculous laws and commandments since God is apparently the ultimate power, after all? Well, as of now we do not have that answer.

I never said I believed in any of what the bible says about creation. In fact, that was my whole point on why I say that God cannot be proven since there is no evidence that what the bible says God did actually happened. I am also saying that just because there is no evidence that God did not do any of that does not mean that this is enough evidence to disprove God or a god.

I am claiming that based on what is currently known, there is no way of determining whether God, or even another deity exists or does not exist.

[Fire Kracker]

[QUOTE=Last or First;30419096][IMG]http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8136/atheists.png[/IMG]
Let's say that someone claims that there's a teapot sitting in a crater on an asteroid in the asteroid belt. There's no possible way for our telescopes to find it, as it's too small, on a random asteroid, and the asteroid itself has a spin such that its side with the teapot always faces away from Earth. Should we let the claim of existence of such a teapot be "50/50", because "you just can't know for sure, thus believing it doesn't exist is 100% faith"?

How about if I said that there was an invisible, intangible, silent, undetectable dragon in my garage, that breathed room-temperature 'fire', only if nobody was around. Do we say that the people who don't believe in my dragon are just as illogical as the people who [i]do[/i] believe in the dragon?

A bird landing on a balcony is a routine occurrence. It's not difficult in the slightest to believe that a bird landed on your balcony. (Unless if you later added in details for it to be a species of bird that is not native to the area, but it would still be possible for it to have come from a zoo, or simply have gotten EXTREMELY lost.)

Things colliding with other things at least a certain speed and surrounded by gas or liquid produces sound. This is fact.

The belief in god (as it is commonly defined by Judeo-Christian religions) is the idea that the entire universe could not have been created without some superpowered, magical humanoid that transcends space and time making it. It is also the belief that said humanoid made the [b]ENTIRE[/b] universe just for one species, on one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy, in one cluster, in the entire [b]FUCKING[/b] universe. [i]Do you even understand how conceited, self-centered, hubristic, and selfish that idea is!?[/i]
It is also the belief that said deity is omniscient, yet allows free will. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent, but sends any who don't believe in it, and any who believe in it in the wrong way, to be tormented for eternity. It is the belief that said deity is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, wants us all to believe it exists, and could prove its existence at any moment, but refuses to show any proof (besides from all of those wonderful events and miracles from when the book was written) out of some idea that "then people wouldn't believe out of faith", as if that's what people should be judged by, faith, not by, oh, [b]being a good person or not[/b]. It is the belief that said deity is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and hates suffering, yet allows children to suffer, allows rape, allows starvation, allows murder, allows genocide, and so much more.
Most of all, at least for the Christian god, it is the belief that said omnipotent, omniscient deity had to impregnate someone in order to go down to Earth in human form (as opposed to *poof* "Hey guys"), and sent himself down here in order to be sacrificed in order for him to accept the sacrifice in order to forgive humanity and see the better good in them, and lift the heavier laws and original sin placed on humans that it had put there in the first place and could remove at any fucking moment.
[b]DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND HOW FUCKING IDIOTIC THAT IS.
TO SAY THAT THE DISBELIEF IN THAT IS JUST AS ILLOGICAL AS THE BELIEF IN IT IS TO REJECT LOGIC ITSELF. SO SHUT.
THE FUCK.
UP.[/b][/QUOTE]

you say this as if christianity is the only religion

...lol

[Mr. Scorpio]

Do we have to argue about the godhood of Mithra? No? Then why in the fuck do we have to argue about this bullshit?

[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;30419528]you say this as if christianity is the only religion

...lol[/QUOTE]

The first half of his argument applies equally well to all claims of any sort of deity, spirit, devil, or anal probing alien.

You could do a similar deconstruction of any human centric mythology on the planet, so I don't see what you're bitching about.

[Fire Kracker]

why argue about something that can't be proven or disproven

if everyone wants to prove it so bad kill yourself

that way if you end up in nothingness or in paradise or hell you can be happy for yourself that you were right

[DireWolf]

I'm sure most people who consider themselves "Atheist" don't mean it in the literal text you're putting it in, Master. I'm atheist, and by that I mean I don't believe in a religion. While I'm aware atheist literally means "against the fact that there is a god" and that it doesn't technically mean that I don't believe in a religion, I'd say 95 percent of the time in a modern context the term "atheist" means "someone who does not believe in a religion".

[Boozy&Bitter]

[img]http://th215.photobucket.com/albums/cc238/ms_hannah990/th_laminin.png[/img]

[i]Rrretuuurrn the sllaaaab[/i]

[Ninja Duck]

[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/jihad.png[/img]

That isn't a cross.

[Longy]

[QUOTE=BldrGyMnGy;30410534]LIKE MIDICHLORIANS IN STAR WARS[/QUOTE]

Why did you have to remind me?
:gonk:

[LCBADs]

[QUOTE=Rubs10;30419965][img]http://th215.photobucket.com/albums/cc238/ms_hannah990/th_laminin.png[/img]

[i]Rrretuuurrn the sllaaaab[/i][/QUOTE]

[i]or suffer my cuuurse[/i]

[Fire Kracker]

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;30419682]Do we have to argue about the godhood of Mithra? No? Then why in the fuck do we have to argue about this bullshit?

[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]

The first half of his argument applies equally well to all claims of any sort of deity, spirit, devil, or anal probing alien.

You could do a similar deconstruction of any human centric mythology on the planet, so I don't see what you're bitching about.[/QUOTE]

i'm not bitching

clearly you are though ahaha

i believe that people should believe what they want because they'll get the answer to what they want when they're dead

[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]

people shouldn't try to project their beliefs of religion or theism or atheism to other people

[editline]13th June 2011[/editline]

and of course they're human centric

mythologies are ancient, they don't even know there could be life on other planets

[Unreliable]

This thread is going to be horrible.

[editline]12th June 2011[/editline]

disgonbegud

[ryasnack1]

[IMG]http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo355/IRONMAIDENwoot/MaryCondom.jpg[/IMG]

[Fatman55]

Wow this guy is stupid, if this isn't satire.
In the Bible it says Jesus was sent for us, not the other way around.
Also it wasn't Jesus who created everything. :v:

[Helari]

How I learned to be edgy and rant about religion.

[Adam1172]

[QUOTE=Fatman55;30424718]Wow this guy is stupid, if this isn't satire.
In the Bible it says Jesus was sent for us, not the other way around.
Also it wasn't Jesus who created everything. :v:[/QUOTE]

Come on, it was obvious that he didn't create Michael Jackson.

[DireWolf]

UPDATE:

I love how all their facts are youtube videos :v:

[url]http://www.laminincrossjewelry.com/laminin_facts.php[/url]

[Jockedevian]

Jesus my ass, I'm an atheist!

[slimd1995]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the symbol of the cross comes from Jesus being crucified. Well, there were people back then. Those people had Lamanin in them before Jesus was crucified, before the cross was ever a religious symbol. So, what? God predicted that Jesus would be crucified before he even made the first human? Well, that can only be possible if people didn't truly have free will, which makes the whole idea of God and life seem rather useless.

[AndrewDaFunk]

Don't say that you're agnostic.

The word "Agnostic" comes from the word "Gnosis" which means knowledge. Just like the word "Atheist", the "A" in "Agnostic" has a negative meaning to it. So if you say that you're agnostic, you're practically saying that you're stupid.

Just throwing that out there. :geno: