The Religion Discussion

[Slartibartfast]

Blues, nice try at misdirection... poor try at humour. Please reply directly to the arguments I raised if you will like me to take you seriously. You need to directly prove my arguments wrong or directly prove them logically flawed and/or irrelevant.

[Slartibartfast]

Therefore, your golden rule is an atheist by definition. It does not make any reference to the belief in any God or religion whatsoever. How do you feel knowing that you follow atheist morals?

Oh just realised a small typo. The first sentence says the golden rule is "an atheist". It should be "atheistic".

The golden rule is atheistic not "an atheist". Stupid typo but it doesn't change anything in my argument. You religion is still based on an atheistic moral law.

[Habit7]

I love the fact that the two of you replied to the one post I said to ignore. Anyway, Habit you clearly missed this post. You never replied to it.

You are the one who needs to prove that the Confucius moral law you adher to is grounded in atheistic ideology....all while claiming that atheism has no ideology.

[Slartibartfast]

As stated before. There is the direct proof.

3. Show which part of that Golden Rule references a belief in any sort of God. If it does not then it is an atheist moral belief. That means as a Christian, you base all of you morals and values on atheism. Howdya like dem apples!

Definition quoted below once again for your ease of reference.

atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

[crock101]

I meant that having to use the word atheist is silly, meaning there is no word needed to explain why I don't believe in leprechauns,minotors or fairies ,but there is a word for not believing in God ,which by the way has the same amount of evidence to support his existence as all the other mythical creatures,which is none.
Why does the non-belief of God get more attention than the non belief of any of the thing that I mentioned,that is why I think it's a bit silly, the fact that I am asked to justify one but not the others.
The religious,people who seem to be otherwise rational human beings will be able to see that Santa Claus ,fairies and leprechauns don't make any sense and are clearly made up ,will look at you like you are the crazy one for not buying a story about an invisible, murderous,psychopath in the sky. When one guy says it he's just crazy ,when a billion people say it then it's religion,I don't see the difference.

[bluesclues]

As stated before. There is the direct proof.

3. Show which part of that Golden Rule references a belief in any sort of God. If it does not then it is an atheist moral belief. That means as a Christian, you base all of you morals and values on atheism. Howdya like dem apples!

Definition quoted below once again for your ease of reference.

atheism
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

A. disbelief is a 'choice'. the sentence "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is incapable of making a choice to believe or disbelieve thus cannot be considered a believer or an atheist as it doesnt meet the entry requirements of a philosopher.

what you are trying in this backflip in attempt to impregnate yourself, is to ascribe ownership of a statement to the atheist or an atheist community. the sentence is neither atheistic nor an atheist. ownership is decided by the source. in this case, the source is a Holy Man advocating belief in God but furthermore saying that such a sentence comes from God himself.

i cant take you seriously with that logic. u cant just go around stealing credit for quotes with twisted logic. bottom line, a non-atheist said it. and the attribution is thus given to the owner of the sentence as it aims to corroborate the timeless wisdom and contribution of prophets. atheists, simply do not have this skill. an atheist term or sentence may survive a century or two before its realized the guy is a nutcase lol. all of philosophy is thus dominated by religious/spiritual contributors as atheists in true definition of the word originally referred to people who lived like animals. in the sense that they have no time for God or for wonder, but to fill their bellies and mate day in day out until they die for no reason and not even question purpose. purpose is not on the atheist agenda. thus the philosophy to purpose which is ascribed through a creator God is not atheistic.

modern atheism seems to attempt to include itself as part of the philosophical community by attaching itself to the exploration of science. a science which is the study and observation of nature, which was developed through the believer's search for evidence of purpose. that evidence is found in the laws which govern the universe to order. thus again. science itself is an attribution of the believer community. and once again, atheists just piggybacking trying to claim and take credit for something that is in no way their forte. and has never been in all the centuries of man for thousands of years. where u comin from in the 21st century claiming science or philosophy should be credited to atheists. where were u when the architectural science to construct the pyramids was defined allowing the egyptians and so many cultures to build megalithic structures with mathematical precision and globally referenced positioning like they had gps. astrological science. ship building science. mathematics. i mean really.. what have atheists contributed to society except confusion and the attempt to steal credit for the work of others in ancient history? nothing. because u as well as i know. atheists dont have no time for nothing but enjoying life the way they see fit. they do not stop to ponder about their purpose or their creation. only reason they doing it now is because they see the political power that science has as a leader in man's understanding of the world he lives in. and that's what they want. the political power.

this cannot be denied as purpose and atheist do not go into the same sentence. u live, u die.. nothing happens after.. the world goes on. that is atheist theory and belief system. but once again. timeless wisdom and the statements which fall in that category are always delivered by divine inspiration from men who became aware of God's spirit. atheists, are incapable of doing this. i say.. utterly incapable.

[Slartibartfast]

I swear, you and Habit are the funniest. Blues, I highlighted the relevant part of the definition in red.

Read my post again. Carefully this time.

I'm calling it a belief that is athestic in nature. I'm not calling it "an atheist". I'm also talking about a "lack of belief" not disbelief.

Now show me which part of your Golden rule references a God or religious belief system. If it lacks all reference then it is atheistic by nature.

The rest of your post was subjectively opinionated and veered off topic so I wont deal with it at the moment. Maybe after you deal with the current issue.

[bluesclues]

the part where it come from the mouth of a man of God son.

make ur own contributions and claim credit for it. the fundamentals of english still stand here.

[bluesclues]

what you can say.. is taht atheists recognize how wise those words are, and agree with them even though they came from a religious/spiritual source.

[GRIM]

what you can say.. is taht atheists recognize how wise those words are, and agree with them even though they came from a religious/spiritual source.

anyone can quote words from any source and "recognize how wise those words are''
eg. “I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant. It is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are.”

that was said by mewtwo in pokemon fcukin pokemon

what atheists/non-believers say is that the basic moral philosophy predates judeo-christian, islamic, hindu or any religious texts.

question :
who wrote the first books in the old testament?

[bluesclues]

its a nice quote by takeshi shudo. but.. depending on the perspective taken, many people will not agree. in that the statement is not universally applicable or ever resounding truth.

it can be argued the circumstances of ones birth can affect who they become. and lets not forget that it has to be used in its original context or it gains weaker attraction. are the circumstances of a downsyndrome boy irrelevant? are the circumstances of being brought up in a backwoods town in the usa where the whole family hunts and eats tresspassers and have sex with there mother brother and sister an irrelevant circumstance to what they become in life? the position can surely be argued. environment does play a major part in how alot of people turn out. however, there are those, who will face a horrible environment yet still choose to be forgiving and not allow their negative environment to make them also negative. in this context, its rightful context, mewtoo speaks wise words.


but do unto others as youd have them do unto you. there is no argument. the context is in human relations. all human relation. a super contribution to civilization and the growth of forgiveness within the people of that civilization. it represents not only a line that can be drawn for how we affect others, but justice when that line is crossed. it is deep. so deep that the word deep does not give it justice.

in other words mewtoo may say things that are good only in the usage it was meant to be used. in that context, it may resonate with you. but it takes a very special skill to make a truly universal statement. that skill is one that only prophets own. no normal man can do it.

[GRIM]

the circumstances of one's birth has noting to do with the environment that he or she it brought up in.
i agree with the down syndrome thing but then "god" works in mysterious ways right.

back to my other question

who wrote the first books in the old testament?

[Advent]

since when is belief or disbelief a choice?

[bluesclues]

the first books of the old testament are from the jewish torah, which was given to them by the prophet and descdndent of the sumerian king and his noble family which ruled the region. the sumerians originally depicted the formation of the universe and the earth and man to address the first initiatives of learning about God and our purpose here. the reason for our being was known then. and its objectives identified and made focus in the moral of the stories of creation and purpose. Godly attributes were identified and superimposed using symbolic tools such as animals, plants or flowers and even personifications with features relevant to the people of the region.

another region would have had a prophet at one time, but his sons and grandsons did not achieve prophethood and so the teachings eventually became watered down and the people lost. when this happens, a prophet from one of the successful regions would take over that region. so that things were smothened out. his first task was to examine all the teachings of that culture.. and knowing truly all the things that are of God and his way, will be able to eliminate the misleading or less effective ones in his goal to reconstitute the pure teaching.

when this happened, because the taking over of one culture would lead to the peoples of both cultures intermixing. the prophet would also commit to the task of merging both cultures teachings, sometimes into an entirely new theology in a sense. thus the old testament was translated across culture starting from the sumerian creation story, and that of many creation stories of various cultures across the earth. whom were all at one point sharing the same physical geological location. somewhere in the african/middleeast/europe/asian continental region.

so genesis is an updated translation of creation, purpose and objective which is the same across all cultures dating from the sumerian prophet king and the first recorded civilization on earth. civilization in this sense meaning only that the people had learned to read, write, do mathematics, and agriculture, astrology etc as well. they were primitive people. and thus the prophet used primitive methods and descriptions. as they grew in evolution of intelligence through generations, and as they merged with other cultures where their domain spread, the stories were changed but in keeping with the full original message which is common to all. just a different way of delivering that message.

the universal message presented by religion doesnt change. it has always been the same... in every culture.

the beginning as a result of primal forces opposing eachother, as is present in the ying yang symbol today, began with the sumerian creation story. the presence of consciousness preceding the creation of the universe, and it's design of man for a purpose, and what achieving that purpose does for man himself. is always the same. the idea that we should try to live in harmony with nature, and the means of learning to live in harmony with eachother were given to us. in a 1000 different ways. everything we need to become all that we ever imagine. is the reality of our past and future. the science of man's development and evolution of the chakras, and the tools which get us there, our compassion, our strength, our truth, our honor, loyalty, conscience, empathy, our control of sexual desire. they are not a mere conquering of instinct or detraction from instinct. but also lead to the conquering of restrictions set on us.

these are the things identified by religion. a mystical interface to universal understanding, operation, and manipulation. to master our reality with our minds. a quest that is ongoing now in symbol, in science, as we hash out our problems one by one on the way to full mastery of our environment and all we imagine. but that will also become true when we become miracle workers. religion set no limit on what man can achieve and showed us that our potential is limitless just as the infinite creator God is infinite. it identified that thought, is the most powerful proponent in this universe. thought rules and drives everything.

atheists hope that science will support them in proving somehow that there is no God. but theyre wrong. and every culture on the planet has already told them theyre wrong. it will prove the opposite. leading to a unification of science and religion as one study.

this is why i have my universal statement. one ive had with me for many years. and it specifically addresses this time and the future to come of science.

'the success of science, lies in the discovery of it's failure'

which is to say, science's objective of aiding man in mastering his environment, will only be fully accomplished when the atheist scientists discover that the mystics (religion) were right. failing to disprove the existence of God and instead proving his existence, leading to the 'science of religion'. where it will no longer be a presumptuous sport. and the science of becoming a miracle worker will be as common as to be taught in school as an extra subject. by then the earth will be much different.

i hope this all helped u indentify why so many cultures have various Gods and statues and why they went to war with eachother etc. all are attributed to a single source. 100,000 names... 100,000 persons, 100,000 flowers and trinkets of all sorts.. but all part of One God. it was always One God, and his children.

[bluesclues]

the first books of the old testament are from the jewish torah, which was given to them by the prophet and descdndent of the sumerian king and his noble family which ruled the region. the sumerians originally depicted the formation of the universe and the earth and man to address the first initiatives of learning about God and our purpose here. the reason for our being was known then. and its objectives identified and made focus in the moral of the stories of creation and purpose. Godly attributes were identified and superimposed using symbolic tools such as animals, plants or flowers and even personifications with features relevant to the people of the region.

another region would have had a prophet at one time, but his sons and grandsons did not achieve prophethood and so the teachings eventually became watered down and the people lost. when this happens, a prophet from one of the successful regions would take over that region. so that things were smothened out. his first task was to examine all the teachings of that culture.. and knowing truly all the things that are of God and his way, will be able to eliminate the misleading or less effective ones in his goal to reconstitute the pure teaching.

when this happened, because the taking over of one culture would lead to the peoples of both cultures intermixing. the prophet would also commit to the task of merging both cultures teachings, sometimes into an entirely new theology in a sense. thus the old testament was translated across culture starting from the sumerian creation story, and that of many creation stories of various cultures across the earth. whom were all at one point sharing the same physical geological location. somewhere in the african/middleeast/europe/asian continental region.

so genesis is an updated translation of creation, purpose and objective which is the same across all cultures dating from the sumerian prophet king and the first recorded civilization on earth. civilization in this sense meaning only that the people had learned to read, write, do mathematics, and agriculture, astrology etc as well. they were primitive people. and thus the prophet used primitive methods and descriptions. as they grew in evolution of intelligence through generations, and as they merged with other cultures where their domain spread, the stories were changed but in keeping with the full original message which is common to all. just a different way of delivering that message.

the universal message presented by religion doesnt change. it has always been the same... in every culture.

the beginning as a result of primal forces opposing eachother, as is present in the ying yang symbol today, began with the sumerian creation story. the presence of consciousness preceding the creation of the universe, and it's design of man for a purpose, and what achieving that purpose does for man himself. is always the same. the idea that we should try to live in harmony with nature, and the means of learning to live in harmony with eachother were given to us. in a 1000 different ways. everything we need to become all that we ever imagine. is the reality of our past and future. the science of man's development and evolution of the chakras, and the tools which get us there, our compassion, our strength, our truth, our honor, loyalty, conscience, empathy, our control of sexual desire. they are not a mere conquering of instinct or detraction from instinct. but also lead to the conquering of restrictions set on us.

these are the things identified by religion. a mystical interface to universal understanding, operation, and manipulation. to master our reality with our minds. a quest that is ongoing now in symbol, in science, as we hash out our problems one by one on the way to full mastery of our environment and all we imagine. but that will also become true when we become miracle workers. religion set no limit on what man can achieve and showed us that our potential is limitless just as the infinite creator God is infinite. it identified that thought, is the most powerful proponent in this universe. thought rules and drives everything.

atheists hope that science will support them in proving somehow that there is no God. but theyre wrong. and every culture on the planet has already told them theyre wrong. it will prove the opposite. leading to a unification of science and religion as one study.

this is why i have my universal statement. one ive had with me for many years. and it specifically addresses this time and the future to come of science.

'the success of science, lies in the discovery of it's failure'

which is to say, science's objective of aiding man in mastering his environment, will only be fully accomplished when the atheist scientists discover that the mystics (religion) were right. failing to disprove the existence of God and instead proving his existence, leading to the 'science of religion'. where it will no longer be a presumptuous sport. and the science of becoming a miracle worker will be as common as to be taught in school as an extra subject. by then the earth will be much different.

i hope this all helped u indentify why so many cultures have various Gods and statues and why they went to war with eachother etc. all are attributed to a single source. 100,000 names... 100,000 persons, 100,000 flowers and trinkets of all sorts.. but all part of One God. it was always One God, and his children.

[GRIM]

i have to admit i've never heard of sumerians before but this just leads to more questions for me to ask you.
1. who is the prophet?
2. who wrote the torah and in what year?
a quick google search brought me to sites claiming sumerian kings ruling as far back as 40,000 years bc.
3.how old is mankind according to the bible? ie. adam and eve. i've alway heard about 6000 years. is that wrong?

another region would have had a prophet at one time, but his sons and grandsons did not achieve prophethood and so the teachings eventually became watered down and the people lost. when this happens, a prophet from one of the successful regions would take over that region. so that things were smothened out. his first task was to examine all the teachings of that culture.. and knowing truly all the things that are of God and his way, will be able to eliminate the misleading or less effective ones in his goal to reconstitute the pure teaching.

when this happened, because the taking over of one culture would lead to the peoples of both cultures intermixing. the prophet would also commit to the task of merging both cultures teachings, sometimes into an entirely new theology in a sense. thus the old testament was translated across culture starting from the sumerian creation story, and that of many creation stories of various cultures across the earth. whom were all at one point sharing the same physical geological location. somewhere in the african/middleeast/europe/asian continental region.

so genesis is an updated translation of creation, purpose and objective which is the same across all cultures dating from the sumerian prophet king and the first recorded civilization on earth. civilization in this sense meaning only that the people had learned to read, write, do mathematics, and agriculture, astrology etc as well. they were primitive people. and thus the prophet used primitive methods and descriptions. as they grew in evolution of intelligence through generations, and as they merged with other cultures where their domain spread, the stories were changed but in keeping with the full original message which is common to all. just a different way of delivering that message.

all this sound a bit fishy to me.

the universal message presented by religion doesnt change

this "universal message'' existed before religion (well except the part about there being an all powerful, omnipotent, all seeing, divine, just and kind god)

“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”
christopher hitchens

[Slartibartfast]

the part where it come from the mouth of a man of God son.

make ur own contributions and claim credit for it. the fundamentals of english still stand here.

Yes, Jesus said this 500 years after Confucius. However, who said it is irrelevant, as is anything that is objective. All that matters is what it is. You only believe that "God said it because you were told so. You have to believe God exists. You have to believe that the Christains are the one with the correct idea of God.

You have to make numerous leaps of faith and apply your subjective beliefs to "prove" your point. Yet, after you do all of that, the meaning of the moral law is not affected because it is independent of your religions and belief. Anything that lacks reference to any belief in a religion or God is atheist by definition.

You can see that with no real proof or natural reference to God, the entire universe in fact is atheist by nature. The only things that are not atheist are primitive ideas of an imature "creator". Thats all you can lay claim to. Primitive ideas and philosophies.

To help you out, below is an example of a theistic moral "law"
Though shalt nit worship false Gods.

That moral law directly references a belief in God and therefore cannot be considered atheistic.

[York]

Christopher Hitchens preceded religion?

[bluesclues]

the part where it come from the mouth of a man of God son.

You have to believe that the Christains are the one with the correct idea of God.

incorrect. i believe that all teachings have the right idea of God. just not always the correct interpretation and application. sumeria had it correct, the hebrews had it correct. the egyptians, greeks, the aztecs the navajo indian all had it correct. the hindu have it correct. if however they interpret the teachings wrongly or apply it wrongly then they will have futility as the result. so the only proof of getting it right is as i said, to have gained the result and thus proving not a futile effort, but also that you took the right path to interpretation.


anything attributed to mystics is attributed to religion. because religions formed out of the teaching of the mystics. those teachings included science. and science was always explained from the point of view of consciousness being the dominant force in this universe. moral law, as it was attributed by the jews, historically demonstrates, the forming of the first world religion. with it, from it's mystics was given the law. and the law was sufficient for the time period and culture. as a culture evolved, so did it's laws. atheists, would have historically been barbarian wildlings. godless, hunter gatherers running on almost pure animal instinct. theyd have no time for becoming civilised. that required order. to have a leader. historically this leader would be a shaman or other mystic. always.

what you have to do, is demonstrate the history of atheist civilisations and their laws. good luck finding that.. in all of our archaeological discoveries.. theres not a single godless tribe. all tribes that carried documentation, writing, mathematics, agricultural and architectural skill, attributed it as a gift of mysticism and their mystic leader who received it from the source consciousness of the universe. any tribe or band of individuals that had no Gods, also had no civilization.

[bluesclues]

hitchens.. u recognize that hitchens is a comedian right? and doesnt really understand the science he relies on to formulate his conclusion. that in itself is very assumptive on his part. he has no research to back up his claim just like you dont either. but there's loads of archaeological evidence to the contrary.

and @slarti
while we on the topic of confucius. though he did not say those exact words. we can also find similar wording coming from as far back as 2000bc in Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Confucianism

Ancient Egypt[edit]
Possibly the earliest affirmation of reciprocity reflecting the Ancient Egyptian god, Maat, who appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[10][11] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[12] A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[13]

showing the connection to sumeria that egypt had through the God Maat.


and in judaism

Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE – 10 CE),[21] used this verse as a most important message of the Torah for his teachings. Once, he was challenged by a gentile who asked to be converted under the condition that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot. Hillel accepted him as a candidate for conversion to Judaism but, drawing on Leviticus 19:18, briefed the man:

What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.

— Shabbath folio:31a, Babylonian Talmud

the idea of the Son of God dying on the cross and his descent into hell to free the imprisoned from torture. the symbol of sacrifice and struggle for enlightenment was also conveyed during the period of greek Gods, predating christianity in the form of the demiGod Dionysus, who is connected to sources in egypt with horus and osiris and who is thus connected to sumeria. demonstrating that names and details have changed but the idea and the message was always the same. it hasnt changed since the beginning, withstanding the test of time just as it was said it would thousands of years ago.

[GRIM]

@bluesclues so yuh bypass my 3 questions an jump on the "comedian" christopher hitchens who never claim to be a scientist. i didnt want to plagiarize what the man say so i take it as a quote

you talkin bout archaeological evidence. where is the archaeological evidence to prove moses and the israelites were at mt sinai, in addition you will have to show where exactly mt sinai is located (knowing that its never been found)
also curious how many israelites did moses free (50,000 / 1 million / 2 million)

and i still waiting for short (if possible) answers for my previous questions.

i have to admit i've never heard of sumerians before but this just leads to more questions for me to ask you.
1. who is the prophet?
2. who wrote the torah and in what year?
a quick google search brought me to sites claiming sumerian kings ruling as far back as 40,000 years bc.
3.how old is mankind according to the bible? ie. adam and eve. i've alway heard about 6000 years. is that wrong?

[Slartibartfast]

Sigh. Bluesclues yes. Never fail to disappoint. You went really off topic there and still didn't directly address my argument. We are talking about objective truths and morals here. It doesn't matter what you think. Even if you think all of the religions have it right even though they contradict one another. Your beliefs are subjective and have no place in an objective argument. Also, like I told Habit, just because you say it doesn't make it true. Your first two paragraphs in your first reply are so filled with baseless assertions that it makes no sense to address them.

The third paragraph is just completely irrelevant again. Just because primitive tribes lacked the contemporary knowledge that we are privy to and attributed a lot of natural phemomena to a God doesn't mean they were right. In fact, in many cases they were proven wrong.

I will however like to point out that you showed where Christianity stole myths from other disproved religions to create its own. You present proof against Christianity as though it proves Christianity is correct. I find it difficult to argue with someone that has no grasp of logic or reason. Are you arguing for or against Christianity?

Btw, still waiting to find out which part of my "logic" burnt you eyes. Lol

[bluesclues]

@bluesclues so yuh bypass my 3 questions an jump on the "comedian" christopher hitchens who never claim to be a scientist. i didnt want to plagiarize what the man say so i take it as a quote

you talkin bout archaeological evidence. where is the archaeological evidence to prove moses and the israelites were at mt sinai, in addition you will have to show where exactly mt sinai is located (knowing that its never been found)
also curious how many israelites did moses free (50,000 / 1 million / 2 million)

and i still waiting for short (if possible) answers for my previous questions.

i have to admit i've never heard of sumerians before but this just leads to more questions for me to ask you.
1. who is the prophet?
2. who wrote the torah and in what year?
a quick google search brought me to sites claiming sumerian kings ruling as far back as 40,000 years bc.
3.how old is mankind according to the bible? ie. adam and eve. i've alway heard about 6000 years. is that wrong?

i ignored those questions because they are nonsensical and also irrelevant to the message of religion. i dont care to argue semantics and suppositions. as u can see all that ive presented thus far are corroborated facts that coincide between religion's claims of history with those archaelogical discoveries that confirm the religious claim or occurence.

there is no point in arguing things which we have no evidence for and supposing and ssuming this and that. i have made no assumptions or suppositions.

[bluesclues]

Sigh. Bluesclues yes. Never fail to disappoint. You went really off topic there and still didn't directly address my argument. We are talking about objective truths and morals here. It doesn't matter what you think. Even if you think all of the religions have it right even though they contradict one another. Your beliefs are subjective and have no place in an objective argument. Also, like I told Habit, just because you say it doesn't make it true. Your first two paragraphs in your first reply are so filled with baseless assertions that it makes no sense to address them.

The third paragraph is just completely irrelevant again. Just because primitive tribes lacked the contemporary knowledge that we are privy to and attributed a lot of natural phemomena to a God doesn't mean they were right. In fact, in many cases they were proven wrong.

I will however like to point out that you showed where Christianity stole myths from other disproved religions to create its own. You present proof against Christianity as though it proves Christianity is correct. I find it difficult to argue with someone that has no grasp of logic or reason. Are you arguing for or against Christianity?

Btw, still waiting to find out which part of my "logic" burnt you eyes. Lol

ur ignorance is a real test to my patience on the topic really. if u read gensis you will see all the things i said are said by the torah itself. christianity did not steal anything dear degenerate mind. just like the jews did not steal from egypt, nor did egypt steal from sumeria. the prophets share connection to the source God. the teaching that comes from that God is the same across cultures. the path to God is one and has always been one.

i tire of ur persistence to live your deluded fantasy. always picking the most absurd point of view just because it supports your idea. even without a single shred of evidence.

i have told u everything i have said is written in the scripture. i did not create any interpretation.

GENESIS COMPLETELY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE FIRST CIVILISATIONS WERE RULED BY A PROPHET AND EACH OF THOSE CIVILISATIONS FOLLOWED ONE PATH TO GOD UNTIL THE PROPHET WAS NO LONGER WITH THEM OR UNTIL THEY STOPPED OBEYING THE PROPHET FOR THEIR OWN PERVERSION OF MYSTICAL TEACHING. A NEIGHBOURING PROPHET WOULD THEN INVADE OR ASSUME COMMAND OF THAT REGION AND REFORMAT THE TEACHINGS SO THAT BOTH CULTURES COULD COEXIST PEACEFULLY.

UR PROBLEM is ur selfish atheistic viewpoint of the world. unfortunately religion does not work that way. we cant steal anything. and it is also documented that when fools attempted to steal from mystics in ignorance they ended up practicing paganism and a real prophet had to come and fix the shyt they was doing in their region that lead to their downfall.

u do not understand anything about religion. a mystic in south america coming to know the spirit of God will have the same teaching as a mystic who came to know the spirit of God in northern europe without either/of them ever having met. stealing from the spirit is not possible. as noone who is not rightfully attained can gain anything from the spirit. the spirit reveals itself to the deserving. not to the ignorant conceited fool. thus all the teachings of all the religions are of one God and came from one God. the claim of stealing is absolutely ridiculous and shows u have no understanding or study of the torah documentation.

did moses steal from abraham what was handed to him by his father? did abraham steal from seth on the method to invoke yahweh? did the hindus steal from egypt that which was taught to them when they were slaves there? did egypt steal from babylon when the two were ruled by the same family? is babylon not sumeria? what do u really know to have ever come to any kind of conclusion. if u know nothing then your conclusions will be just as valuable.

finally, christianity incorporates and did not come out as though it created its own religion. its the same religion. and it kept its history in tact for all to see. it did not abandon the jews, it did not reject egypt, instead it says

Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt; And
you were not to know any god except Me, For there is no savior
besides Me.

the god of sumeria is the god of babylon, is the god of egypt is the god of assyria, is the God of the norse, is the god of the greeks is the god of the hebrews is the god of all the prophets who ruled those very regions at the time. who were all one family, who never had war between eachother except in the abscence of a prophet to lead a misguided ppl.

no prophet has ever, ever made war with another prophet. but when a prophet passed away and the people suffered for purity of explanation and interpretation they would be invaded..AND HANDED THE PROPER TEACHINGS to correct their error.


the only thief in the room is u, and all other atheists who fight to claim credit for something they know damn well isnt theirs. but tell me, why is it so important to you to demonstrate that atheists have made the greatest contributions to civilization. even when ur biasedly and ignorantly form opinions. u are far outmatched. because i study both science and religion and have a firm grasp of both. u hardly understand either, but u were outmatched from the point of coming to argue against a religious teaching and viewpoint without having studied the religion. or any for that matter. taking a couple quotes out of various scriptures and hinging your pov on out of context interpretation is not study. its amateur. why should i argue with a man about horses when i tend a stable and he has never even seen a horse but only heard few rumours about a 4 legged creature that runs like the wind?

u are that man, telling me that a horse is green and has sharp teeth and claws. when i the stable manager who has seen and worked with real horses for years am telling you there are no green horses, and that they dont eat people as your rumour mill suggested. but u telling me u dont believe me..

go read the damn books and stop bringing ignorant atheist rhetoric to the thread. i would slaughter any of those guys in debate because as i said, everything i have said is written exactly that way in scriptures. i can demonstrate everything i have said.


atheists have no history, they have no contribution to humanity or civilisation. they are immoral, unethical thieves. who see no problem in disregarding a plethora of positive evidence for their own twisted and totally unrealistic point of view that supports their delusional 'i want it to be that way so i can win the argument'

but there is nothing. no argument to be one. no atheist civilisation, no atheist confucius quote, no atheist chinese dynasty but one ruled by emperors who utilize their claim through the divine right of kings in descendence from prophets. no atheist invention of science, no atheist invention of anything except perversion, twisted logic, and rebellion to homosexuality just to say ' we can do what we want cause there is no God'. but when u do ur shyt and destroy society you dont take responsibility for it.

atheists have no history. give it up. u have nothing save for the homosexual allan turing breaking the enigma code, using egyptian mathematics.

[bluesclues]

anyway pal. this is God's world. he owns it. he runs the show. everything here is about God and represents God in some way or another, from tv shows, to coporation names, country names, flag design, road systems, law and order, science, literature, royal crests and seals, clothing,

u can go on believing what you want. but for every wrong assumption u make and for every biased perspective you choose just so that you can hide from yourself that you are a hypocrit is just one more lie you will die believing. and in the end, is u lied to urself, u cheated urself, u didnt do your homework. dont blame anyone but urself.

ur points of view are just too absurd for me to take u seriously anymore. sorry but ill end our conversation here as it yas now become pointless and circular. u will not recognize the things i say and that i answered all your questions because of the biased sunglasses u have on. they hide from you everything that bursts your bubble, a defense mechanism by the brain to prevent a breakdown. its one thing to speak to someone who doesnt know and asks to know. but its another to speak to someone who thinks they know and really.... doesnt know squat. in such a situation, there is one thing that is sure to help you.. and that is to leave you to see if your beliefs will withstand the test of time. or whether at some point in ur life ull become wise enough to recognize ur disingenuous approach to attacking religion and the God of all our forefathers.

but i am convinced there is no possible way that you dont recognize the level of your own ignorance. im just calling u out on coming here to pretend u know something but your knowledge doesnt even class in the category.. fickle. what do u know? what do u really know? what have u corroborated with evidence? nothing, nothing u have said has any evidence. but u claim evidence is your objective way of coming to a conclusion. what evidence? the evidence you imagined and hope for/ the evidence of a low iq comedian's quotes who openly admits to having no foundational knowledge in either science OR religion?

those are your prophets you have chosen to align with. fools who admit they are fools with a very strong opinion and no evidence. birds of a feather..

[crock101]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tific.html



https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mr ... ntelligent



There seems to be a correlation between religiosity and low iq . Which one causes the other is not yet clear.

[crock101]

You guys do realize that these "holy books" are not evidence for the existence of God,they are the claim that God exists. It's the same as saying that a comic book is evidence for the existence of Spiderman , that simply will not do.

[bluesclues]

You guys do realize that these "holy books" are not evidence for the existence of God,they are the claim that God exists. It's the same as saying that a comic book is evidence for the existence of Spiderman , that simply will not do.

well ok. its all just comic books and 7billion stupid people and all their ancestors constructing all societies and cultures based on the comic book.

just recognize, it is not my problem if u believe the wrong thing. and again, u have not an original bone in ur body, quoting again atheist rhetoric found on the internet. regurgitating nonesense based on supposition.

im not going to justify the difference between a comic book and the religious scripts of all the cultures of the world. u go ahead and come to ur own conclusion. u seem to be doing a good job of it. and as long as that is working for u in your life. then by all means.. carry on. but a day will come when it will stop working. the sooner that day comes the better for u, because the longer it takes is just the longer you will look back in your life and realize u wasted most of it. little do u know the comic books are based on religion and every super power is owned by the god of one culture or another..

u guys are clueless. no wonder you're atheist. and no wonder God says ur blind fools who purposely ignore the very common evidence of God's existence and abandon good logic for perversion.

who says penises were made for reproduction? let's stick it in a butthole and accomplish great things for mankind's evolution and progress.

[York]

Take 5 blues....

[GRIM]

well my nonsensical and irrelevant questions sure back you into a corner.
so let me get this straight your moral qualities are based on a book/teachings that its origin cannot be verified and in this book there claims to be an all powerful, omnipotent, all seeing, all knowing, divine, just and kind god who gave 10 very specific rules/laws to follow but the only person whom it was "revealed" to cannot be proven to exist nor can the supposed location where it happened which was occupied by an unknown number (at least 1 million) of freed slaves be archaeological or geographically found.the only evidence to be found in the bible.
now we're supposed to believe that these freed slaves and the millions of people before them for tens of thousands of years thought that rape, murder and theft was ok. only til this fairy tale at mt sinai that its not ok.
come on.
as i quoted by the comedian Christopher Hitchens
“Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.”

we do not get morals from religious texts, religious texts gets it from us.