Welcome to Gaia! ::

Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
Sohisohi

1. Just pointing out, any religion holds no candle to Atheism.


As is your opinion.

Sohisohi

2. Obviously as a parent you are going to help out. Still, the younger the better. Not many people are able to see their morals change over the time they age. Instead, you are given all you need at a young age anyway, with treats of eternal punishment on top... Later you may change faiths, adopting a new moral code, later in life. Still, when should someone pick their moral code... 18, 21, 35 maybe? When they have already lived with one for the better part of there life. When dose someone reach worthiness to control the content of their own mind, in your eyes? Just because our mind is located inside our skull, dose not mean we should subject children to moral bondage. With give or take 80,000 years if evolution under their belt... I think my children will be smart enough to manage. As will your children, weather or not you think so.


One can teach a moral code to a child and then later, at an age where the child understands such things, tell them that they are free to choose their own moral code to follow. Also, I see nothing wrong with someone picking their moral "code" at or around the age of 18, whenever they've matured internally to being an adult (not the legal definition of adult, either). Would you let your 12 or 13 year old marry? Would you let her have sex freely with older boys? If the answer is no, then why would you say "do whatever you want morally, its your choice?" If the answer is yes then I pity your children.

What I'm saying is that its very possible to "enforce" a moral code that allows you to teach your children how to be functioning human beings in the current society without making them feel "trapped" or threatened with "eternal punishment."

Sohisohi

3. It's more or less nitpicking, I understand that their are plenty of things wrong with education. It's more of a pet-peeve of mine. Imagine walking into a classroom. The things you are being though go against what you have know for your whole life. You feel both wonder and fear as the knowledge you hold may be wrong, the new and the old. You look over at the teacher speaking these words... They can relate... Something about that always bothered me.


And the child that grew up in a religious home and has atheism and Evolution rammed into his or her brain doesn't feel the same way? You are quite obviously a narcissistic ego-centrist. You're the same as the religious whack-jobs that blow themselves up because they feel their religion is the only way to go. Broaden your mind and try thinking of other people that aren't in your own situation you a**.

Sohisohi

4. Not everyone has an up-to-date bible. It also doesn't help that sermons tend to use the same passages year round, so the bible could be Much shorter. People pledge allegiance to their holy text just as firmly as they pledge to their god. Changing text is like changing the word of god. Many I've met consider it an insult and stick to their old(er) text. Only dose who argue on behalf of god (and preach) pick the book that best suit their goal.


You're honestly going to argue that? This may be the way you see it, but it is NOT truth. Haven't you ever heard the term "hypocrite." Trust me, there are plenty of Christians that say its "an insult" to change the word of God but then change it anyway, justifying it in whatever way they can. I grew up amongst Christians and in a Christian family, so pardon me but I have more of a grasp on just how much change has been made in the Christian dogma over the centuries. From the way you talk you have only an outsider's perspective, and things always look different from the outside. Think of looking through the surface of a pool and they way the light refracts, its the same concept. You have to go underwater (or do some geometric calculations, in which case you're opening your mind) to really know exactly where something is underwater. Same thing with looking through the "surface" of any religion.

Sohisohi

I'm a penguin.


This is the only comment I choose to dignify this statement with.

Sohisohi

5. Oh, I like conflict to much to agree with that. Not a bad way to live, but clearly not my way. (I submit this topic as evidence ^.^)


You have problems getting along with others don't you? This is exactly what I meant about teaching children morals at a young age. You're the kid that got "Doesn't play well with others" on his kindergarten report card. I've been there myself and I DID get a religious moral system shoved down my throat, but when I got older I realized how foolish my actions were and regretted them.

I still like argument and debate, but at least I'm smart enough to realize that if another person raises valid points maybe I need to reevaluate my own or at least examine said information in more detail with an open mind.

Sohisohi

6. Agreed, I do not deny what I am. Still, their were quite a few Atheists early in this topic's creation who agreed that I was an a**. Somewhat debunks your statement, but still applies to me. Although, It couldn't hurt to be alot more intelligent.


At least you can admit it.

I wasn't saying all atheists are like you, but a sadly large number of them are, at least in my personal experiences.

Oh, and I hope you realize you're exactly the same as the gnostic Chritians and Muslims you're complaining about.
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
Then I'll take you on:

Denounce this deity. Super-simple.

"Deity has created the world, he is omni-potent and cares for all life on the planet but also wise and intercedes in the lives of the habitants very rarely. He is attributed to curing diseases that otherwise medicine cannot cure for all life, flora and fauna, and recently a woman walks out of the clinic with cancer that is suddenly gone the next day however the tumor was about the size of a baseball in her lower back. It is said that this deity does demand some homage in the form of consideration but requires no material needs, so basically prayer, why does this deity not exist?"

Right out my old notebook. Even with the spelling errors!


Before I start, is the "omnipotent" creator of the world and caretaker of the "inhabitants" also their creator? It should be implied, but I'm just making sure.

Really, am I unworthy of proofreading?
To answer both of your question: Yes.


There is not much I can add to the lashing you receive from Stealthmongoose (By the way, I like his style) but I'm not one to pass up a chance to kick a man when he is down.
By all means, kick him.

Quote:
Derek Gibson
Right out my old notebook. Even with the spelling errors!


There are plenty of errors, so I will start with the first one. You wrote god instead of you, me, and/or I. This is because god is really just an extension of the believer, although it's more of a split personality since often times the said god goes against the morals and/or beliefs of said believer.
So your argument is based on avoidance by psychological profiling. I'd say you were dodging but you aren't; instead you've gone off on a totally different topic. Deities are rarely extentions of the believers in most major and minor religions. Your proposition makes sense, and only makes sense, in the eyes of the one creating a deity otherwise they are usually well defined and actually can be debated due to that definition. Of course seeing as you posed the challenge you're about as smart as a brick and will either A) ignore the truth and not say anything or B ) ignore the truth and say something ignorant. There's always option C but I hope we needn't resort to such so soon.

Quote:
Derek Gibson
...he is omni-potent and cares for all life... but also wise and intercedes in the lives of the habitants very rarely. He is attributed to curing diseases that otherwise medicine cannot cure for all life...


He is wise and interacts with the habitants rarely, but he crates diseases (Viruses & Bacteria) that people can not cure. As a result, the god has no choice but to intervene. Maybe this is because he is such a caring god of all life. Yet this all caring god has no problem smiting the diseases he crated.
"Creates". Also that would be why the deity intercedes rarely: He built the system. So yes he created bacteria and they evolved or transformed or adapted as per the program so forth and so on in relation to our understanding of the current world so it doesn't blow your mind. However your conclusion doesn't follow. As a matter of fact it almost makes no sense if you are inline with your own argument. The fact that it cannot be cured therefore the deity must intervene for the being to get well doesn't even necessarily follow because keep in mind we cannot cure the common cold. It isn't lethal to most of us and it passes on it's own.

Functionally you've only shown that the deity has created all life, and we'll consider viruses alive for this exercise, but you haven't shown it Smiting anyone or anything. Actually the opposite would be inferred: If the intervention is rare there's likely neither smiting nor healing and the system just runs it's natural course.

Hm.

Quote:
Derek Gibson
...recently a woman walks out of the clinic with cancer that is suddenly gone the next day however the tumor was about the size of a baseball in her lower back.


I don't regard this as evidence simply for the fact that people thank god for everything.
It is a scenario. This isn't evidence because it's a scenario. It's an example in a scenario.

You are not the brightest of stars...

Nothing after this point even makes sense. And I'm not kidding! It really, really doesn't.

If this is you "Kicking" me when I'm down I recommend you get some steel-toe boots. Your legs are weak.

Quote:
This deity... Has just been denounce.
"d". Denounce"d". I kind of want to make a poster of this and you know how they have those "This kitten is pushing a watermelon, your arguemnt is invalid" posters? I want to make one where we say "God crates disease. This deity ... has been denounce." I think for the background we'll have you with your serious face in a tie and suit.
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
This deity... Has just been denounce.
"d". Denounce"d". I kind of want to make a poster of this and you know how they have those "This kitten is pushing a watermelon, your arguemnt is invalid" posters? I want to make one where we say "God crates disease. This deity ... has been denounce." I think for the background we'll have you with your serious face in a tie and suit.


As in, "you has just been fail".
Lucky~9~Lives
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
This deity... Has just been denounce.
"d". Denounce"d". I kind of want to make a poster of this and you know how they have those "This kitten is pushing a watermelon, your arguemnt is invalid" posters? I want to make one where we say "God crates disease. This deity ... has been denounce." I think for the background we'll have you with your serious face in a tie and suit.


As in, "you has just been fail".
... Me ? crying
Sohisohi
Jubilant Sunrise
Sohisohi
Bane of Ezekiel
Sohisohi

That statement aplies more to me then this thread, since I belive all religion should be distroyed.

This is the problem I have with the people who say religion should be destroyed: how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?


Tax Places of worship, force government official to openly point out any part in a holy text (that they believe in) that goes against current laws of said state, and allow the teaching of atheism in schools (That last one sounds a bit weird, so if you not all that extreme... Then funding education is a really good start)

That doesn't answer the question. So, let's try me ask it for him again: "how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?"


Lucky~9~Lives
Bane of Ezekiel
This is the problem I have with the people who say religion should be destroyed: how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?


By persuading people to stop believing in it of their own accord.


This guy ^.^ added, above answers still stands.

Doesn't "destroy" imply a forceful removal of an ideology, and thus not a persuasion of people to leave said ideology?
Derek Gibson
By all means, kick him.

A victory kick? Who kicks a winner?
Derek Gibson
Right out my old notebook. Even with the spelling errors!

Not many people ask to be hit with kid gloves only to pull out a knife. I can respect that as long as you know others will view it as cowardice.
Derek Gibson
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Before I start, is the "omnipotent" creator of the world and caretaker of the "inhabitants" also their creator? It should be implied, but I'm just making sure.

Really, am I unworthy of proofreading?
To answer both of your question: Yes.
"d". Denounce"d". I kind of want to make a poster of this and you know how they have those "This kitten is pushing a watermelon, your arguemnt is invalid" posters? I want to make one where we say "God crates disease. This deity ... has been denounce." I think for the background we'll have you with your serious face in a tie and suit.

This is quite something, you must think of yourself with the up-most regard. I will stop you now to say that grammar, diction, spelling, and all around proof reading were not at all in the forefront of my mind when commenting to you. I'm sure you can figure out why. I did like your last quote though, I could not help myself but smile. I was thinking about a picture of a person siting in front of his computer typing just that with the caption, I serusly one.

Now then,
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
Right out my old notebook. Even with the spelling errors!

There are plenty of errors, so I will start with the first one. You wrote god instead of you, me, and/or I. This is because god is really just an extension of the believer, although it's more of a split personality since often times the said god goes against the morals and/or beliefs of said believer.
So your argument is based on avoidance by psychological profiling. I'd say you were dodging but you aren't; instead you've gone off on a totally different topic. Deities are rarely extentions of the believers in most major and minor religions. Your proposition makes sense, and only makes sense, in the eyes of the one creating a deity otherwise they are usually well defined and actually can be debated due to that definition. Of course seeing as you posed the challenge you're about as smart as a brick and will either A) ignore the truth and not say anything or B ) ignore the truth and say something ignorant. There's always option C but I hope we needn't resort to such so soon.

First, I would argue a god is not at all well defined since most holy text have plenty of contradictions. Even if I grant you that, it dose not mean that the believers/followers are well versed in said definition. This is often times the case. The god most people fallow, is their own god since few bother to read the associated text. Which is why I say it's like a split personality. Once a person finds out who/what they have associated themselves with, the difference in belief is clear.

Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
...recently a woman walks out of the clinic with cancer that is suddenly gone the next day however the tumor was about the size of a baseball in her lower back.

I don't regard this as evidence simply for the fact that people thank god for everything.
It is a scenario. This isn't evidence because it's a scenario. It's an example in a scenario.

Then it is pointless. The object is to prove and/or defend your god and/or belief. If it holds no relevance, then don't post it.

Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
...he is omni-potent and cares for all life... but also wise and intercedes in the lives of the habitants very rarely. He is attributed to curing diseases that otherwise medicine cannot cure for all life...

He is wise and interacts with the habitants rarely, but he crates diseases (Viruses & Bacteria) that people can not cure. As a result, the god has no choice but to intervene. Maybe this is because he is such a caring god of all life. Yet this all caring god has no problem smiting the diseases he crated.

"Creates". Also that would be why the deity intercedes rarely: He built the system. So yes he created bacteria and they evolved or transformed or adapted as per the program so forth and so on in relation to our understanding of the current world so it doesn't blow your mind. However your conclusion doesn't follow. As a matter of fact it almost makes no sense if you are inline with your own argument. The fact that it cannot be cured therefore the deity must intervene for the being to get well doesn't even necessarily follow because keep in mind we cannot cure the common cold. It isn't lethal to most of us and it passes on it's own.

Functionally you've only shown that the deity has created all life, and we'll consider viruses alive for this exercise, but you haven't shown it Smiting anyone or anything. Actually the opposite would be inferred: If the intervention is rare there's likely neither smiting nor healing and the system just runs it's natural course.


This rebuttal demands the question of why a god would bother curing diseases that can not harm most beings if he truly dose not want to intervene in the said beings lives?
You did it for me. Just a few moments ago (A post to Haha Coffee) I wished people would denounce their own arguments more often. I guess it came true. Lordie, Lord, there is a god.
I guess this was all done just for me... Explains why my wish came true.
That runs the problem of not being able to prove god did anything then, now, or ever.
Jubilant Sunrise
Sohisohi
Jubilant Sunrise
Sohisohi
Bane of Ezekiel

This is the problem I have with the people who say religion should be destroyed: how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?

Tax Places of worship, force government official to openly point out any part in a holy text (that they believe in) that goes against current laws of said state, and allow the teaching of atheism in schools (That last one sounds a bit weird, so if you not all that extreme... Then funding education is a really good start)

That doesn't answer the question. So, let's try me ask it for him again: "how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?"

Lucky~9~Lives
Bane of Ezekiel
This is the problem I have with the people who say religion should be destroyed: how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?

By persuading people to stop believing in it of their own accord.

This guy ^.^ added, above answers still stands.

Doesn't "destroy" imply a forceful removal of an ideology, and thus not a persuasion of people to leave said ideology?

Biblical Book Burning Wednesday
Sohisohi
Jubilant Sunrise
Sohisohi
Jubilant Sunrise
Sohisohi

Tax Places of worship, force government official to openly point out any part in a holy text (that they believe in) that goes against current laws of said state, and allow the teaching of atheism in schools (That last one sounds a bit weird, so if you not all that extreme... Then funding education is a really good start)

That doesn't answer the question. So, let's try me ask it for him again: "how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?"

Lucky~9~Lives
Bane of Ezekiel
This is the problem I have with the people who say religion should be destroyed: how in the world do you destroy an ideology without compromising freedom of speech and expression?

By persuading people to stop believing in it of their own accord.

This guy ^.^ added, above answers still stands.

Doesn't "destroy" imply a forceful removal of an ideology, and thus not a persuasion of people to leave said ideology?

Biblical Book Burning Wednesday

Not an answer, but okay.
Jubilant Sunrise
Not an answer, but okay.


I'll have a much more in-depth answer. My initial answers still stands, I will simply have to elaborate on them a bit more.

If not today, then early tomorrow morning.
Sohisohi

This is quite something, you must think of yourself with the up-most regard.
No. I just look down on you.
Quote:
I will stop you now to say that grammar, diction, spelling, and all around proof reading were not at all in the forefront of my mind when commenting to you. I'm sure you can figure out why. I did like your last quote though, I could not help myself but smile. I was thinking about a picture of a person siting in front of his computer typing just that with the caption, I serusly one.
Yet you type so much better in this post. For someone who seems to attempt to show grayface and all.


Quote:
First, I would argue a god is not at all well defined since most holy text have plenty of contradictions.
You are disproving the deity I gave you. This "argument" is empty. It also has nothing to do with any point you were even attempting to make as it doesn't discredit anything and is your opinion ( since you have not shown for these contradictions in even a small portion let alone a majority of deistic figures throughout history ) which is for better or worse null and void when you're writing proofs.

Quote:
Even if I grant you that, it dose not mean that the believers/followers are well versed in said definition.
This actually proves my point and hurts yours.
Quote:
This is often times the case. The god most people fallow, is their own god since few bother to read the associated text.
Which not only have you failed to prove or even provide evidence for but you are working from an inference that has zero basis as well as proposing that these people are following their own version of a deity that they are ignorant about. Which of course makes no sense. Now if one were to say "the individual view of the deity will change" this is not equivalent to your claim of "Everyone serves their own deity due to ambiguity" by which there has to be some elements of drastic change otherwise the whole core of the philosophy fails. It's like any other philosophy where the core has to be clearly defined. Not that you know anything about philosophy.
Quote:
Which is why I say it's like a split personality.
Which is why I wrote that you were not capable of doing this days ago. You have finally shown for it. To liken a philosophical entity to a split personality is akin to saying that talking to yourself to work out word problems is just like having schizophrenia.
Quote:
Once a person finds out who/what they have associated themselves with, the difference in belief is clear.
Actually this is not only your opinion but absolutely false. The more aware people become of a philosophy the more alike they become as can be seen in trends. This doesn't even take a sociological major to realize that trendy concepts bring people together, not separate them, and the exchange of ideas molds a newer more unified, not diversified, idea.

Sohisohi

Then it is pointless. The object is to prove and/or defend your god and/or belief. If it holds no relevance, then don't post it.
Examples have a point. The fact that you cannot understand what the point was however ... well I can't help that.

Sohisohi


This rebuttal demands the question of why a god would bother curing diseases that can not harm most beings if he truly dose not want to intervene in the said beings lives?
...

Really? Of all things to get from that you managed to get this? I'm speechless! Confounded indeed.

... I can't.
Quote:

You did it for me. Just a few moments ago (A post to Haha Coffee) I wished people would denounce their own arguments more often. I guess it came true. Lordie, Lord, there is a god.
I guess this was all done just for me... Explains why my wish came true.
That runs the problem of not being able to prove god did anything then, now, or ever.
The genius of this is that you said you could disprove this terribly simple logical puzzle of a deity. It is possible. You have not done it. All you have done is proven that you have your own opinion on religion and that it is misguided and stupid.
Sohisohi

1. Just pointing out, any religion holds no candle to Atheism.
No matter the context this was in it doesn't make any sense. Out of the woodwork, worms.
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi

1. Just pointing out, any religion holds no candle to Atheism.
No matter the context this was in it doesn't make any sense. Out of the woodwork, worms.

You would have to look back at the last few posts.
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi

1. Just pointing out, any religion holds no candle to Atheism.
No matter the context this was in it doesn't make any sense. Out of the woodwork, worms.

You would have to look back at the last few posts.
I'll say it again: No matter the context. If you were using this to pose an argument against someone you should have just called them stupid and laughed. If you were using this to prove a point we should call you stupid and laugh. Either way don't argue with fools me.
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi
Derek Gibson
Sohisohi

1. Just pointing out, any religion holds no candle to Atheism.
No matter the context this was in it doesn't make any sense. Out of the woodwork, worms.

You would have to look back at the last few posts.
I'll say it again: No matter the context. If you were using this to pose an argument against someone you should have just called them stupid and laughed. If you were using this to prove a point we should call you stupid and laugh. Either way don't argue with fools me.
This is not an argument, it is an end result. You would have to re-read the posts leading up to said statement.
Sohisohi
Maybe I am misunderstanding you or maybe you are doing the same to me. I am offering a last chance at redemption.


And are completely un-self aware about how much your rhetoric, motives, and goals line up with those of the religionists you want to destroy.

Atheism: The new One True Church.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games