(March 21, 2015 at 10:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Something dying in order for you to live.

Yes, a nonsensical concept which you utilize everyday...

Which has nothing to do with religion, mysticism and other irrational concepts. All in all it's conservation of mass and energy.

(March 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm)urlawyer Wrote: I'm trying to form a relatively air tight stance on the illogical inconsistencies of the new testament in the event that all hell breaks loose and I find myself arguing against a christian who somehow circumvents the ridiculousness of the old testament and is able to stand on the new testament by itself.

You're trying to find an airtight argument just in case you find yourself arguing with someone who believes in mythological creatures and thinks that the god of the OT is "good"?

(March 22, 2015 at 8:10 am)Cato Wrote: He just did!!!! What a fucking annoying shit for brains.

he did not. He just simply stated that we perceive as more valuable because that's what you're told. There is nothing backing the dollar making it the same as monopoly money.

(March 22, 2015 at 8:10 am)Cato Wrote: Put your money where your mouth is. If you truly believe this then you'll have no problem accepting my offer. I will give you a dime for every dollar you have.

Ask yourself this, why is it illegal (at least in America) to use gold as currency, also why did they made it illegal to own gold with the gold reserve act?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act

Quote:The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations.

its quite simple, they forced people to sell off their gold which has real value in exchange for fiat currency.

There was a story not to long ago where a guy died with 7 million dollars worth of gold stashed in his house, the government came in an confiscated all the gold and gave his next of kin the value minus taxes in dollar amount.
By what right did they have to do this?

(March 22, 2015 at 1:58 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: The whole concept of sin is completely un-testable and most likely made up by clever people in order to control dumb people, just like the rest of religious doctrines.

(March 22, 2015 at 7:05 am)Huggy74 Wrote: No, it's testable, you just don't get to come back and announce the results of the test.

TEST:
test/
noun
noun: test; plural noun: tests

1.
a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.

verb
verb: test; 3rd person present: tests; past tense: tested; past participle: tested; gerund or present participle: testing

1.
take measures to check the quality, performance, or reliability of (something), especially before putting it into widespread use or practice.

Now you are getting into science. Untested, unprovable theories are only speculation. Can you, PROPERLY and verifiably back up your statement that sin IS testable using the Scientific Method?


So, Huggy, based on the above, I would now like for you to prove to us that sin is real.

(March 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm)urlawyer Wrote: Hey fellow human peoples, so I need a little help here. I'm trying to form a relatively air tight stance on the illogical inconsistencies of the new testament in the event that all hell breaks loose and I find myself arguing against a christian who somehow circumvents the ridiculousness of the old testament and is able to stand on the new testament by itself.
Now I know there is a plethora of factual contradictions in the first four books themselves which you'd think would be enough, but I need something more than a basic fact check to debate this. I need a philosophical/theological/moral point to make like you can do so easily with the old testament.
Does anyone know if Jesus ate babies, for instance, or liked The Last Airbender movie?

You really cant have the new testament standing on its own. The old testament has original sin, the commandments, the prophecies, and creation, without those the new testament doesn't make any sense.

(March 22, 2015 at 10:13 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(March 21, 2015 at 10:19 pm)urlawyer Wrote: Hey fellow human peoples, so I need a little help here. I'm trying to form a relatively air tight stance on the illogical inconsistencies of the new testament in the event that all hell breaks loose and I find myself arguing against a christian who somehow circumvents the ridiculousness of the old testament and is able to stand on the new testament by itself.
Now I know there is a plethora of factual contradictions in the first four books themselves which you'd think would be enough, but I need something more than a basic fact check to debate this. I need a philosophical/theological/moral point to make like you can do so easily with the old testament.
Does anyone know if Jesus ate babies, for instance, or liked The Last Airbender movie?

You really cant have the new testament standing on its own. The old testament has original sin, the commandments, the prophecies, and creation, without those the new testament doesn't make any sense.

All religions do this. Cherry picking allows everyone to move the goal posts.

The thing both right wing and liberal religious people, of all religions, forget is that they use the exact same books with the exact same words to justify what really amounts to social pecking orders.

You can justify both cruelty and compassion in any holy book. It still amounts to defending tribalism putting those who dont read that book the way you do in the position of being the "other", whom at best, are guests but most of the time the "outsider".

(March 22, 2015 at 1:15 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong, hell was not created for humans, the Bible states clearly that hell was created for the "devil and his angels" and also that "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all come to repentance"
If you don't want to go to hell, repent, it's that simple. You have to literally fight your way into hell.

If you refuse to take medicine for an illness, who fault is it when you die?

So when it's convenient for you to compare the situation to a birth defect where you explicitly say we have no choice, you do that. But when it's convenient to paint going to hell as an explicit choice that we're making, you do that too. Not very high on consistency, there.

But what you're saying is... hmm, well, it's bullshit, because if god truly was not willing that we should go to hell, he could stop it. That's in his power. He just doesn't.

In fact, he created hell, and discussing its original purpose is entirely a dodge when we know what he uses the damn thing for now. You're essentially saying that it's okay that a murderer stabs people with a knife, because he originally bought that knife to slice delicious ham!

Once again, hell is something that god keeps open by conscious choice, that he sends humans to by conscious choice, and that he has at all times, the power to stop this from happening. You can not compare this to an illness, and reasserting the same victim blaming nonsense does nothing but make it seem like you've failed to take even a simple point like that.

We have a "choice" not to go to hell in the same way that a mugging victim has a "choice" not to get shot by handing over his wallet. There's a hard way and an easy way in both cases, but don't pretend that either case is even remotely a fair or just choice, or that the mugger/god is not committing an immoral act by forcing this choice upon us.

Three page with no answer and now, no urlawyer.
Guys, try to get your stuff together, lawyers are expensive.

(March 22, 2015 at 10:31 am)professor Wrote: Three page with no answer and now, no urlawyer.
Guys, try to get your stuff together, lawyers are expensive.

- A typical answer of someone who feels an urge to put his two cents in but has no actual arguements.

Sorry Smaug, I couldn't resist it.
Besides: I am on the other side.