Fifty Questions That Christians Can't Answer

[tavarish]

Name one accomplished religion practiced that doesn't have a hierarchy in which its leaders attempt to harness social, political and economic control.

A theocracy is any religion's biggest aspiration.

You're seriously blinded tav. You hate people.. we get it.

Stop fooling yourself with the "we". You don't represent anyone.

Can you name one religion that doesn't try to saturate the market with its own brand of belief?

[Alex]

That's not an answer. If tav is blinded and just hates people, prove that the comment is foolish by naming off a huge list of religions that don't behave in the way that tav claims they do.

Done and done! Really, it wasn't that hard. It seems his real problem is with fundamentalism, not religion as a whole.

---

Can you name one religion that doesn't try to saturate the market with its own brand of belief?

That's a different question than what you originally asked, but in this case pretty much every religion that isn't Islam or Christianity. The belief that non-believers need to be converted is pretty much solely a Christian and Muslim concept.

[Shell B]

Done and done! Really, it wasn't that hard.

I saw that; it was after I had posted. I imagine that it wasn't that hard, seeing that there are thousands of active religions on Earth.

[fr0d0]

Major faiths are abused by people. People are susceptible to power and corruption... this is a human trait that no one escapes. If it isn't Christ like then it isn't Christian. Done in the name of.. yeah sure - but then that's a different subject. Your complaint tav is anti human and not anti faith - of any kind. Hence the comment.

Athists, not being part of a religion, sure try to saturate the market with their idioms. You are different how?

[Alex]

Listen, let me try to dumb this down a little more. Let's say that I am perfect being. Don't get crazy on me, it is a hypothetical. With my perfection I decide to, I don't know, bake a cake. Well, let's say this cake fails terribly and ends up being a charred brick. Well, I screwed up, right? That means that I must not be perfect! Again, that concept is one of the most simplistic concepts to grasp. If I were perfect, then everything I do should, in turn, be perfect. If it is not, then I'm not perfect. It;sa as simple as that.

I believe we already went over this. A better analogy would be if I, as a perfect being, decided to make a meal that is lacking in some aspects (not a charred brick as you said, our world isn't quite that bad) and then create some conscious beings, for the purpose of making that meal delicious as all hell.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

ergo it's moral authority should come from the status quo, IMO

The justification of pragmatism is what works,more a matter of 'is' rather than 'ought'.


The 'status quo' refers the dominant power paradigm. It has no moral authority,it has power, which is based on force,implicit and implied. (Conflict theory 101). Its raison d'etre is its own survival.

Status quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" - literally "the state in which" - is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.[1] To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are. The related phrase status quo ante, literally "the state in which before", means "the state of affairs that existed previously"[2].

Arguing to preserve the status quo is usually done in the context of opposing a large, often radical change. The social movement is an example of the status quo being challenged. The term frequently refers to the status of a large issue, such as the current culture or social climate of an entire society or nation.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo

[Samson]

Taoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism (except for a few radical movements), Sikhism, Jainism, many African traditional religions, tribal religions, pretty much all folk religions actually, Shintoism, Zoroastrianism (arguable, since at one point they were powerful), Cheondoism, Tenrikyo, Unitarian Universalism, most forms of Judaism (though in the extremely orthodox movements there are a few very powerful people)...

What a crazy list...

Let me enlighten you a little on this bullshit you listed and the question proposed...

Taoism...The new Buddhist/Confucianism movement is looked at as a "Threat" to the "current Buddhist indoctrination. Another form of control being seeped in a dozen followers at a time.....

Buddhism....If you knew anything about Buddhism, you would already know it's been just as raped and split into sects as "Christians" "Jewish" and the "Islamic" has.....People are controlled and manipulated through this Neo-Pagan branch....Just as many other Pagan beliefs systems have done the same....

Hinduism.....Really, you actually listed this one....Do some research Rabbi....You'll see the government has gotten ridiculous charity for it's holier than thou temples spread out through India, along with, even Buddha who split off from the Hindu belief because he did not believe in a "polytheist" based belief....But of course when he died, he ended up being considered, yet another God, amongst many Hindus and sects alike..... (That's some Irony for you..)


Sikhism.....Another break of of "Neo-Pagan"...."Organized" on aspects of their own interpretation of "God"......But still trying to consider themselves as a "Non-Denomination".... Again "Organized"....Rules and laws abide..They have their own shrine for fuck sake.....And guess what.... It's tax free and government ok'd...............wait for it...................."Abides" by their now "Organized" Belief.....



Jainism....You failed to mention that it's a break of from the Hindu sect...... It would be the same as saying a "Methodist" compared to a "Baptist"......Same shit, different name, and government accepted....



African traditional religions/tribal religions..................Holy shit pie!!!!!!! When Tav posted his question of, "Can you name one religion that doesn't try to saturate the market with its own brand of belief"......
Did you not take into consideration the "Monarchy" of what a "TRIBE" puts onto it's village....??? I'm not even going to try and justify this one....especially considering the amount of children and women that have been raped and murdered due to the stupidity of the "Traditional Religions" amongst African "TRIBES"....And of course a government that turns a blind eye due to their numbers and lack of influence....


Shintoism...Again, Confucius and Buddhist break off.....Reminder, "Methodist to Baptist".........Influence there and does apply....


I'm not even going to list Zoroastrianism, it would be a joke to even say anything more than, you should already know.....



Cheondoism...They got their own fucking flag man.... Please tell me how non-organized they are, are have no influence??


Tenrikyo.......Another form of Neo-Pagan....In which you could almost call it Wiccan based.....Laughable and influential for the ones tired of the Buddhist regime in Japan...


Unitarian/Universalism...... I can't even believe you actually listed them..... You do realize there is a membership involved and of course has lobbyist of their own here in the U.S.........NEXT..........


Most forms of Judaism.........It's still a break off of the Judean sects.....Read above on break-offs....It's still an "Accepted" break off by the majority..............

[Thomas]

No need. If you think that's an event in history, then there's nothing really much I can say to you that hasn't been said by modern science.

The best I can say is read a biology book.

Good luck. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

atheistforums.org/thread-3018-page-1.html

I spend my life in school and just like people translate their religious books to mean they need to kill millions, you read your biology books to mean there are no true religions. If you're looking for it, then you will find it.

You want a defining question? Here's one for you, and I won't write you off after your deflection.

Despite the fact that every historical and modern form of science proves that for every action there must be a reaction... meaning that at the very beginning of time there had to be an action to create the universe... you still believe in... nothing?

You're so determined to throw off any possibility of any religion ever being legitimate, steeping yourself into a mindset that considers nothing more than what you see, that you blind yourself to the fact that your own religion - whether you want to call it that or not; you have evangelists, leaders making money off of it, and dedicated clergy (scientists) telling you what to think - is built on a fundamental idea that completely ignores its own teachings.

Relentless, I wouldn't bother arguing with scientific theories because that's all they are. But either way, no matter how you look at it. Something or SOMEONE had to MAKE the universe form. Its no more silly to consider a man building a boat large enough to hold 55,000 pairs of species, most of which are spiders and bugs, than for ANYONE to accept that out of all those species, only one of them developed a broca's area advanced enough to actually communicate on a level deeper than "food" "danger" and "sex now please".

I spend my days writing code to modify my companies servers while the birds outside keep chirping and eating bugs like they have for centuries and the monkeys keep throwing feces at the people walking by down at the zoo. We are unique in a way that no other creature we've ever discovered is unique and this capacity by itself insists that some Intelligent Being created us.

Here's the kicker, brother: you have no more proof what you're saying than I do of what I'm saying and to everyone but those that follow it, Atheism is just another religion.

If anything, science has proven that there IS a God out there. Believe me, I know there have been countless studies done by people determined to prove that God isn't real... but you and I both know that if you conduct an experiment with your mind set on proving something that you have no empirical evidence to support, your bias is going to tip it in your favor relentless of the true results.

No scientist has ever accidentally discovered God didn't exist.

The sad part is you'll spend your life pooring over complex literature and twitching your upper lip in disgust at those lesser mortals around you who don't agree with you until you're laying on your death bed staring up at the ceiling, wondering why in the world you never considered religion before then.

You ever spoke to a dying Atheist? There's no such creature.

[leo-rcc]

You ever spoke to a dying Atheist? There's no such creature.

I have and there are. I've been to several secular cremations as well.

[tavarish]

And the troll comes out. Let's tackle these one at a time.

I spend my life in school and just like people translate their religious books to mean they need to kill millions, you read your biology books to mean there are no true religions. If you're looking for it, then you will find it.

I'll make this clear for you:

Biology has nothing to do with religion.

Biology makes no conclusive claim about any religion.

"Seek and you will find" is rationalization a psychological defense mechanism when you cherry pick subjective experiences to fit a pre-determined conclusion.

I was telling you to read a biology book because if you believe Noah's Ark was a true story, you don't have a correct assessment of the logistics of such an endeavor, nor do you possess a claim made in anything resembling objective evidence. Quite simply, educate yourself. The world doesn't work like this.

You want a defining question? Here's one for you, and I won't write you off after your deflection.

Despite the fact that every historical and modern form of science proves that for every action there must be a reaction... meaning that at the very beginning of time there had to be an action to create the universe... you still believe in... nothing?

Prime mover argument - nice.

First, you assume the laws of nature and cause/effect were around before the universe. You also assume the universe is not eternal. You also assume it needs a creator.

God was the creator, but he always existed, correct?

I'm paraphrasing Carl Sagan, but why not skip a step and say the universe always existed? Why do you need that extra step?

I don't assume to know what was around at the "beginning", if there existed such a point in time. I make no claim because I don't know. Neither do you. Belief in something doesn't lend to its truth.

You're so determined to throw off any possibility of any religion ever being legitimate, steeping yourself into a mindset that considers nothing more than what you see, that you blind yourself to the fact that your own religion - whether you want to call it that or not; you have evangelists, leaders making money off of it, and dedicated clergy (scientists) telling you what to think - is built on a fundamental idea that completely ignores its own teachings.

I see this on a daily basis, a Christian telling me atheism is a religion.

Atheism is disbelief in God or gods. That's it. There is no inherent dogma. We have no leaders or authorities on the matter, although there are outspoken and popularized individuals, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, but they are far from any kind of leader or authority. They can't tell you what to do more than any stranger on the street can. Atheism doesn't presuppose any values other than a disbelief in gods. An atheist can believe in ghosts, fairies, unicorns, and underpants gnomes. They can also not have a clue about how science works and still fall under the category of atheist.

Simply, if atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.

By your definition, any moneymaking organization can be classified as a religion, which includes the federal government.

If you think scientists tell you what to think, you need to learn about how the scientific method and peer review work. Science tries to prove itself wrong. it works on the basis on skepticism and doubt. This is the only way we learn more about our surroundings and separate fact from fantasy. Saying "God did it" is intellectual stagnation and gets us no progress as a species.

Relentless, I wouldn't bother arguing with scientific theories because that's all they are. But either way, no matter how you look at it. Something or SOMEONE had to MAKE the universe form. Its no more silly to consider a man building a boat large enough to hold 55,000 pairs of species, most of which are spiders and bugs, than for ANYONE to accept that out of all those species, only one of them developed a broca's area advanced enough to actually communicate on a level deeper than "food" "danger" and "sex now please".

I'm pretty convinced that you're a bot, or at least a guy playing a joke.

Just a theory? Google "scientific theory" and see what comes up as a definition. They are based on MOUNTAINS of verifiable evidence and objective falsifiable observation. Don't come at me with that weak shitpile of an argument.

You're assuming someone had to make this. Why did someone had to make existence? I'll bring you back to the point that you're assuming something with no evidence to support it. Did cause and effect exist before the universe? Was there anything "before" the universe? Saying someone HAD to make it is a false argument, because then I could just say "Yes, the universe was a product of the dream of an invisible celestial mongoose" and it would have the same validity of any God statement made today. I could write a book as well, to seal the deal.

if you're trying to lend credence to the Noah's Ark tale, please PLEASE at least attempt to study the origin of the species. Go to a museum. Do 10 minutes of research on wikipedia or Google. Seriously. It's not silly to think 55,000 pairs of animals were on a boat in wake of a God made flood with 8 righteous people. It's damn near retarded and disturbing.

I spend my days writing code to modify my companies servers while the birds outside keep chirping and eating bugs like they have for centuries and the monkeys keep throwing feces at the people walking by down at the zoo. We are unique in a way that no other creature we've ever discovered is unique and this capacity by itself insists that some Intelligent Being created us.

That paragraph hurt my brain, I can hear my braincells screaming as they die. There are plenty of species that are uniquely adapted to their environment. I'm not going to explain evolution to you, as there are lots of venues that can do it much better than I can. Stop looking to the Bible as a history and science book. Leave that for ACTUAL history and science books.

Dinosaurs didn't have saddles.

Here's the kicker, brother: you have no more proof what you're saying than I do of what I'm saying and to everyone but those that follow it, Atheism is just another religion.

I can imagine you saying that as Macho man Randy Savage. Ohhh Yyyyeeeeaahh brutherrr!!

I digress.

Your statement is ridiculously obtuse as I make no positive claim. I simply do not believe your positive claim that a God exists. I don't say "I believe no God exists". I simply say "I don't believe a God exists". One implies belief, the other doesn't.

Since you make a positive claim, you need to provide evidence for that claim. Since you don't have evidence, I don't believe your claim. Simple, isn't it?

I'll give you an example: I come up to you and say "a million dollars just fell out of the sky and landed in my lap." I can't provide you with any evidence of such a thing occuring. Can you definitively say "No, a million dollars did NOT fall out of the sky"? No, because you don't have evidence either, so you simply say "I don't believe your claim that a miilion dollars fell out of the sky"

Again, atheism is to religion as bald is to hair color.

If anything, science has proven that there IS a God out there. Believe me, I know there have been countless studies done by people determined to prove that God isn't real... but you and I both know that if you conduct an experiment with your mind set on proving something that you have no empirical evidence to support, your bias is going to tip it in your favor relentless of the true results.

What the hell are you talking about? What are these studies? Trying to test something that by definition is irrefutable is seriously dishonest and vapid, and i'll ask you to provide links of what you're talking about.

It's an exercise in futility to prove that God doesn't exist, and I'm pretty sure your claims on science trying to disprove the existence of God are straight bullshit.

Your assertion that a lack of evidence from both sides somehow proves God's existence illustrates that you know absolutely nothing about how science works and what it's concerned with.

No scientist has ever accidentally discovered God didn't exist.

No respected scientist would make such a claim. An argument that cannot be falsified is a null argument.

The sad part is you'll spend your life pooring over complex literature and twitching your upper lip in disgust at those lesser mortals around you who don't agree with you until you're laying on your death bed staring up at the ceiling, wondering why in the world you never considered religion before then.

Self righteous preaching for the win! Pascal's Wager, woohoo!

I don't find anything sad in my life. I try to learn as much as I can about the world, act in a way that suits me and others around me, and maintain a curiosity and thirst for knowledge with an air of skepticism wherever I go. I try not to cast judgement on people prematurely, but I'll definitely share my opinion if they start getting preachy on me. You can sleep well knowing an atheist will get his in hell, and I'll sleep well not giving a shit what you think of my immortal soul, or whatever the fuck you think goes up to that impossibility you know as heaven. I maintain that I'll be much too dead to care. Why do you assume that I'll be on a deathbed? I could be on a motorcycle, upside down, and on fire. I'd have to be pretty quick witted to consider religion at that point. I guess I'm just fucked. Oh well.

You ever spoke to a dying Atheist? There's no such creature.

Carl Sagan.
Douglas Adams
George Carlin

Here's some more:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/resources/f...s-society/


I urge you to read a damn biology book to figure out how the species that you believe to be intelligently designed came to be. Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, and anyone in AnswersinGenesis are not scientists and do not use the scientific method. They use circular reasoning, false statements, and simply ridiculous assertions to maintain their position. The only sad part is that many people believe this hogwash to be true. Educate yourself.