Best description of Christianity

[Cyberman]

It's your right to disagree with someone, but you don't get to tell someone what is possible or impossible, when the limits of what's possible have never been discovered.

Interesting that you talk of missed points. You defend my right to disagree with a person's claims, which I did, then in the same virtual breath decry me for dictating the limits of possibilities, which I didn't.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Really? You do realize that one species of animal has never been observed to evolve into a completely different species, nor has it ever been replicated, yet you believe it's possible.

This is factually incorrect, Buggy.

edit: Rob got there first, damn him, damn him to hell!

[h4ym4n]

The best description?

It's a virus that needs a vaccine administered shortly after birth until age 18.

[robvalue]

If someone is saying one "species" doesn't suddenly become another "species" then that is a total misunderstanding of evolution. That is viewing animals as discrete checkpoints, where in reality it's a continuous system. It's not that there are transitional forms, it's that every form is a transitional form. Change happens generally incredibly slowly over very long lengths of time. It's the combination of these changes that eventually leads to one thing looking "different" to its ancestor.

---

By all means argue against evolution, I encourage healthy debate. But first understand what it is you are argueing against or else you're just punching your personal strawman representation.

[jesus_wept]

Sum up religion in 15 word or less?

Wishful thinking.

[robvalue]

Very nice. Indeed, it's the idea that if we really believe we live on after death, then that will somehow make it true. Whereas if there is an afterlife, there's no good reason to think atheists won't get exactly the same deal as anyone else. But making important decisions based on fantasy is dangerous.

[Spooky]

---

Faulty logic and a misrepresentation of reality. I've not seen a better representation of Christianity than the above.

In 15 words or less, your description of Christianity (or religion in general)

Faulty logic? Which one of you can rationalize the universe and it's existence? If you can't rationalize the creation, how do you propose to rationalize the creator?

While were on the subject of faulty logic, what about all you guys "believing" Denmark has a secular government when it is a FACT that it does not, and to this day, despite all the evidence presented, not one of you will acknowledge you were wrong.

---

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

---

It appears Fidel_Castronaut changed his name to Pandæmonium

Then theres this post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid613111
Upon mentioning that the words "slave" and "slaves" were only appear once in the King James Bible proving that there is a clear distinction between "slavery" and "servitude". According to Bad wolf, that's Just semantics.
(relevant parts in bold)

---

Don't play semantics with me. They were slaves. They were treated as property, they were not paid, and they could not leave whenever they wanted. The fact that you are appealing to word games is pathetic.


Is that all you are reduced to? Pathetic word games?

Its irrelevant how much they were paid. They were servants, not slaves. They were not bought and passed around as property, they were not allowed to be beaten, and they could leave and quit their job whenever they want. Give up, you are just plain wrong on this

---

It's only semantics when it's not your argument right?

This is from the same thread starting here
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24301-po...#pid615618
where Esquilax claims the words "property" and "possesion" mean the same thing.
(only quoiting the relevant points, feel free to read for yourself)

---

Okay, but I think it's interesting that you don't already know this:

"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

You kinda fucked up, there. That's the whole verse though, so no whining about context, and if you try to play if off by referring to the last sentence, I'll have to tell you again that that's restricted to the Jews only.

Look up the definition of "Property" and "Possession" . If you let me borrow a tool for instance it in in my possession but not my property. Get it? If someone sells themselves in to servitude then they come into their masters possession not property. because it is only for a limited time.

No, what you've got is a false dichotomy, ass. Possession- the way you're characterizing it- and ownership are not the same thing. However, possession as a noun, the way the bible uses it, is the same thing as property. *

And, as Pinsir just pointed out, the two words are rather intimately connected, so even if your excuse wasn't just an anemic, dishonest attempt at dodging out of explaining yourself, you would still be wrong.

The bible calls these people "a possession," that you can pass down. Not something one takes possession of: a possession. AKA, a piece of property.

Now cut the shit and come clean.

(* underlined by Huggy)

pos·ses·sion noun \-ˈze-shən also -ˈse-\
: the condition of having or owning something

: something that is owned or possessed by someone

law : the crime of having something that is illegal (such as a drug or weapon)

Full Definition of POSSESSION

a : the act of having or taking into control
b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership
c : ownership (i'll address later in this post)

Wikipedia on possession as it relates to law.

"In law, possession is the control a person intentionally exercises toward a thing. In all cases, to possess something, a person must have an intention to possess it. A person may be in possession of some property (although possession does not always imply ownership)."

Possession is a factual state of exercising control over an object, whether owning the object or not.

Ok lets define what an owner is.

dictionary.com

Owner
n. one who has legal title or right to something. Contrary to the cynical adage: "Possession is nine-tenths of the law," possession does not necessarily make one a legal owner. (See: own)

so to make it simple for you, if you own a car for instance it is your property and in your possession but if you let me borrow the car it then comes into my possession but it is not my property. so no, property and possession do not mean the same.

So Huggy, is it your claim that when the bible says you may "inherit them for a possession" that what it actually means is that you may literally not do that?

What is a possession, Huggy? Forget using the word as a verb, what's a possession? What does it mean, as a noun, like the bible uses it?

And I gave you the definition as a noun like the bible uses it. How is this not clear?

pos·ses·sion noun \-ˈze-shən also -ˈse-\
: the condition of having or owning something
: something that is owned or possessed by someone
law : the crime of having something that is illegal (such as a drug or weapon)
Full Definition of POSSESSION
a : the act of having or taking into control
b : control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership
c : ownership

Oh, go fuck yourself, you petty little asswipe.

---

Thiests don't hold a monopoly on "Faulty logic" a" "misrepresentation of reality".

The point is, you apparent haven't met a "Christian' that knows what they're talking about.
Your logic fails because you equate "Christians / so-called Christians" as being the same, and if you applied just a little bit of "critical thinking", you'd come to the conclusion that 41,000 christian denominations can't all be right, and in fact, Christianity had existed for around 300 years before the first denomination (Catholic) formed.

That said, being a christian is about having a personal experience, not about regurgitating what you're told. For example, if you've seen a UFO personally, who can tell you that you didn't? But try explaining a UFO story that you heard second hand, you'll never get the details correct.

---

Ok Huggy. I'll bite. But I'm going to start with a pretty simple Question. What's the difference between you, godschild, lek, etc. and the average atheist? For starters many of us, such as myself, are ex-christians. I spent years teaching sunday school. So to say I haven't met the 'right kind of Christian' is a little stupid. Furthermore there is a huge education gap. And in most cases it's on purpose. I'm more than happy to sit down with you, open a bible, and discuss. But hell no, not the other way around. Once somebody has drank the koolaide, if it doesn't originate with or support god/belief than it isn't worth a second glance. Knowledge is power. Fact.


So on to the list then:

1. Just because I can't personally rationalize the universe doesn't mean there isn't a rational explanation. I can admit that there are people smarter than me.
2. I'm human. Therefore not immune to faulty logic. I feel we can agree on this. The difference is, once I've identified something as faulty, I abandon it.
3. I have no idea what you're talking about with Denmark, I will look into this.
4. Bringing up posts from other threads so you may continue arguing semantics has got to be against the rules. This is more response than you deserve.
5. I haven't met the right kind of Christian? What? I remember GC spinning some similar bullshit. I've met christians more intelligent than both of us. The difference between them and you is outlined above.
6. More people have seen UFOs than have seen jesus (toast doesn't count)
7. 41k denominations of christians are wrong. At best they're deluded everyday people. At worst they're malicious bastards. Supremely violent, homophobic misogynists.
8. Apply some critical thinking to christianity. Don't tell me about it, keep it to yourself. You can play zealot online, but you shouldn't be able to lie to yourself. If you can you're to far gone and I pity you.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

3. I have no idea what you're talking about with Denmark, I will look into this.

You can read the clusterfuck of a thread here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-30615.html

Start at about page 6 or 7. Huggy first conflates secularism to equal religion, then to equal communism. He then tries to refute the fact that the 'happiest' states on earth tend to be secular and have secular societies by saying that secularism is irrelevant, when in fact nobody said it was the only variable in that equation. He then highlighted the fact that, given a list of the 'happiest' states in the world (taken from the Telegraph I think), Denmark has a a state religion to which people are nominally ascribed, which in his eyes is a 'gotcha', even though that doesn't actually make Denmark a non-secular society, nor does it make Denmark's government non-secular either (governments =/= state structures). Also, even if we took Denmark as a non-secular state, it still doesn't actually negate my original points about the most prosperous & 'happy' states tending to also be secular states.

But you can read and enjoy it for yourself.

The point is, you apparent haven't met a "Christian' that knows what they're talking about.

And the search continues.

[Spooky]

Appreciate the assist. I will take a look.

[Esquilax]

First of all, Evolution has never been put to the scientific test seeing how the first step in the scientific method is observation, please point out the article, where anyone has observed one specie of animal evolving into a completely different specie.

Hey, I have an idea! How about before you speak on a subject, you know what you're talking about first? Wouldn't that be crazy?

Meet the Gray Tree Frog, and the Cope's Gray Tree Frog. They are different species, with different cellular makeup, that cannot interbreed; this species divergence happened over a short time, potentially even a single generation, via a process called autopolyploidy. One of the two species existed beforehand, and after breeding there was a completely separate species, assuming we're using the common scientific definition of a species.

So, you're wrong, unless you want to wriggle out by using some arcane other definition of species, which I don't think is terribly far from your normal course of argumentation. But then we'd be wondering why we should use your self serving definition over the normal one.

Now, speciation events of this type are rare, but they do happen. More normally, species diverge over concurrent generations through a process of small alterations, and this has also been observed to occur, but even if it hadn't your point would make no sense, as those genetic mutations that drive evolution have been observed under laboratory conditions; by making the stand that you are, you are asserting that small changes can occur, but that those small changes can never accumulate, for some reason. But we've never observed any mechanism that prevents those changes from accumulating across the (human defined, I might add. It's not like this is some magic transcending of a natural order) species boundaries we use, so the conditions of your own argument prevent you from making it.

Your argument is self refuting, and your ignorance of the process of evolution does not bode well for your insistence on talking about it.