To those who are Catholic and think masturbation is wrong...

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
It is ignorant to believe that you chose so wisely as to be the only one right. Failing that, it is ignorant to assume that there can only be one answer to a question or one "truth" as you'd have it said. Religious Dogma and "who is right" are questions that no one can answer, but also questions that are pondered but idiots. There is no way to have a definitive answer on either unless you consider "faith" which is purely illogical, so there is no logical way to discern who is right or wrong. In the end you have no more validity to your statements than a Caveman. Both of you wondered about the cause of life and the afterlife, but neither of you are any more advanced in your beliefs. All you can assume is something illogical, and hope that you are right, which when you examine the number of beliefs and people, you have less than a 0.01% chance of being right.

I never chose to be the only one right, don't know where you got that from, and I still don't know what crawled up your butt and died. Your hate is obvious in every post.

You implied it by saying 99% of Christians harbored serious misconceptions. That is your opinion, and not based on anything substantive in nature. You said truth can only be one way, and for that I ask of you proof. Please, provide some substantive proof that truth can only be one way, or that your truth is superior to mine. Clearly you don't have an understanding of the subjective...

It's not an opinion. They believe in the bible, yet believe other things that are clearly contrary to the bible. That's why they are called misconceptions. It's not a matter of opinion, I can even show you lists of websites detailing each item. They are common because they are rooted in the early Catholic church and have survived since then due to the lack of actual studying done by Christians. Research has shown that the bible is the least read best seller, and you can find this out in any church. If they are willing to admit it. And even the ones that do read the bible read some translation which is an interpretation of original text, and can sometimes be the cause of some of the misconceptions. Would you like some examples?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Umm, that was the point of my post. All could be wrong in someone else's eyes or correct in another's eyes. What matters is perspective, and absolute truth simply doesn't exist when it comes to Religious Philosophy. It is hard to understand, but the question of whether God exists is philosophical simply because there is NOT an absolute truth. And no one said truth was fair, but the again no one said truth was unfair. Truth is not something that is purely objective -- it is very subjective.

Absolute truth exists, this is ridiculous to say otherwise. Whether anyone knows or grasps it is another topic, but absolute truth exists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. I absolutely exist, no amount of perspective can change that. It is purely objective.

HAHA! You really think that, eh? Your existence proves absolute truth? Please, mention that to any educated being at a major University, and see what they say. PROVE that absolute truth exists -- you cannot. It has everything to do with philosophy. The question of absolute truth is a philosophical one, therefore you cannot say for sure, whether it exists or not. You can give a compelling argument, but so far you haven't even done that. I'm waiting for something substantive.

 

[otispunkmeyer]

id rahter masticate

 

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
<------------Poster Child for mas....er....Catholicism.

masturbation it melts teh brain!

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

Study religions then. They are all, in their nature, mutually exclusive. Even in their nature, each denomination of Christianity is to each other, which is rather sad. Believing one truth means another cannot be true. Differing beliefs cannot coexist. Only one can be correct. Or none.

That is simply illogical, unreasonable, and a rather dangerous line of thinking. There are those that have a religion that borrows from every religion and believe each religion to be equal on its merits. It is called tolerance, and obviously you either don't understand it, or failing that -- lack it. Please, provide a logical proof for how religion is mutually exclusive and/or denominations of Christian Faith. Could I please ask what denomination you belong to? It would help me decide if you are worth debating with, or if you were retreat to mindless dissertations on your illogical faith and beliefs.

I don't belong to any denomination, that would obviously be against my beliefs

Tolerance is mutually exclusive. It believes all religions are right. The other religions disagree. As long as you believe something, it's mutually exclusive to all other contrary beliefs. It is the nature of beliefs, the nature of perception. If you believe something but someone else believes something else, those beliefs are mutually exclusive.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Umm, that was the point of my post. All could be wrong in someone else's eyes or correct in another's eyes. What matters is perspective, and absolute truth simply doesn't exist when it comes to Religious Philosophy. It is hard to understand, but the question of whether God exists is philosophical simply because there is NOT an absolute truth. And no one said truth was fair, but the again no one said truth was unfair. Truth is not something that is purely objective -- it is very subjective.

Absolute truth exists, this is ridiculous to say otherwise. Whether anyone knows or grasps it is another topic, but absolute truth exists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. I absolutely exist, no amount of perspective can change that. It is purely objective.

HAHA! You really think that, eh? Your existence proves absolute truth? Please, mention that to any educated being at a major University, and see what they say. PROVE that absolute truth exists -- you cannot. It has everything to do with philosophy. The question of absolute truth is a philosophical one, therefore you cannot say for sure, whether it exists or not. You can give a compelling argument, but so far you haven't even done that. I'm waiting for something substantive.

A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

 

[imported_Schmitty]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

Study religions then. They are all, in their nature, mutually exclusive. Even in their nature, each denomination of Christianity is to each other, which is rather sad. Believing one truth means another cannot be true. Differing beliefs cannot coexist. Only one can be correct. Or none.

That is simply illogical, unreasonable, and a rather dangerous line of thinking. There are those that have a religion that borrows from every religion and believe each religion to be equal on its merits. It is called tolerance, and obviously you either don't understand it, or failing that -- lack it. Please, provide a logical proof for how religion is mutually exclusive and/or denominations of Christian Faith. Could I please ask what denomination you belong to? It would help me decide if you are worth debating with, or if you were retreat to mindless dissertations on your illogical faith and beliefs.

Read the book, Angles and Demons and the DaVinche(Spelling) code, by Dan Brown. In those books in sections it says how Catholics have ?borrowed? thoughts and ideas from other religions, no I know this book is a novel but the fact still remains that Dan does his research. So in light of that and knowing that religion gathers lines of thought from one another. To think that a religion has some how got it completely correct, is completely ignorant and asinine. To even think for a moment that 1 religion, especially all of Christianity?s different factions, is the ?Truth? is asinine.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ed21x
[qOriginally posted by: malak


The truth can only be one way. It is ignorant to think everyone can believe whatever they want and be right. All religions are mutually exclusive, including every denomination of Christianity.

I think this is a difficult concept for atheists to grasp. A better way of explaining it would be that different schools of thoughts in a scientific field are mutually exclusive, and you cannot agree with either sides, as they inherently work against one another.

eg:
The earth is 4.6 billion years old based on radioactive dating evidence.
The earth is at least 6 billion years old based on coefficient of heat transfer and the amount of heat (magma) left in the earth's core.

a compromise cannot be made because the supporting basis for one of the above theories must be wrong.

Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.
[/quote]

I guess one of the points I'm trying to make is that those two are the only two major numbers people debate over, so one of them must be right and the other is wrong. Thus only one of the premise is wrong, because the other is correct. Now i'm not saying that religion is correct or not, but I think one of the main points of religion is to attribute a specific deity for that respective religion, and more importantly, rejecting all others, making compromise fairly difficult.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

Study religions then. They are all, in their nature, mutually exclusive. Even in their nature, each denomination of Christianity is to each other, which is rather sad. Believing one truth means another cannot be true. Differing beliefs cannot coexist. Only one can be correct. Or none.

That is simply illogical, unreasonable, and a rather dangerous line of thinking. There are those that have a religion that borrows from every religion and believe each religion to be equal on its merits. It is called tolerance, and obviously you either don't understand it, or failing that -- lack it. Please, provide a logical proof for how religion is mutually exclusive and/or denominations of Christian Faith. Could I please ask what denomination you belong to? It would help me decide if you are worth debating with, or if you were retreat to mindless dissertations on your illogical faith and beliefs.

I don't belong to any denomination, that would obviously be against my beliefs

Tolerance is mutually exclusive. It believes all religions are right. The other religions disagree. As long as you believe something, it's mutually exclusive to all other contrary beliefs. It is the nature of beliefs, the nature of perception. If you believe something but someone else believes something else, those beliefs are mutually exclusive.

Umm... tolerance does not have to believe that all religions are right. Secondly, how do you know the other religions disagree? How is belief in something mutually exclusive to all other contrary beliefs? AHAHA, no it doesn't! You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of philosophy, absolute truth,and mutually exclusive things.

If you believe something but someone else believes something else, those beliefs are mutually exclusive.

[/quote]

Umm, no!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Umm, that was the point of my post. All could be wrong in someone else's eyes or correct in another's eyes. What matters is perspective, and absolute truth simply doesn't exist when it comes to Religious Philosophy. It is hard to understand, but the question of whether God exists is philosophical simply because there is NOT an absolute truth. And no one said truth was fair, but the again no one said truth was unfair. Truth is not something that is purely objective -- it is very subjective.

Absolute truth exists, this is ridiculous to say otherwise. Whether anyone knows or grasps it is another topic, but absolute truth exists. It has nothing to do with religion or philosophy. I absolutely exist, no amount of perspective can change that. It is purely objective.

HAHA! You really think that, eh? Your existence proves absolute truth? Please, mention that to any educated being at a major University, and see what they say. PROVE that absolute truth exists -- you cannot. It has everything to do with philosophy. The question of absolute truth is a philosophical one, therefore you cannot say for sure, whether it exists or not. You can give a compelling argument, but so far you haven't even done that. I'm waiting for something substantive.

A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak
A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

No it isn't. Either the tree fell on his dog or it didn't. There is nothing subjective about it. And if you can't grasp that little truth, there is no way you'll ever understand anything I post.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Schmitty

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill
Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

Study religions then. They are all, in their nature, mutually exclusive. Even in their nature, each denomination of Christianity is to each other, which is rather sad. Believing one truth means another cannot be true. Differing beliefs cannot coexist. Only one can be correct. Or none.

That is simply illogical, unreasonable, and a rather dangerous line of thinking. There are those that have a religion that borrows from every religion and believe each religion to be equal on its merits. It is called tolerance, and obviously you either don't understand it, or failing that -- lack it. Please, provide a logical proof for how religion is mutually exclusive and/or denominations of Christian Faith. Could I please ask what denomination you belong to? It would help me decide if you are worth debating with, or if you were retreat to mindless dissertations on your illogical faith and beliefs.

Read the book, Angles and Demons and the DaVinche(Spelling) code, by Dan Brown. In those books in sections it says how Catholics have ?borrowed? thoughts and ideas from other religions, no I know this book is a novel but the fact still remains that Dan does his research. So in light of that and knowing that religion gathers lines of thought from one another. To think that a religion has some how got it completely correct, is completely ignorant and asinine. To even think for a moment that 1 religion, especially all of Christianity?s different factions, is the ?Truth? is asinine.

Are you speaking to him, or I? I ask, because I agree with your last few sentences. Impossible to know whom is correct or to what degree they are correct.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak
A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

No it isn't. Either the tree fell on his dog or it didn't. There is nothing subjective about it. And if you can't grasp that little truth, there is no way you'll ever understand anything I post.

HAHAHA. Dude, look , once you get a basic understanding of philosophy or fallacies -- please give me a ring. Until then, I can deal without having to discuss religion with a child. It *is* subjective; everything is subjective. Nothing is absolute, there is no truth. Prove otherwise...

 

[imported_Schmitty]

Originally posted by: Mill
Are you speaking to him, or I? I ask, because I agree with your last few sentences. Impossible to know whom is correct or to what degree they are correct.

I was kind of supporting your thought.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ed21x
[qOriginally posted by: malak


The truth can only be one way. It is ignorant to think everyone can believe whatever they want and be right. All religions are mutually exclusive, including every denomination of Christianity.

I think this is a difficult concept for atheists to grasp. A better way of explaining it would be that different schools of thoughts in a scientific field are mutually exclusive, and you cannot agree with either sides, as they inherently work against one another.

eg:
The earth is 4.6 billion years old based on radioactive dating evidence.
The earth is at least 6 billion years old based on coefficient of heat transfer and the amount of heat (magma) left in the earth's core.

a compromise cannot be made because the supporting basis for one of the above theories must be wrong.

Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

I guess one of the points I'm trying to make is that those two are the only two major numbers people debate over, so one of them must be right and the other is wrong. Thus only one of the premise is wrong, because the other is correct. Now i'm not saying that religion is correct or not, but I think one of the main points of religion is to attribute a specific deity for that respective religion, and more importantly, rejecting all others, making compromise fairly difficult.[/quote]

Why must one of them be right and the other wrong? Your conclusion is not valid -- at all. Either you are leaving out a step in your logic, or you are just assuming certain things to be there. How can you say that if one premise is wrong -- that then the other must be right? You'll have to prove that, because from your logic it isn't valid. Just because people *only* debate over certain thing(and I'm not ceding that they only debate over 2 things) doesn't mean that one is truthful and the other not. Again, you'd have to prove that.

You say that religion requires you to reject all others, but that simply is not grounded in reality. There are plenty of religions that don't require you to do this. Don't confuse fundamentalism with all religion.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak
A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

No it isn't. Either the tree fell on his dog or it didn't. There is nothing subjective about it. And if you can't grasp that little truth, there is no way you'll ever understand anything I post.

HAHAHA. Dude, look , once you get a basic understanding of philosophy or fallacies -- please give me a ring. Until then, I can deal without having to discuss religion with a child. It *is* subjective; everything is subjective. Nothing is absolute, there is no truth. Prove otherwise...

ahhh... there are philosophers, and then there are engineers =) As an engineer, we operate on a given set of conditions that we know to be true because they are what is observed around us, and more importantly, can be replicated.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: malak
A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

No it isn't. Either the tree fell on his dog or it didn't. There is nothing subjective about it. And if you can't grasp that little truth, there is no way you'll ever understand anything I post.

HAHAHA. Dude, look , once you get a basic understanding of philosophy or fallacies -- please give me a ring. Until then, I can deal without having to discuss religion with a child. It *is* subjective; everything is subjective. Nothing is absolute, there is no truth. Prove otherwise...

ahhh... there are philosophers, and then there are engineers =) As an engineer, we operate on a given set of conditions that we know to be true because they are what is observed around us, and more importantly, can be replicated.

They might have the ability to be replicated, but for how many replications? I understand it requires you to view things as having truth or certainty, but if you are technical about it, there is always a way around that. Truth has to be proved to me.

 

[imported_Schmitty]

Originally posted by: malak
A man says a tree fell on his dog. No one else saw it happen. What is the truth?

Completely subjective.

[/quote]

No it isn't. Either the tree fell on his dog or it didn't. There is nothing subjective about it. And if you can't grasp that little truth, there is no way you'll ever understand anything I post.[/quote]

Yea you cant tell if he is telling the truth or not. he might be lieing just to get some pity about in people.

STAMPED: SUBJECTIVE

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: ed21x
[qOriginally posted by: malak


The truth can only be one way. It is ignorant to think everyone can believe whatever they want and be right. All religions are mutually exclusive, including every denomination of Christianity.

I think this is a difficult concept for atheists to grasp. A better way of explaining it would be that different schools of thoughts in a scientific field are mutually exclusive, and you cannot agree with either sides, as they inherently work against one another.

eg:
The earth is 4.6 billion years old based on radioactive dating evidence.
The earth is at least 6 billion years old based on coefficient of heat transfer and the amount of heat (magma) left in the earth's core.

a compromise cannot be made because the supporting basis for one of the above theories must be wrong.

Well the premises are flawed, thus the conclusion is as well. Not all religions, or even most are mutually exclusive. Most differences are not of fundamentals, but of interpretations, dogma, and tradition. To say that a compromise cannot be made is clearly not logical either. I'm not going to get into the fallacy of a midpoint between to ideals, nor would I agree with that fallacy, however, to say that religion must be mutually exclusive is ignorant. I'm not an atheist, and I have hard time grasping such an obviously flawed premise. It simply does not follow the rules of logic, and therefore is invalid. Additionally, there can be varying schools of thought, but a common thread between the too, in fact that is more common than not.

I guess one of the points I'm trying to make is that those two are the only two major numbers people debate over, so one of them must be right and the other is wrong. Thus only one of the premise is wrong, because the other is correct. Now i'm not saying that religion is correct or not, but I think one of the main points of religion is to attribute a specific deity for that respective religion, and more importantly, rejecting all others, making compromise fairly difficult.

Why must one of them be right and the other wrong? Your conclusion is not valid -- at all. Either you are leaving out a step in your logic, or you are just assuming certain things to be there. How can you say that if one premise is wrong -- that then the other must be right? You'll have to prove that, because from your logic it isn't valid. Just because people *only* debate over certain thing(and I'm not ceding that they only debate over 2 things) doesn't mean that one is truthful and the other not. Again, you'd have to prove that.

You say that religion requires you to reject all others, but that simply is not grounded in reality. There are plenty of religions that don't require you to do this. Don't confuse fundamentalism with all religion.
[/quote]

eh? let me be the first to admit that I really don't know much about all the different religions out there However, on the earlier point, we usually accept certain things to be true once it reaches a point where it is nearly impossible to be disproven (like the first law of thermodynamics). This might seem strange, but it is as solid as acknowledging that a tree has fallen despite nobody seeing it. However, lets be more intelligent and only accept that the tree has fallen when the evidence is presented before us.

 

[SandInMyShoes]

Wow, some people can be dense. How can it be so hard to understand that just because the man says that a tree fell on his dog, the absolute truth is if the tree actually fell on the dog. Depending on situation, you may be able to verify it, and thus know absolute truth. Or, based on how honest the man is, and other circumstances, you can choose to believe him or not, and hope your resulting belief falls in line with absolute truth.

However, the problem occurs when people start preaching that they have absolute truth, when there is a margin of error (when isn't there?)

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: pacmanfan
Wow, some people can be dense. How can it be so hard to understand that just because the man says that a tree fell on his dog, the absolute truth is if the tree actually fell on the dog. Depending on situation, you may be able to verify it, and thus know absolute truth. Or, based on how honest the man is, and other circumstances, you can choose to believe him or not, and hope your resulting belief falls in line with absolute truth.

However, the problem occurs when people start preaching that they have absolute truth, when there is a margin of error (when isn't there?)

Because, I don't believe in absolute truth, that's why.

 

[nageov3t]

a better way of looking at it might be to say that there's no absolute moral truth.

 

[imported_Schmitty]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: pacmanfan
Wow, some people can be dense. How can it be so hard to understand that just because the man says that a tree fell on his dog, the absolute truth is if the tree actually fell on the dog. Depending on situation, you may be able to verify it, and thus know absolute truth. Or, based on how honest the man is, and other circumstances, you can choose to believe him or not, and hope your resulting belief falls in line with absolute truth.

However, the problem occurs when people start preaching that they have absolute truth, when there is a margin of error (when isn't there?)

Because, I don't believe in absolute truth, that's why.

There are some absolute truths, such as gravity on earth. We all know that there is gravity on earth, CAUSE STUFF FALLS WHEN YOU LET IT GO!

another absolute is the law of causality, every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause!

 

[DivideBYZero]

meh. I screwed a Catholic Girl this AM before work and used a condom.

 

[imported_Schmitty]

Originally posted by: DivideBYZero
meh. I screwed a Catholic Girl this AM before work and used a condom.

I think that was the most worthless post I have ever seen!