Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:55 pm
by strike wolf
Technically I'm saying that he created a monster. Secondly, outside that thread, jay has never bothered me that much, but for the short period of time I would read that thread, I didn't like him.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:10 pm
by jay_a2j
strike wolf wrote:Technically I'm saying that he created a monster. Secondly, outside that thread, jay has never bothered me that much, but for the short period of time I would read that thread, I didn't like him.
Jesus said, "You will be hated because of me." So this isn't surprising. Those who love the world, hate God. Those who love God, hate the world. (the world meaning the coruption within not people)
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:12 pm
by Backglass
jay_a2j wrote:Jesus said, "You will be hated because of me."
Suess said "I will NOT eat green eggs and ham".
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:26 pm
by sportsdd2
Jay are u a preecher, or do u just memorize the bible?
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:46 pm
by OnlyAmbrose
sportsdd2 wrote:Jay are u a preecher, or do u just memorize the bible?
If you think you have to be a preacher to know the Bible up and down, you obviously have never met a 10-year-old Mormon child, lol.
Strike Wolf, relax. Jay has every right to post such a thread, and you have every right to be offended by it, and thus create this thread stating your offence. Your rights aside, though, you may also want to just start ignoring the offending thread, it will be far easier on you nerves
Jay, I've always tried to lend my Christian opinions to people I know personally, because far more credibility is lent to it. If your style is Internet evangelism, that's cool I guess, I'm interested in seeing how far it gets you
Personally, I find that the best way to play a role in someone's spiritual conversion is to quietly pray for them.
Me, in the "monster thread", I find it a nice pastime to better understand the Atheist point of view, so as to help me aid me when dealing with atheists I know in real life. It's also a nice way of testing out new theories, and just speaking my mind.
FINALLY, I've tried to keep my arguments fairly secular and non-Biblical because the title makes a direct reference to LOGIC. Smacking people on the head with scripture is usually not their idea of logic, so instead I try to reason my points.
All in all, I'm having a great time in the thread
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:54 pm
by sportsdd2
lol i was just asking a question lol i totoally forgot the mormons mybad....not saying that jay is tho,,,,,,
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:58 pm
by jay_a2j
sportsdd2 wrote:lol i was just asking a question lol i totoally forgot the mormons mybad....not saying that jay is tho,,,,,,
Nope, not a Mormon or preacher. I have read the Bible... some verses just "stick" in my head.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:18 pm
by sportsdd2
quite a few lines it looks like then... lol
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:28 pm
by Caleb the Cruel
Machiavelli wrote:Caleb the Cruel wrote:I simply dont have the will-power to read all those long, boring posts in that thread...so I think the only thing I've posted in it was "this thread should die" a few times...
Saying "this thread should die" is pure spam
Plus you have said that you strongly believe in christianity so I dont understand why you think the tread should die.
As for Jay being a monster, I disagree. He doesnt try to instigate yelling matches. I believe that he wants to see a good debate, and his title drew people in and started the debate. Jay tells non-christians that they are stupid, he's not a bigot and he defends his points in an educated way. He is kind of like an
anti-caleb.
1. it's not spam, it's my opinion
2. I do believe in the One True Faith, but I never saw in the Bible where it says "thou must read and support the 'Logic Dictates that there is a God' thread"...i dont go into that thread because my will-power to read those long, boring arguments that go around in circles is too low
3. Jay doesn't instigate arguments??? ya gotta be kidding
4. Jay should be a bigot, as the Bible teaches it...and some of his posts do make him seem like one sometimes...
5.
Machiavelli wrote: He is kind of like an anti-caleb.
what is that supposed to mean?
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:51 am
by Machiavelli
Machiavelli wrote: Jay tells non-christians that they are stupid, he's not a bigot and he defends his points in an educated way. He is kind of like an anti-caleb.
I was saying that you are a bigot, you dont act very eduacted and you dont accept other people who are not christians.
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:44 pm
by Sammy gags
Machiavelli wrote:eduacted
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:20 pm
by Caleb the Cruel
Sammy gags wrote:Machiavelli wrote:eduacted
that's priceless!!!
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:22 pm
by Caleb the Cruel
Machiavelli wrote:Machiavelli wrote: Jay tells non-christians that they are stupid, he's not a bigot and he defends his points in an educated way. He is kind of like an anti-caleb.
I was saying that you are a bigot, you dont act very eduacted and you dont accept other people who are not christians.
oh okay, that's your opinion, your very
EDUACTED opinion
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:15 pm
by happysadfun
Jay is a Christian who
a) likes to get his views out in the open
and
b) can't say no to a challenge.
He (getting his views out in the open) posted, and may i add, correctly, that God exists. Then a person, (i think vtmarik?) challenged him. And refer to b. So this is a neverending battle resulting of his personality, and don't you liberals believe that personality and all that doesn't matter? You were were just pwned by a Christian Conservative.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 4:28 pm
by vtmarik
happysadfun wrote:Jay is a Christian who
a) likes to get his views out in the open
and
b) can't say no to a challenge.
He (getting his views out in the open) posted, and may i add, correctly, that God exists. Then a person, (i think vtmarik?) challenged him. And refer to b. So this is a neverending battle resulting of his personality, and don't you liberals believe that personality and all that doesn't matter? You were were just pwned by a Christian Conservative.
I challenged his logical process, which by all accounts wasn't really logical. He claimed that there were two choices, A and B, and that the absence of A meant the existence of B. That's the False Dichotomy and I called him on that. Then he brought up that many people believe and thus the belief is proven, and that's also a fallacious argument (the argument from popularity) and I called him on that too. It's basically the continued repeating of the same arguments in a cyclical manner to any and all attacks that come his way.
There is no pwning because there is no real winner. The non-believers and the doubters have the logical and evidentiary background while the believers have their indoctrination and their book to back them up. Now while one of these believers is quite well-adjusted (OnlyAmbrose) the others are all mostly just repeating themselves and offering nothing outside of "God exists because God Exists"-style tautologies. Forgive the opposition for not thinking that that is a concrete and unflappable argument.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:56 pm
by DogDoc
Discussions about religion are really pointless. You're not going to change anyone's mind and all you will accomplish is to piss someone off. More wars have been started and more people have died in the name of God than any other cause.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:42 pm
by vtmarik
DogDoc wrote:Discussions about religion are really pointless. You're not going to change anyone's mind and all you will accomplish is to piss someone off. More wars have been started and more people have died in the name of God than any other cause.
A statement about the inherent negatives of religion if I've ever heard one.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:21 pm
by Caleb the Cruel
vtmarik wrote: It's basically the continued repeating of the same arguments in a cyclical manner to any and all attacks that come his way.
that is exactly why I have not gone into that thread, the same arguements are repeated countless times, it's just a giant circle.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:30 pm
by jay_a2j
VT you come off sounding like you have made points and all I have done is repeat myself. Lets "keep it offical", You have come up with any staw you can grab hold of and out of the bounds of logic I might add. You have never refuted the starting argument (see pg. 1) But continue to beat on your chest if it makes you feel superior. I don't care.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:15 am
by vtmarik
jay_a2j wrote:VT you come off sounding like you have made points and all I have done is repeat myself. Lets "keep it offical", You have come up with any staw you can grab hold of and out of the bounds of logic I might add. You have never refuted the starting argument (see pg. 1) But continue to beat on your chest if it makes you feel superior. I don't care.
Fine, let's go through it again, line-by-line....
The Post in Question wrote:First off put aside any bias that you may have...weather it be religious or anti-religious.
Ok. Mind clear. All bias aside.
Now science has said, Life cannot come from non-life. Which is common sense... a rock will never reproduce since it is not living.
This is correct.
Then you trace back all life to its orgin...the very first living thing.
There cannot be a first living thing, since life cannot come from non-life. Ok, makes sense so far.
Where did it come from?
The ONLY answer is someting or someone has always existed. And that someone or something must have the power to create (or reproduce).
There must be a God.
Or multiple gods; a highly intelligent, pan-dimensional being; an advanced alien race; or time travelers from the distant future.
God is not the only possibility, since any early creatures living upon the earth would view beings from the sky in massive ships as gods. We talk about the origin of life on this world, but there also exists the possibility that life existed on other worlds far older than our own or perhaps other times/realities. If you have no trouble believing in the possibility of a being that can create matter from nothingness and do other generally omnipotent things, than how can aliens or time travelers be bunk? On the grand scale of things, if we do indeed put all bias aside, these things are very close to being equal.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
Science also dictates evolution could never have happened (but lets save that for a later thread).
And this is not only bizarre to read, it's a total cop out. How does science dictate that evolution never happened? If it dictated that, then why hasn't this evidence been used to supercede evolution? Surely if there was such totally obvious and pertinent information then we'd have heard about it. Right?
Are we talking Occam's Razor? "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the right one." It doesn't apply here since the discussion on God in a scientific context is anything but equal. God is a complex concept to wrap your mind around. This being, who has no origin story, created matter and energy from void, which science has observed to be impossible, hence the law of conservation.
I am approaching this without bias, since a non-biased approach invites all possibilities and gives them all the same weight without using any preconceived notions about the possibility or likelihood of each notion. You, however, have never approached this without bias; dismissing Aliens and other Gods as fantasy while saying that your singular omnipotent being is the only fact worth recognizing.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:38 am
by mr. incrediball
logic dictates that jay created a monster? no it doesn't he's created a healthy debate that has, admittedly, spun a bit out of control,
oh, and logic dictates that jay is also a guy who believes in god with (for reasons best known to himself) a dancing bear as his avatar.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:13 am
by Knight of Orient
I agree with the thread going to far. I can say all I want to them explainin God, and they will all so the opposite to me for years. I dont go and start blazing on them, that is the only way thet resort to what I say. It truly has become pointless.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:22 am
by Pilate
jay_a2j wrote:strike wolf wrote: And it was only meant to offend Jay_a2j.
Well it didn't work. I expect people to be uncomfortable when discussing God, at least those who don't know Him.
If a person is a true Christian the thread I created would not offend them and I can't understand why it would offend
anyone for that matter. It's a discussion. You read and respond if you choose. What is offensive about that?
If for some reson you are offended by the Logic Dictates There Is a God thread I have a solution............ Don't click that thread.
You're saying anyone who is offended isn't a true christian. I can see how he takes you to be offensive
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:03 am
by jay_a2j
Pilate wrote:You're saying anyone who is offended isn't a true christian. I can see how he takes you to be offensive
No Pilate, you are putting words in my mouth. I said, "If a person is a true Christian the thread I created would not offend them". Not that everyone else WILL be offended. I can see why Christians can get annoyed with atheists twisting their words.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 4:19 pm
by happysadfun
vtmarik wrote:
A statement about the inherent negatives of religion if I've ever heard one.
You have to take the whole of religion if you're going to take any of it.