I expressed an interest to hear your story, I asked you for evidence, you nodded and said you would provide.

Again stop nit picking every post I make, stop quoting every sentence, it serves no purpose!

Read my previous post how you should go about informing me. Explain in more in depth. You can clearly see that I am even willing to learn, even though it's not really required.

I can form my own opinion on your story if you are willing to share. Like I said in previous post, explain how you form beliefs then continue with your evidence.

Again I'm continuing, as the only honest person between the 2 of us.

All you are doing is making excuses, just like I said you would!

Start with how you form beliefs (if it's so important for you) then go on to your "evidence" that you said you had!

Is it a prerequisite for the other party to be willing to learn something while hearing an argument? I really did not know that!

Why does he not just present his argument and I can then form my own judgement based on his arguments!

It is. Otherwise you're just shouting at each other with no real goal or intent and to no end. Why would he bother arguing with someone who has already reached the conclusion that he's wrong and isn't willing to be open-minded enough to accept his perspective?

You've already "formed your own judgement" without hearing what he has to say. Your goal is to try to smear and belittle his faith and perspective rather than genuinely learning his thought process. Whatever he says, you have the sole intent of trying to make him look foolish. THAT'S what he is saying when he says intellectually dishonest. You have no desire to learn intellectually about him and you are being dishonest by claiming that you do.

That's completely wrong. How on earth have you formed that opinion towards me. That's certainly a lot of wild accusations and you have absolutely no proof to back anything you have just stated up.

How do you know my goals? I have stated numerous times to be open-minded.

You are just throwing wild accusations at me!

How have I already made my mind up? The whole point of hearing an argument is to form an opinion on said argument. Why would I even bother to write countless messages here, for the sole purpose of then dismissing anything he then brings up in his argument.

You make no sense!

Come on, seriously? Do you know what open minded means? If you are not interested in learning anything, then , by definition, you are not open minded.

LOL. You honestly have no interest in learning anything. You've admitted that much yourself.

You still haven't even demonstrated that you're able to reason at the level of a 7 year old. You really need to analyze your Santa Claus narrative closely to discover your biases and false assumptions. But you won't do that.

I'm trying to get you to understand this. I've repeatedly pointed you to your own construction as evidence that you need to do some reflection on this point. You won't do it because you don't want to learn.

This is a you problem. And as is typical of a you problem, it's totally obvious to everyone else but you. I'm sorry that you lack enough self-awareness to understand this. This is something I can't teach you.

There's a lot of things you don't know. Such as how people come to form beliefs.

It has become clear in the course of the conversation that your ability to form rational judgments about things is sorely lacking.

Based on what you've written so far, you've already decided that theists are predominantly drug addicts and criminals.

Probably because you really wanted to massage your own ego. You've already demonstrated your ego is sufficiently large so that you don't actually have any interest in learning anything new (despite the very clear evidence that your capacity for reasoning is childish at best). You've also demonstrated it by the level of general disdain you've exhibited towards people who are different from you.

I'm sorry the ego massage didn't work out for you.

Three things:
-a sample size of 1 (being the US in a distressed era) is hardly sufficient
-the failed outcome might have been an enforcement issue. That is, the idea or notion behind banning alcohol was good- it's just that the ban wasn't enforced correctly. Or it could be that the alcohol problem had been allowed to balloon to such heights that it was going to take real persistence and dedication to execute an outright ban.
-Let's look at something that the Government does ban- meth. Has this been a smooth ride? No. People still consume meth and trade it underground at massive prices. I can take your quote:

"here in the States the thought of an outright ban on alcohol not only occurred to us, but we did it for over a decade. It didn't work. People still got drunk, but courtesy of organized crime or scofflaws instead of through legal means"

and replace the word "alcohol" with "meth" and "drunk" with "smashed".
Your argument is equally valid- so would you like to claim that the government should give up on it's ban of meth?

Yet teaching religion does just that.

I'll respond with a rather practical point:

If a parent wants their child to be part of a religion they will generally usher or even force their child into it one way or another by:
-taking them to church
-cutting their diddle
-christening the child
-talking to the child about religion in a biased way. That is, giving only the perspective of the parent's religion.

Your statement in bold rings true in theory but, in the real world, parents murk the distinction.

Sounds fair. So we have a continuum once more. A parent who takes their child to church with them on a Sunday (and nothing more) at the soft end of the spectrum and a parent belonging to Scientology and forcing their child into a life of heavy future tithing or face expulsion on the extreme side.

Cutting a child's diddle (circumcision) might lie somewhere between these.

If i should find, in a month's time, that circumcision is medically harmful, I'll push it to the extreme side near Scientology and the hardcore Christian sect who tell their children that homosexuality is wrong.
But if it's medically okay or even beneficial, it'll lie on the left or might not even need to feature on the scale at all.

An atheistic approach sets the child in the best position to determine for itself what he/she wants. Teaching a religion- any single one of the thousands out there- will do a worse job than atheism because they erode that crucial element of objectivity.

The problem i have with this is that people (whether they are parents or not) shouldn't source their social rules and norms from a religious text. They should arrive at a good set of values through discussion and debate.

If this rule is followed, religion need not enter the fray of argument.

Take your sentence above:
"Parents use religion to teach children social rules and norms."

and re-word it to:

"Parents teach children social rules and norms that have emerged from discussion, debate and well accepted practice"

Which is more appealing to you?


Okay- let's throw religion aside for a moment because i feel it's clouding the issue. Let's come up with a set of values that a parent should teach their child. It won't, by any means, be a comprehensive set but we'll make a start of it:

-Be polite
-Be respectful
-Don't verbally abuse people
.
.
.
-Homosexuality is bad

Oh! that last one's not a good value to teach a child because....[insert reasons that arise from debate and discussion here]. I better not teach my child that one. Let's continue:

-Don't steal
.
.
.
-Give 10% of your income to this institution called the church.

Hmmm... This last one is interesting. Let's have a debate about it. And if it should emerge from the debate as a sound value, I'll be sure to pass it on to my child.

Notice religion isn't even a consideration. You said above that you're willing to say that certain aspects of religion are bad and shouldn't be taught (e.g. homosexuality). My question to you is, why not just do away with religious consideration and group all the values together (whether they are from a religion or not) and asses them individually on their merit ?

It's a clear cut example of religion, in isolation, being the decisive factor of segregation. Not politics or anything else. And it will go on to effect generations beyond the current population.

Yes, there are billions of people belonging to different religions who coexist in regular society. But how much better off would they be if religion didn't exist at all as a point of difference? That's the question.

The fact that many people live together under different religions doesn't mean that religion isn't an impediment and that they wouldn't be better off without religion altogether.

I have analysed it, lets continue. It was a poor analogy.

Also just want to point one thing out, you have absolutely no place talking about biases! You are extremely biased towards your own views and therefor are incapable of even speaking on the subject!

Again, add anything you think I dont fully understand to your argument, and I can then form an opinion on your argument, deal?

You are completely taking this out of context. I simply meant that religious people who found God through, either manipulation (young children), sick in the head (drug addicts/drunks) or inmates (trying to make good on their wrongs and are locked up anyway) are not exactly people you should take that seriously when it comes to them explaining their argument. Don't you agree?

I never said that theists are majority addicts and criminals. Show me were I wrote this!

And the insults continue! And to further back up my claim that all you would do is ignore the question. How many posts have you posted since you said you had evidence? How many?

I might come across childish in my reasoning to you, that's fine by me. You can have your opinion. Let me say this though, the way you conduct yourself in this forum is extremely rude and ignorant. You act like a little brat yourself, with all your insults! You are acting like the childish one in this debate!

Christianity has the strongest of basis which is that the Christ Being entered into this Earthly planet at the event of Golgotha. "Not I but Christ in me" is spoken by Paul and lives today within each and every man.

Understanding Christ is important but the idea of "Faith in Christ" is the most tolerable for the present mankind. This "Faith in Christ' is not wishing to win the lottery or winning a battle in war or even praying for a healing in sickness.

"Faith in Christ" is a power which brings the individual man into the future as the Christ Being enters into the "feelings" of the individual man in order that this man may enter death appropriately; "In Christo Morimor"( In Christ we die).

Please note that I said "feelings" while the intellectual or cognitive appreciation has to be worked through and can be elucidated, the common man, of all walks of life, can relate to Christ for He works into one's "feeling life". Christianity didn't spread throughout Europe because of an intellectual fal de rah but through the Power of the Christ Being, in and of Himself, who in actuality completed and fulfilled the spiritual desires and comprehension of the ancient tribes and their gods . This was and is an Eastern religion which came and brought to fruition the religions of Thor, Odin, Mithra and other self same religions of spirituality.

Christianity is not a national religion as might be practiced by the Greeks, the Germanic tribes or Scottish clans but adopted by these ancient peoples who understood and "felt" the nature of the Christ in their hearts.

This goes back to "faith" for at the time of Golgotha and even up until the 15th century of our era the individual man ,especially in the mystery centers, had a partial immersion in the spiritual world while he walked the earth. there was no need to bring forth "proofs of God" for his ego, while suppressed, lived within the world of spiritual beings. This was most manifestly so prior to Golgotha but mankind gradually lost his ability and in this gained the power of the intellect.

Having lost this "atavistic consciousness" or immersion in the spiritual world while on earth there were some who still had an appreciation of the Christ but others had a "faith" which borders to the past as they knew that what they received in teachings from the Gospels, or the Theology of the Church or the sermons within the church was real . The soul has this innate sense of truth which manifested in this "Faith in Christ".

In the future the individual man will again attain this clairvoyant ability but will do this as a free "Ego' to which the ancient man could not. Christ is that very Being who carries mankind beyond death as an "Ego " being or in another words in a conscious clarity of the spiritual world.

There are many, many "looks" to the Christ and they can bring forth some clarity but in truth Christianity has infinite manifestations of which we are only beginning to comprehend.

You ask why and look to this "Faith in Christ" but also know that a man brings forth abilities prior to birth which does not make him a "tabula rasa( blank slate)" as Aristotle I believe stated, but with abilities within reincarnation and karma from previous lives.

Christ guides men through the spiritual world after death and in this He is the "Lord of Karma".

Clear ???

Christ in within ALL MEN , each of whom progresses into the transformation of mankind and the earth into higher stages of Being.

But why was it a bad analogy? Break it down.

Do you even understand bias? No, you don't. How do I know? Because what you're saying doesn't accurately reflect how bias works. Therefore, your "therefore" is absolutely worthless.

I'm adding that you don't understand bias to the list of things you don't understand.

But it seems quite clear you've already formed your conclusion. Since you have no intention to learn anything, just conclude I'm just a schizophrenic drug addict and be on your way.

I don't agree on multiple levels:

1) "You are completely taking this out of context"

Here's your full quote:

I directly challenged you on your statement:

You ignored this challenge completely. I also said this:

You did not correct this then. So when you say...

I have to say that your refusal to clarify or admit error gave me sufficient reason to think that I had characterized you correctly. But since you've raised the challenge, I'll re-raise mine: What percent of people who believe in God do you think fits the category of "drug addicts, drunks, been in jail for a long time, etc etc"?

(2) No, I don't think it's fair or appropriate to blanket deny people their own stories of their life experiences. That's part of the fundamental reason why I don't think you've got any chance of understanding the conversation. You simply have no sense of respect for how people come to their beliefs.

As many as it takes. It's hard to say I'm ignoring the question if I'm acknowledging it. I'm simply not answering it yet because you are not at a point where you have a chance to understand it. Do you see how you've brushed off other people's life experiences? Given all of the evidence that you've presented thus far, what are the chances that I'd actually get a fair hearing from you?

I like how the best you can manage is the "no u" response. It shows how little you bring to the table.

At the heart of the challenge is this: You think that you have this conversation at a distance. As long as you think you're on the offensive, you have nothing at risk. I'm telling you that this is simply not how the conversation can go forward in a meaningful way. You want to sit up on high in judgment of others. You've already done it. You want to do it to me.

But I'm not going to let you do that. I'm going to patiently bring you down to the point where we actually have the conversation eye-to-eye. It's the only chance that YOU have with understanding this conversation.

I'm not playing this silly game with you, I have given you enough opportunities but you simply don't take any of them. I wonder what your reason is, I'm curious but I'm not going to continue this conversation with a child.

Keep ignoring the question and continue to bring up pointless stuff in every post! Just like I predicted!

I'm done!

Don't bother to respond Aron unless you are going to start your argument. In that case I am willing to listen to your story.

Is Christ and Christianity original? Does it have roots from other religions?

And no it is not clear, too much jibberish, not written in simple English!

As a Christian, I take offense to this thread...

The New Testament was explained to Jesus in plain English by GOD. "This is why the Old Testament says what it says!" Blindly following rules isn't the solution. Context matters....

Drinking (Not a sin)
Gambling (Not a sin)... Money changers referred to Jewish currency exchangers, not gamblers!
Smoking (Not a sin)
Drugs (Not a sin).... Passage...?
****ing the **** out of your girl (Not a sin)... "Don't lust with your eyes".... every Jewish woman back then who was 13 and decent looking was married... "Don't covet thy neighbors wife...." He didn't tell us not to notice hot chicks, He didn't want us going after married women...

"Turn the other cheek" was a reference to a Rabbi verbally disrespecting Peter.... That's like someone saying, "let it go" or "let him run his mouth..." If someone gets in your space, smash their ****ing teeth in.... if some monkey is yapping... let it go...

God, FATHER, Son, & Holy Ghost... punished King Saul for not killing the last captured Philistine.... Read the Bible.... A lot of killing! Justified....

Christianity was paved for us by Jesus sacrifice, and if He had been defeated by Lucifer, He'd be dead. Say what you want about Him, but He put His existence on the line for us. He was pissed at the Jews and gave others a New Way to Heaven... Getting baptized, give a damn about others, and acknowledging Jesus is the Lord of Heaven and that your a sinner is reasonable...

My prediction is that when Jesus returns, He'll die in a sacrifice for the sins of non-believers (e.g. Ishamel & Hagar's bloodline)... Hope He recognizes that to kill an enemy, you often times have to be killed in the process.

You wonder, but yet you don't want to learn. This says everything I need to know.

You can pretend all you want that understanding how people come to believe things is pointless when it comes to understanding how someone might come to believe something. That just shows a lack of depth of knowledge.

Okay. Thank you for providing the type of evidence that was necessary for me to confirm what I've come to believe about you.

I thought Michael the Arch Angel defeated Lucifer. Jesus did nothing as far as I'm aware, without Michael, God would be dead!

You still trolling me! LOL. Thought I told you to stop replying unless you actually want to share your story.

You're still trying looking down on others because you want to be the dominant one and make everyone play your game, which explicitly includes you claiming that you have no interest in learning.

"I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU TO DO X!"

Deal with it.

You see right through me Aron! That or you assume too much, I think you need to take a close look at yourself because you are full of assumptions and often times completely wrong!

Your assumptions then become your reality, which as stated above is a false reality.

You're right.

You're playing a third level game against me when I'm only thinking two layers deep. You're an open-minded and humble person just wanting to hear my story. We're all just wildly accusing you of having no interest in learning because there's absolutely no evidence in this thread that you have no interest in learning. We just all made it up in our shared imagined reality, and the true reality is the one in which you live, where learning isn't a necessary component of understanding.

I leave you with this: I challenge you to show that you have a connection to reality.

There's a lot of incorrect information in this post. So much so that I can't tell if you're serious or trolling.