|
Post by Kureji on Jan 17, 2012 21:10:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jan 2, 2012 12:02:18 GMT -5
I'm not worried about God destroying America. I'm worried about America destroying America because it's something that I can actually work towards fixing. Since you didn't answer who you thought would be a better candidate, I guess I'll just have to assume that you don't have one and since your only real argument was to tell me I'm going to burn in hell (which isn't really an argument at all) then I'll assume this is probably as far as this conversation will civilly go.
I don't know, perhaps you don't plan on voting. Though if you do plan on voting I hope you'll pray on it and find the same answer that I did or at the very least that I convinced you that Ron Paul isn't the Godless baby killer that you may have imagined before.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 26, 2011 14:43:55 GMT -5
A diplomatic hippy? So because I point out the fact that your arguments are flawed with slippery slopes, I'm suddenly a hippy? Turning abortion laws over to the states does not instantly make everyone in the state want to start killing chinese or women without any punishment.
So tell me which of your republican candidates are for ripping apart mothers or doctors who perform abortions? Sounds like a stance that none of them are going to be willing to take. Sounds like a stance any sane person wouldn't take to boot.
Now lets be honest though, do you really think any of the presidential candidates are going to make any real changes to abortion laws? Even Ron Paul wouldn't be able to overturn Roe vs Wade and return it to the states, so whats the big hold up on it anyway? Even Rick Santorum who's the big family man wouldn't be able to get abortion changed even if he made it his main goal of his presidency. If it's just a philosophical worry you have, I already explained his beliefs. Make a life at conception amendment and then let the states determine the punishment, just as they do for murder.
What America needs is someone who can bring real change and protect our liberty. Do you like how the government is being run now? If so go vote for Obama or Mitt Romney. If you want more over the top regulations and power hungry federal agents looking to steal our rights, then go vote for Newt Gingrich. If you want someone who lies through her teeth or is maybe so delusional that she actually believes the lies she spews, go vote for Michelle Bachmann. If you want someone who can really bring America back to greatness again, then you should be voting for Ron Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 24, 2011 14:37:14 GMT -5
The reason why states having control is better than federal control is that the people have far more sway in the way it is legislated. Which would be worst to you, 50 states forced to have abortion have no punishment or one state that has punishment as a slap on the wrist?
Also, your exaggerations of killing chinese people or killing women could technically be done already anyway, but it hasn't because we aren't a nation of savages.
What you need to realize is that bringing the power to the state is the best and easiest way to overturn roe vs wade. Roe vs Wade took the power away from the states and officially ended your fight against abortion. If that was over turned and brought back to the states, then your fight would actually be a lot easier in your state and in other states where there are those that fight. My point is that the way it is now, you have very little chance of winning but with Ron Paul's plan you have a much better chance to divide and conquer.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 21, 2011 14:40:27 GMT -5
Ron Paul is very against abortion, in fact while what you said about it being a states right is true his suggestion to fix it permanently is that he supports a constitutional amendment to define life beginning at conception. When he says that he's for states deciding on abortion, he's referring to the punishment that those who abort should face. That should be the state's right to decide how the punishment is carried out, just as how states deal with murder right now. Watch it yourself, the first link has him speaking about the amendment himself (I cut straight to that part, but if you want to watch the rest of his answers, it wouldn't be a bad idea) and the second video is a compilation of various of his pro life speeches. www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTh3gxd19x0&feature=relmfu#t=6m31swww.youtube.com/watch?v=_p76SznG48s
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 17, 2011 14:41:35 GMT -5
this was originally posted early in his presidency, and some of the later posts were trolls so don't get too worried. I'm pretty sure anyone who frequented this site knows by now how horrible Obama is.
Hopefully they also know that Ron Paul is the best choice for America in the coming up election.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Aug 21, 2011 18:01:58 GMT -5
There is only one man who can save our nation, and that's Ron Paul. I think that's a choice that all of us can agree on once you do your homework on the guy.
I hope all of you registered republicans and plan on voting in the primary, keep those other fake puppet republicans out of office. Ron Paul is the real deal, has been saying the same thing for 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 30, 2011 12:12:35 GMT -5
Last I heard she took the kid and split..... This is my not surprised face. It's good to see the battered woman hotline still works.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Dec 4, 2010 15:18:28 GMT -5
hahahahahahaha I like this guy hahahaha
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 20, 2010 17:11:13 GMT -5
cool story bro
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 15, 2010 20:08:55 GMT -5
skirred was my attempt to make it sound as jesse says it, a play off of "scared" but with an accent
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 15, 2010 13:17:46 GMT -5
"I ain't skirred" -Jesse Morrell
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 12, 2010 17:29:00 GMT -5
I like how the moderator has a title of "newbie" because thats what he is.
Also I like how they couldn't come up with a decent response to John so instead of coming up with a good comeback, they simply deleted his post. Real classy.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Jul 3, 2010 18:14:37 GMT -5
...oh the drama!
Just a note, I prefer Jesse's brand of crazy christian over this guys. Jesse's brand makes a bit more sense. The best arguments are always two "Christians" arguing over little details of the bible and slinging mud and calling each other misguided and following false prophets and such.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on May 5, 2010 17:32:11 GMT -5
I didn't say I dislike Jed, he's just pretty crazy. Never met Cope.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on May 4, 2010 0:44:04 GMT -5
Well thank you. I like debating with these guys every now and again though it usually just ends up with both parties banging their heads against the wall since no one ever budges from their own point of view.
I know that the mind may not be reliable as you say, but I choose not to dwell on that. Christians seem to think if they point out the possibility that everything might just be my mind being out of whack, that maybe I'll spiral into loony toons crazy and start praising Jesus or something. I simply don't see the point in questioning if what I'm perceiving is reality or not, if it is then everything is peachy and if it's not then how would I know any better?
Micah use to post in this section every now and again and I enjoyed his brand of holy-os cereal. I personally love it when the preachers call out someone while they are walking by, the worst was definitely brother Jed. That dude is crazy, he pointed at one girl walking by in a mini skirt and called her a whore, or asked why she dressed like one. He also tried convincing my girlfriend at the time to break up with me because she was Christian and I wasn't. Nice guy.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 30, 2010 12:59:41 GMT -5
Most of the nonbelievers were purged in the great purging of '09. Which started the great Dale Hunt, where millions of Dales appeared out of no where pretending to be believers and sewing deceit among the ranks of Christians. Perhaps your account was lost during this time?
You know, I've never met Brother Micah but I always hoped one day he'd come to San Marcos, hes such an amusing guy. BTW, don't go to Ohio University, I go to Texas State in San Marcos. Almost done too.
So how are things going my fellow heathen?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 30, 2010 12:37:00 GMT -5
You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Why not? Why don't I believe it? Because I have yet to be convinced that the only way you can have a reliable mind is if God made it. Why shouldn't you assume the only way that your mind can be trusted if God made it? As I said earlier, the introduction of God to the mind being reliable or not does not immediately prove one or the other. It may give support towards reliability of your mind, but his absence does not immediately discredit it either. God's existence is an independent event when discussing the reliability of the brain. Doesn't this assume some initial knowledge of how things ought to run? If you don't know what the hardware is designed to do then how do you know if the output “makes sense”? Are you telling me you don't know what your eyes, hands, ears, tongue and other body parts are supposed to do? If so, I won't mind sitting down with you and explaining for you. I've been asking how you can trust your mind in the context of your unbelief. It seems like your response is: 'who cares, why not.' I can trust that you're not a butterfly because I can trust that my mind is reliable. You believe you're not a butterfly because whatever who cares. I'm not trying to assert you're a butterfly Kureji. I'm only noticing that you don't seem to have any reason to believe anything. I have reason to believe what I can experience because my mind is the only thing I have faith in currently. I have no reason to doubt my mind, you've only said that if God doesn't exist than my mind is unreliable. That is your speculation and I disagree with it. I believe it's possible for a reliable mind to exist without the presense of a God to form it. You do not seem to share this belief, but that's your own purgative, and honestly neither of us can prove it either way. If they trust their minds then they can know whether Toyota's are beneficial or not. But I don't know anyone who relies solely on a Toyota for their perception of reality. You seemed to completely miss the point of that analogy. We trust our mind as an asset because it is the only choice we have. Once you throw away your mind as untrustworthy then you are simply sitting in the dark with nothing to work with. My main point in the analogy wasn't that toyota is some great choice for discovering your perception of reality, it was that the source of your mind doesn't determine if it's an asset, it's the reliability of it that determines if it is an asset. So when you say God is 'magical' you just mean he has 'seemingly supernatural qualities or powers.'? What else would I mean? That God pulls rabbits out of his hat? Or does card tricks on the side of the street? An uncreated, eternal, unintelligent, chaotic gas. Yeah hydrogen can be somewhat chaotic, if the universe was initially noble gasses, it would have been far more boring. Though I'm not sure about eternal, I don't know how the gas formed, most likely far protons and electrons pairing, and then those formed from quarks, but beyond that who knows? I can only speculate just like any other human. I take your answer to mean “Yes we are just shrapnel in an uncreated unintelligent eternal explosion.” - am I misunderstanding you? My answer is that I believe it could be a possibility. I've been asking you how you can be right about anything. Well sometimes people are right and sometimes people are wrong. Sometimes people think something their whole life devote their life to something and right at the end find out they are wrong. Now maybe you're again going with "Oh ho if God didn't make your mind your mind is unreliable and you can't be right" but again thats silly, I have no reason not to trust my mind. Is your whole strategy in this conversation just, make him question his mind and then maybe he'll find God? Super duper. You don't think the lack of mental reliability in any alternative world-view is confirmation in itself? That seems like the strongest confirmation possible. What lack of mental reliability? YOU believe there is a lack of mental reliability, I do not. If you accepted that evidence and trusted at least that much I think God would then be able to confirm himself to you in other ways to build your faith but, as long as you reject the initial evidence, how could you trust any confirmation wasn't just a mental glitch? What evidence? So you're saying if I believe in God then I'll start seeing things that I can chalk up to God? God, show me a sign... Oh look! The wind blew that branch! That must be God! Oh listen! A Dog barked right after I said that, he must have made that Dog bark! After I work out each afternoon, I feel God inside of me because I'm all warm and sweaty. It seems God couldn't even prove himself to you as long as you deny that he made your mind reliable because you might conclude the confirmation was an illusion or hallucination. You don't even seem willing to consider the possibility of there being no mental reliability in any other world-view. The way you turn some of my questions around makes it seem like you have some kind of bias that prevents you from being too inquisitive about your beliefs or lack thereof. See thats the thing, I don't have a lack of mental reliability. I don't see some act of God and think it's an illusion or mental glitch. I see the wind blow the branch and I know it's the wind. I hear a dog bark and I know it's most likely because someone walked too close to his property. People looking for God desperately will start seeing God if he is there or not. "feeling" his presence watching over you? If you suggest to someone there is someone behind them and that they shouldn't turn around or the person behind them will attack, some people will really start feeling someone behind them and get very scared or paranoid. You say there is something keeping me from being too inquisitive about my beliefs? I say I look deeper into the truth of the matter, I looked behind me when someone said someone was behind me, even though they said it meant death. Someone says the lamp shade is rattling so it must be ghosts, I find the heater below it causing the hot air to rise and push the lamp shade around. Someone tells me a large man in the sky is shy about showing up and wants me to follow some rules, I question his existance. It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting your mind if God didn't make it. The impossibility of an alternative seems convincing to me. I'm just asking if you have any alternative. It seems all you have is who cares why not whatever. It just seems you don't have any rational justification for trusting God exists. The nonexistance of God seems convincing to me. I'm just asking for proof of his existance. It seems all you have is speculation that without God your mind wouldn't be reliable. I have faith in my mind just as you have faith in your God. You say a mind is reliable if it is created by God. I say a mind can be reliable even without the existence of God. Can I prove it? No of course not, just as much as you can prove that God exists. Do we both accept our minds are reliable? I hope so, otherwise we're probably both wasting our time. Your thinking is flawed. Your statement is: Your mind can only be reliable if God made it. You support this with: If God made your brain, then it would be reliable as he is perfect and would make an awesome brain. Any other way your mind would be formed would be imperfect. Now this is why I have a problem with this, this is assuming that God making it is the only way you can have a reliable mind. I can accept the statement: "If God made your brain, it would be reliable." Though, suggesting that any other form of creation being unreliable is where I have problems. Now can we agree that the mind is in the brain? I really don't want to get into a metaphysical conversation about that. Now a brain isn't special super material, it's made of cells which are made of atoms. Now these are arranged in a very special way to form our brain, either God created it, or it came together by itself over time through evolution, or whatever. Are you telling me that it is impossible that cells that formed could have formed together to create a brain with a mind? Improbable maybe, but impossible? I think not. Initially the belief that nothing else is trustworthy apart from God. Then hearing the gospel about Jesus dying for me and that my sins could be forgiven. Then reading the new testament, especially the words of Jesus. There was another experience which I remember thinking was like an internal confirmation to me but I think I had already accepted the fact that nothing made sense apart from God nor did I deny the truth of the gospel or anything like that. But I don't see how any of this could mean anything to you except for the first one. Well I personally have not come to the conclusion that nothing else makes sense apart from God. Whenever I give up trying to find the solutions to problems I'll start looking at God to give it a real quick answer. You could prove your existence to someone who believes in God but, if you were posing in front of an agnostic, how could they trust what they were seeing? A. "You" are part of an eternal gas cloud. B. So am "I". C. Therefore Kureji is real. As long as the agnostic wasn't questioning his reality, I'm sure I could convince him of my existence. What does having faith in myself mean? I have faith that I am not a broken machine. I have faith that my input and output are reliable. I have faith that I'm not crazy and that what I experience is actually happening. This is the only thing I have faith in. As you should know, as a man of God, faith is something you believe in, yet may not be able to prove. You have faith in God, right? It just seems that's the best an anti-theist can do when it comes to questioning his or her perception or knowledge. I've only asked you how you can trust your mind and you don't seem to have an answer. Well there is two possibilities. 1) my mind is reliable and your point is moot. 2) my mind is unreliable and you probably don't even exist so why am I talking to you? I assume the first, after all I'm still talking to you. Sounds like you're begging the question there. I don't really see what else you can do though since you don't want to believe that God made your mind. Anything referring to the mind is begging the question, it's why you can't PROVE to yourself that your mind is reliable, either you believe it or not because anything you might use as evidence is from your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 28, 2010 22:59:27 GMT -5
assuming my mind is reliable, and your mind is reliable I can prove my existence, is that better for you?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 28, 2010 10:23:14 GMT -5
I believe you can trust your mind to be reliable if you trust God - but how could you be sure you believe or know anything if you could not trust God who made your mind? You're assuming that the only way that your mind can be trusted is if God made it, I don't believe that's true. Either my mind is trustworthy, or it's not. God is not part of this equation. If God exists you could argue that he could give a more solid backing to your claim of trustworthiness, but his lack of existence would not give any evidence to it's inability to be trusted. How is the concern for reliable data relevant unless there is some initial reliability? For example, how would you know there's any such thing as reliable data in the first place? Why couldn't your mind seem consistent and still be completely unreliable? When you are checking for unreliability in hardware you run tests to see if the data you are receiving is consistent and makes sense. If you are constantly getting bad data, then something is wrong. Your brain is also hardware, if you are getting bad data, then you probably can not trust your brain. Now if hardware isn't working, it's very unlikely that you will still get good data just by chance, but it's very improbable. If it's possible that your mind is untrustworthy, then is it possible that you aren't actually agnostic or whatever? I suppose if my mind isn't trustworthy then it's possible that I'm actually a butterfly, but as I said before it's defeatist to start questioning your mind for no reason, you have yet to prove my mind is actually untrustworthy. You can't just win a debate by saying, hey maybe everything you perceive is wrong. Are you trying to tell me that you believe that you can't trust your mind? Of course you aren't because you believe God affirms your mind. Now are you saying that your mind is trustworthy because you believe in God and mine isn't because I don't believe in God? Then that's silly, either both of our minds are trustworthy or neither of our minds are trustworthy, God isn't part of the picture. Oh or we are both dragons flying through space. What asset? How could your mind be an asset unless God made it trustworthy? The source of my mind doesn't determine if it is an asset or not. That's like saying Toyota cars are not assets because they are made in Japan, though I can guarantee you that many people find them to be assets. Wouldn't the argument be more like "if something finite is there it must have a creator"? Seems that would either lead to infinite finite creator/creatures or God. If the first statement is true, then yes. We do not know if the first statement is true though. I think, for God, 'uncreated' and 'always existed' go hand in hand. How is magic a relevant idea? Do you know what magic is? Magic is simply something that we can't explain, something coming from a super natural source. What is more magic than a divine being? After all, religion is a good way to explain everything magically. So, in this view, the universe is kind of like God except it's unintelligent and lacking self control? I suppose you could say that the universe forming itself beginning as a large mass of hydrogen reacting and forming other matter could be seen as a God with absolutely no intelligence. So we would just be shrapnel in an unintelligent cosmic explosion? Does equating your life to shrapnel make you unpleased? Does the fact it's unpleasing make it less possible? Well you could never be right about anything either. Or maybe I'll be sometimes right and sometimes wrong, or maybe I'll be mostly right and almost never wrong, or maybe I'll be mostly wrong and almost never right. Or.. Oh wait, theres ALOT of possibilities here that we aren't talking about and listing them all would be silly. Especially since you like to focus on the ones involving me being right or wrong instead of what we were actually talking about. Why do you keep saying magical? I heard an atheist use that word about God before. Is that a line from a comic book or something? I say magical as explained above. Is insinuating that I read comic books supposed to be an insult? No I don't read comic books, at least I haven't in a long time. I guess maybe one of them might have said the word magical or magic, they are common words. Perhaps you don't like that word being equated to your religion because you don't believe in magic? How much better can you get than God loves us and made us to be happy with him forever? So God will give me a nice big hug and everything will be great if I believe in him? Just need to take your word for it, devote my life to him, with absolutely no confirmation from God himself and everything will be great? No thanks. But how can you judge what is likely or unlikely if God didn't make your mind reliable? Again, my mind can be reliable without God. How can I trust my mind without God? Why shouldn't I? You've yet to tell me why I MUST have God to believe in my mind. I don't see what's stopping you from trusting in God. I don't see whats stopping you from not trusting in God. It's possible for God because he can prevent outside interference. Oh and man too since we made working satellites as well and all. As for man-made stuff, I was thinking more along the lines of free energy machines I guess. There's usually some inherent contradiction in the design that cancels out the intended action. Yes, free energy machines are pointless as you can never get more energy back than you put in. That's actually a scientific law. I thought the objection (to the necessity of theism regarding mental reliability), that an infinite regress leaves us without reliable minds, doesn't work because, besides being logically unnecessary and irrelevant with God, it comes from a world-unview that lacks any mental reliability to begin with. In order for the objection to have any meaning there must be some mental reliability assumed to begin with. How is this possible without God? It seems like accepting the premise in order to object but assuming something contrary to the premise in order to validate the objection. If you need God to confirm your mental reliability, then good for you, believe in your God. I may not be able to prove my mental reliability but that doesn't mean I have to doubt it either. You have faith in God, I have faith in myself. You may say that you are betting on the stronger candidate, but I might argue that I'm more reliable than your imaginary super friend, as I can prove my existence. As Molly pointed out, an infinite regress leaves us with the same question - how do you know your mind is reliable? I have faith in myself. There is no point in questioning my own mind, even if it was flawed, the questioning would be flawed and I'd be back to where I started. If I can't trust in my mind, then you can't trust in your mind, or you don't even exist. Then why am I talking to you? Whats the point of this line of reasoning? I accept that my mind is reliable as it is my only real resource.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 27, 2010 15:36:31 GMT -5
]You might have a good foundation of trust in your own mind but you may not be sure of the basis of this trust. If I can't have trust in my mind then what else can I have faith in? My mind is the only thing that I can use to perceive my existence and if I question that, then I have nothing to use as reliable data. As long as I don't start receiving large amounts of contradicting data, then I have no reason to question my mind, and even if my mind was gone and untrustworthy I probably wouldn't even know or care. Why try to eliminate your only asset? Seems defeatist to me. Maybe it was not clear that I meant God (uncreated) when I was talking about our intelligent creator? Seems to me we either have to accept the uncreated or accept an infinite regress and put all certainty into the trash can. Are there any more than these two options? Either (1) you accept the uncreated, or (2) you can never be wrong about anything ever again. The number one argument that God exists is that if something is there it must have a creator, but that leads to an infinite amount of creators, unless we accept that the creator is magical and uncreated and always existed. Unless we say that the universe also always existed and then we no longer need a creator since no one created the universe or the elements within it, and from the mass of matter everything was formed. Anyway, how do I have to accept anything or never be wrong about anything ever again? I'm not saying I have the answers for everything but I'm saying that I don't believe in your timeless magical creator. Most likely there is a much better explanation that neither of us are aware of and just because we don't know it doesn't mean I have to accept your belief on the matter. Who said you can only be smart if your parents are smart? I was only trying to derive what meaning I could from molly's statement. It didn't make sense to me either. It was meant to be a silly question. Saying that the uncreated needs a creator is silly. It also reminded me of perpetual motion machines or some kind of marijuana-induced question that didn't make any sense. I didn't actually assume that Molly uses drugs. a perpetual motion machine huh? I can think of something pretty close to that. How about Earth? The Earth is in perpetual motion spinning around it's axis and revolving around the sun. Now I'll admit it won't last forever, but it'll definitely do it for a while yet and I'd say that's a pretty good perpetual motion machine, but that's just marijuana-induced sillyness right? Now if you want something made by man, you can look at many other satellites out there for other examples. Now on the surface of Earth with gravity and air resistance and many other forces in act, perpetual motion because alot more difficult to the point of impossibility. I don't understand. I probably write in wrong ways all the time. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I don't think it's a big deal either, that was exactly my point. The rest isn't directed to me so, yeah..though.. So, if there was an infinite regress of creators of creators of creators etc., then how could you be certain of anything? what does an infinite amount of creators have to do with being certain of anything? I'd assume they'd be independent of each other?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 27, 2010 15:10:34 GMT -5
I don't understand the part where agnostics think they can be moral. How can you consider anything "right" or "wrong" if you don't believe in God (or at least a god)? What is absolute truth for an agnostic? Where does it come from? I understand (even if I believe them to be wrong) where people from other religions can think that they're moral because they believe in a god or gods that have defined absolute truth, but I don't understand where agnostics or atheists can think they're moral or where their sense of absolute truth comes from. By the way, I am not trying to be rude. It's hard to write a message like this over the Internet and not seem rude or condescending. I really just don't understand. I'm a moral relativist personally, which means that morals are relative to everyone and what is moral to one person may be immoral to others but neither is wrong. A lot of people don't like this point of view because then you can argue that no one has a right to hold anything against anyone, but honestly those people are either people who are looking to abuse such a system, or those who are afraid of such a system. Now while I said morals are relative towards individuals, they are also relative towards society. Society comes together and agrees on a set of morals that they will all abide and this is how law and order is formed. Now everyone might not agree with the morals of society but it will be widely accepted. Now what are these morals formed from? Well it depends on the person, some peoples morals are formed from religious teaching, or perhaps even scholastic teaching such as from a college. Others simply define their set of morals as a rules that they wouldn't want to be commited against themselves, or to their loved ones. As a moral relativist I don't believe there is some divine meaning for right and wrong and that there is a magic rulebook somewhere that was created at the beginning of time which shows which is which. I personally would say that murder is wrong under most cases, bar self defense for instance. Though some might say murder is wrong under any circumstances even self defense, and some might say murder is never wrong. Though I think most societies wouldn't adopt the last philosophy on murder, lest they not last for long. Societies accept morals for stability, that is the basis for most moral standings. Without agreed upon moral standards within a society, it would most likely crumble. Now perhaps you are asking where I get my backings for my morals as an agnostic? I don't have the solid backing of a diety or anything as such, I simply can only trust what I feel from my experiences on what I would be okay with. I don't believe in hurting others whether that means physically, financially, or emotionally (severe emotional abuse of course, not like calling someone a silly name). by the way, haven't you ever been told by someone that what you were doing was wrong? Why did they say it? Did you agree that what you were doing was wrong? Your moral basis for the situation was different than theres but was it because they were immoral? Were you immoral? Or did you both just have different sets of morals which dictated your actions? I'm sure as a deeply religious person you would claim that as you were following the bible that you would have the high ground and be morally right, but that just might not be right. Also if you have any further questions for us silly agnostics feel free to make a thread in the worlds view debate section and I will answer them to the best of my ability. I've already muttled up this thread far too much.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 23, 2010 11:30:08 GMT -5
This is the kind of conversation that should be taking place in World Debating View, right? I wish it would, I so love these types of conversations and I'm not supposed to be posting like this out of there within reason. Though how can I pass up one of my favorite topics? First to Brother Ross, that preacher sounded like a fool teaching Jesus light and just couldn't take your preaching and stormed off like a toddler. I thought agnostics fail to acknowledge God. Based on that, "moral agnostics" seems like an oxymoron. Agnostics do not deny the possibility of God, but are not convinced that he exists either. Failing to acknowledge God seems a little strong of a statement. Moral Agnostic would be someone who is unsure of morals, which is not an oxymoron. I believe she ment an Agnostic with Morals though, which would be an Agnostic who still has a strong moral foundation of what they believe to be right and wrong. This is not an oxymoron, it just means that they may not be sure of the basis of their moral standing. By suppressing gratitude toward God you hurt God, you hurt the Lord Jesus, you hurt the Holy Spirit, you hurt any of God's creatures that are aware of your disregard for God, on judgment day everyone will be hurt to hear you confess to God about your ingratitude, and you hurt yourself both in this life and after the judgment. I suppose you meant ingratitude in the first sentence. You know showing my ingratitude towards William Hanna and Joseph Barbera hurts them, hurts Tom the cat, and hurts Jerry the mouse. It hurts all of his other imaginary cartoons, and hurts all of the children who enjoy those cartoons. Whenever you visit toontown and confess your ingratitude, you will really hurt after being put through a Rube Goldberg machine which involves a bowling ball rolling down a track and one of those birds that pecks like a metronome. When someone doesn't really believe in your faith, trying to scare them in to believing it kind of sounds the same as whats above. What does it matter if you don't love Jesus? If someone died for me and I disregarded them, refusing to honor them with my whole life, but flattered myself by saying I lived a good lifestyle, how could I have any respect for myself? Yeah again with the your faith part, you're assuming that Jesus dying for our sins thing from your religion. I'm not really buying that, see I'm finding it more likely the Romans just wanted to try and shut down the newest and coolest cult. I am grateful for his death as about as much as I am remorseful for stealing land from the Native Americans, I didn't do it, it didn't involve me. Same with Molly, she didn't have anything to do with Jesus being nailed to the cross, though you and your book claim she should worship and devote her life to it. Please. God created you to love him and be loved by him. and worship him and follow all of his rules in a book. Though never be around. Remember though, faith lets you hear and feel God. Also only idiots can't see the king's new suit. Since he is extremely generous and extremely wise the only sane expression of your love for him would naturally include gratitude and obedience. You would have to hate yourself in order to disobey someone who always knows what is best for you and you'd have to be all rotten in your heart to not be forever grateful for being given life.. Lets make a deal, God shows himself and proves that he's the real deal and I'll start thanking God for giving me life. Until then, none of the other possible Deities will be getting my love and devotion either. No one can completely trust their own mind. Says your mind. Am I the only Agnostic around here that trusts my own mind? ..if a loving and intelligent creator did not design my loving and intelligent creator, how can I believe he who created me to be loving and intelligent? wow.....are you a marijuana smoker? Yeah I'm not really getting where that was going either... perhaps shes saying something along the lines of who created the creator? Though if we take it at face value, that she can only believe she is smart if her parents were smart, and their parents were smart and forward down the line recursively, eventually we might find someone not smart and deduce everyone to be not smart which is a strange argument to make. Though claiming she smokes marijuana because of it is just silly. No one is perfect after all, and I'm sure she just miswrote a word or so, such as you did in your first post.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 22, 2010 18:23:18 GMT -5
I'm in the Austin area now and plan on coming to San Marcos. When do finals start? Finals are May 5th-12th, sorry for the late reply. I don't check here as often as I did. Lemme know when you're planning on coming. Will your wife be here too?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Apr 15, 2010 10:49:12 GMT -5
as another agnostic, I just want to point out that watching you gather a crowd the way you do is hilarious and most entertaining to watch. Though after years of watching I wish that the crowds would come up with new things to ask instead of the same old things, but thats hardly your fault.
Micah, you still need to come down here to San Marcos. I'm waiting for you. Also, let me know before you come so I'll know to look for you.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Mar 29, 2010 20:38:05 GMT -5
wait you mean you're for real? What kind of street preacher puts punching the devil all up in his man junk in his sig?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Mar 6, 2010 20:08:23 GMT -5
you are going to get left unless you get right. ...I see what you did there.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Mar 4, 2010 3:52:36 GMT -5
This poll seems a little one sided, how do you vote no?
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Mar 4, 2010 3:39:24 GMT -5
It was illegal here in Texas until not too long ago, I think I was around 10 or 12 when they finally got rid of that law. Kinda hard to enforce the don't poke each other in the behind law if neither party is going to report it.
|
|
|
Post by Kureji on Nov 25, 2009 14:40:11 GMT -5
What exactly was it that I did that was unintelligent? Was it that I disagreed with you? That's hardly grounds for being unintelligent. After all you are not the infallible God that you are trying to enlighten me to.
I might be inclined to believe you aren't Dale, but then I lean towards you being one of his non-believing friends who are also lurking the site. Definitely came off too strong too quickly. Did you really invest money in making that site just for this or did you guys just find a website and decided to claim it for your own? The site looks like it could have been pulled together quite quickly. In fact it was registered on Oct 31, 2009, This last halloween. That's pretty quick too bad I can't seem to find who registered it, only that it was registered at godaddy.com I could probably find more but I gotta leave soon for turkey day traveling.
Dang Dale, if it is you and you're exposed already, you must have wasted a good deal of cash just then.
|
|