Jesus was the biggest blasphemer ever

[Perc]

hence, I am not brainwashed because I believe it on my own, not for another.

Uh huh..and how did you come to jesus?  I suppose you caused the bible to be written and the priests to be put in their place?  I suppose you thought up god and caused him to exist?

It came from somewhere, matt, and most likely your parents or another set of people who you consider peers or your betters.  You didn't think up the christian religion all on your own, so for you to say that you believe it on your own is completely ludicrous.  Furthermore, I feel that your continued use of illogical rhetoric invalidates any opinion you may hold concerning the moron who thinks that Coke and leaves are not addictive and are used for medicinal purposes the majority of the time.

Try thinking about the growth and distribution of Coke and leaves to various undeveloped peoples in south america.  The people in power make them widely available, and the toniculace is tonic-high all day and into the night..  ..these people work 14-16 hour days in forced-labor conditions.  Add to this that the leaves are addictive to these people so they lose all ability or need to stop, and you have the makings of a massive pseudo-slavery labor machine.  Think it's not addictive?  The definition for addiction is continued use of a substance or other focus, when such use causes drastic negative consequences.  Chronic chewing of Coke and leaves leads directly to the falling-out of these people teeth: is this not a drastic negative consequence?

mo�ron      /ˈm�”rɒn, ˈmoʊr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr-on, mohr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.  
2. Psychology. a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, having an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69.  

I don't know what your good-buddies IQ is, but I'm sure that his good judgement is notably lacking when he purports Coke and leaves as being safe and medicinal.

[invincible13matt]

whoops, wrong moron. Sorry about that. And your cocoa leaves thing is off-topic.

And you are misusing brainwashed. No one just comes to Christ of their own free will, the bible is clear of that. If left to our own devices, we will wallow in sin, enjoy it. There has to be someone to pull us out of it. However, you believe, somehow, that I was forced into it. This is untrue. It was my decision, and mine alone. I can choose to live a lie, undetected by anyone, for as long as I wish. But I did not choose that. I chose Christ.

Also, why do you keep calling my rhetoric invalid? I have made no lapse in logic as of yet.

[invincible13matt]

and I love how you feel it is necessary to constantly be vehement about this. There's no need to be so mad about it. This topic was created for friendly discussion, not for figuratively shouting at each other.

[Perc]

And you are misusing brainwashed.

Actually I said cultural brainwashing, let me restate:
The systematic indoctrination and change of attitudes and beliefs based on repitition of myths and the inherant confusion caused by stating such myths as facts promoted by a particular social, or ethnic group to be transmitted from one generation to another.

cul�ture      /ˈkʌltʃər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhl-cher] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tured, -tur�ing.
�noun 1. the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.  
3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.  
5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.  
6. Anthropology. the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.  
*unrelated definitions deleted


brain�wash�ing      /ˈbreɪnˌwɒʃɪŋ, -ˌwɔʃɪŋ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun 1. a method for systematically changing attitudes or altering beliefs, originated in totalitarian countries, esp. through the use of torture, drugs, or psychological-stress techniques.  
2. any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials.  
3. an instance of subjecting or being subjected to such techniques: efforts to halt the brainwashing of captive audiences.

So, how am I misusing that phrase?

No one just comes to Christ of their own free will, the bible is clear of that. If left to our own devices, we will wallow in sin, enjoy it.

This is exactly the type of rhetoric I am speaking about.  Why is the state of being open minded considered sin?

However, you believe, somehow, that I was forced into it. This is untrue. It was my decision, and mine alone. I can choose to live a lie, undetected by anyone, for as long as I wish. But I did not choose that. I chose Christ.

To quote blindly someone who probably did not understand the true meaning of his words: "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he does not exist."  You do not recognize the forced nature of your 'chosen' beliefs.  You have been systematically indoctrinated into a way of thinking that is centuries old and based on myths and falsehoods.

Also, why do you keep calling my rhetoric invalid? I have made no lapse in logic as of yet.

I don't think you understand what rhetoric is.  I hate to repeat myself, but since it's just a copy/paste:

rhet�o�ric      /ˈrɛtərɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ret-er-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
�noun 1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.  
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.  
3. the study of the effective use of language.  
4. the ability to use language effectively.  
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.  
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.  
7. (in classical oratory) the art of influencing the thought and conduct of an audience.  
8. (in older use) a work on rhetoric.

Rhetoric is the 'artful use of words,' or the 'art of influencing the thought and conduct of others.'  This is another way of saying 'using words instead of evidence,' which is another way of saying 'cultural brainwashing.'  See?  It's all connected, I have delt with your kind before and you are not nearly as strong in your belief or as wise in your use of words as some of my past opponents.  I know you must feel backed into a corner and confused by my unflinching use of reason, and I must stress that this is because you cannot use any of your arguments in a reasonable way.  Everything you say is backed up by ancient texts, which are themselves backed up by nothing.  Everything I say is backed up by repeated experiment and refinement of thoughts amongst intellectuals.  It is no wonder that your stuttering and incoherant replies cannot touch my brilliant arguments.

Find the best amongst you: the most educated, the most faithful.  I will debate your champion into the ground.  You are but a speedbump.

[Perc]

and I love how you feel it is necessary to constantly be vehement about this. There's no need to be so mad about it. This topic was created for friendly discussion, not for figuratively shouting at each other.

It may in fact have been started for that reason, but it has turned into you ('you' henceforth to be defined as 'the religious mob of RIA') overriding the (loose and incoherant) arguments of those who disagree with you.  I have seen this before, and I cannot stand the religious mob trying to outargue people (unable to succesfully counter your mob tactics) who try and reasonably state opposing opinions.  I am representing the opposition to religion, and I represent it with serious amounts of time spent educating myself, not only in scientific disciplines but also in religious.  Your fallacies will not defeat me, for I have studied hard the ways of my enemy.

As far as why I am so vehement, I have already stated my dislike of seeing reasonable (if ignorant) people being trodden on by the masses of the faithful, but also because I enjoy defeating you with logic and right-mindedness.  I enjoy shoving the fermented drivel which represents your religion into the faces of those who try and spread their sickness.  I am using your own tactics against you, and you don't like it.  How do I know the tactics you use?  They were tried on me.  I am still cleaning my mind of the last vestiges of religious training recieved when my mind was too young and malleable to defend itself.  Now that I'm better, I have taken seriously the fact that this is war.  Your minds are already lost, but it is not too late to read a book.

[cctmsp13]

I would comment, but as this has turned into a battle of dictionaries, I would like to declare the following instead:

I don't hold any one individual responsible, but this topic is now full of Phail.  As such I declare this topic will no longer be about the topic,instead it will be about Funktuar

Jesus was the biggest blasphemer ever

I believe Funktaur is the wrong direction for the RIA.  Funktuar makes us look like an alliance that wishes to relive the '70s and bring back disco.  Personally I do not wish the RIA to be associated with disco, and so say down with Funktuar, up with Cactuar

[Perc]

But funktuar would bring groovy tunes!

..and I only quote the dictionary because these people are misusing words.  I vote for the great reading-comprehensiontuar to take his place as vice-admiral to funktuar.

[schneereich]

i have better things to do than get caught in an argument which nobody will win. i just wanted to tell callofduty to bugger off b/c this is a public forum and you cant just impose your will on it (unless you are a mod i guess). and then i had to tell pielord that i would rather not be preached to when im just trying to play an online game.

everything that i would say can be found elsewhere online anyway, as i am not the only person in the world who has come up with good reasons to be an athiest, and there are countless websites with good reasons to be a christian too. in the unlikely event that i feel the need to convert, i will seek the information on my own, thanks.

have fun arguing your points!

[Perc]

I have already won.

I have shown the futility of believing without question in the existance or non-existance of god.

You said that nobody can win the argument, and I believe you refer to the existance or non-existance of god.

I say that I have won because I take a third position, the only valid position based on the total lack of any evidence, which is to simply state that "I don't know."  This is the only sane argument; this is the only possible argument; this is the only honest argument.

I want to specify that while I think people who unquestioningly believe in god are nutso, they are but the umbrella group of a specific group which I was 'vehemently' arguing against.  This group is 'religious' people, who believe that their way of unquestiongly believing in god is somehow superior to the ways that others unquestiongly believe in god.  All of these people get lumped (by me, in my wisdom) into the religious group and are not only crazy but stupid.

I have already won, because I can take the simple step and admit that I know nothing.

[invincible13matt]

You sicken my heart. And that takes a lot, considering I am rather heartless. You speak of open-mindedness, and yet because I am trying to argue for a certain viewpoint you classify my arguments as the same as those you have encountered before.

I am trying to be reasonable, not trying to stampede over my opposition. I am attempting, as you are, to convince others of my viewpoint. However, the difference is the method. You seem to believe that by being vehement and bitter, that your argument is effective. You are decidedly closed-minded against what you consider religion. I am not part of a religion. I have had to state this many times. What I am talking about is a relationship with God, who I fully believe in. I base my belief off the teachings of Jesus Christ, who I believe to have risen from the dead based on the account of scripture.

You believe that you are in the right mind. I believe that I am in the right mind. THAT is why we differ. And do not say that you do not believe, you know, because that is literally impossible. You cannot know until you meet your maker, or lack thereof. I do not mind your tactics. I mind your complete lack of disrespect and your apparent vindication by the belief that you are decimating your opposition.

I never said that being open-minded was a sin. I said that what humans do when left to their own devices is sin.

And, again, I am not brainwashed. Brainwashing, regardless of whether it is by culture or not, is the deliberate forcing of a belief onto a person. I reiterate, I was not forced. I chose it. I was not brainwashed as you think. I, not my parents, not my culture, not my friends, not my peers, chose it. So stop trying to convince me I was brainwashed. I can think clearly, contrary to what you may think. I have taken a look into all other things, and come to my own conclusion.

And you miss def. 5 of rhetoric. I think I'm talking in prose.

Oh, and you might want to deflate your ego. I don't feel any sort of panic or backing into a corner. In fact, I am feeling quite refreshed. I was almost disappointed that this topic (amongst others) seemed dead.

And my "ancient texts" are backed up by eyewitness accounts and other such things. Things that even you acknowledged, i.e. the treasures you spoke of earlier. Many historians agree on the validity of the non-divine aspects of scripture; events such as the crucifixion, birth of certain people, things like that. Stuff that no one would bother disagreeing with because it has no effect on a "religion." Most of these scholars agree that Jesus was crucified. Hence, that part of my argument has some validity. After his crucifixion, a rich man named Joseph asked for the body, unusual for a victim of crucifixion. Pilate, possibly because, as the Bible states, he did not like the whole affair in general, granted Joseph's request. And so Jesus was buried.

This is where we get into the parts that historians tend to disagree about- the divine stuff. The resurrection of Jesus is widely debated. But I believe that he was resurrected, because no one has come up with an effective argument against it. This is why I believe how I do. So don't say I'm brainwashed. I've been through this many times. It holds water.

And cc, I completely agree.

[invincible13matt]

did I ever say I knew anything? That is why this is called faith, my friend.

[Perc]

I am attempting, as you are, to convince others of my viewpoint.

I will come back to (an edited version of) this statement, but for now I will respond to it directly in it's entirety:

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, I am simply stating facts in a public forum and defeating false arguments that others have given.

On to the meat of what I have to say.  You sir, are a hyppocrite!  Out of one side of your mouth you say:

I am not part of a religion.

And this doctrine simultaneously spews from the other side:

What I am talking about is a relationship with God

Capitalization of the word god is a christian doctrine.

I base my belief off the teachings of Jesus Christ

The "teachings of jesus christ" are part of the christian doctrine.

based on the account of scripture.

Basing beliefs on religious scripture is evidence of the pervasiveness of christian doctrine in your life.

Most of these scholars agree that Jesus was crucified. Hence, that part of my argument has some validity.

What scholars?  Show me a peer reviewed scientific journal which purports to have factual evidence of jesus christ.  It is christian doctrine to purport that 'experts' agree on evidence of the validity of religion.

This is where we get into the parts that historians tend to disagree about- the divine stuff.

Again, to which historians do you refer?  I state that there are in fact none, so prove it.  It is christian doctrine to purport that 'experts' agree on evidence of the validity of religion.

But I believe that he was resurrected

More christian doctrine.

This is why I believe how I do

Belief without proof is called faith, which is part of christian and other religions' doctrine.

It holds water.

I guess you gotta end with a bang right?  When all else fails just try and say you're right and I'm wrong.  LoL

This is just from one post; I could go back and gather a 'best of' collection of the stupid, indoctrinated filth that you spew, but I just don't care enough.  You didn't come up with any of those things that I quoted on your own.  Not a single original thought.  You look pretty brainwashed to me.  The rest of your post is just more rhetoric..  *yawn*

Also, this is funny:

I mind your complete lack of disrespect

[Perc]

did I ever say I knew anything? That is why this is called faith, my friend.

See my last post for information on faith.  Also, I am not your friend.

[pielord47]

nothing is absolute and i only misspell words so it is faster to type
when you im someone do you sit and spell everything perfectly with great grammar!?
and you did not answer my question: which is more likely- the big bang or an allpowerful deity creatng evrything?

[invincible13matt]

True Christianity, by my standards, is a relationship with Jesus. I believe in Christian doctrine, that is correct. Did I ever say I was trying split with that? It's just my view that it is not religion is why I am different. The word religion stems from literally means, "to bind back," hence, religion is man's attempt to bind himself to God. Christianity is different in that it is God trying to get man to come to him.

Also, I was actually Wiki-ing it as I was typing it, that's where my sources come from... look up "Historical Jesus."

Oh, yes. To me, for no apparent reason, when something hasn't happened in billions of tries, somehow that indicates to me that it should be happening sometime soon. Don't ask why. It's my weird mannerism.

I move to end this argument, on account that it is getting nowhere. This happens in debate. You and are both convinced absolutely that we are in the right, and we each have extremely strong convictions. This debate will not go either way, neither of us is getting anyway, in other words, it is utterly pointless. I will no more believe that I am wrong than you undoubtedly do. And, as you probably know with your undoubtably large intellect, doing something pointless is stupid. Actually, I think this proves we're both insane... we keep doing the same thing over and over as if expecting different results.

[Perc]

nothing is absolute and i only misspell words so it is faster to type

Whatever gets you through the night, dude.

when you im someone do you sit and spell everything perfectly with great grammar!?

Yes.  No, not really, but at least I try.  Also, this is not an IM, it is a semi-serious debate on the nature of the universe..

and you did not answer my question: which is more likely- the big bang or an allpowerful deity creatng evrything?

I could not understand that you were asking a question, or what such a question may have been, due to your complete lack of regard for the structure of the english language.

But to answer your question, I don't think they are mutually exclusive.  If you actually read my post, instead of judging me by what you imagined someone like me would say, you would understand that I do not deny the possiblility of the existance of god.  We *do* know for sure that all of the stars in the known universe are moving away from a single point, at a relative constant acceleration, so there is a lot of evidence as to the veracity of the big bang theory.  However, what caused the big bang is a question nobody can yet answer.  If and when we do answer that question, we must think about what caused the thing that caused the big bang..  ..and what caused that?  ..and what caused that?

It's a chicken vs. the egg problem, and the ultimate answer will not be reached until, to paraphrase matt: you meet or do not meet your maker.  I accept the possibility of either situation, but I strongly and vehamently deny the gospel as preached by InsertYourReligionHere.

[Perc]

True Christianity, by my standards, is a relationship with Jesus. I believe in Christian doctrine, that is correct. Did I ever say I was trying split with that?

Yes, in fact you did..  You said (and I quote) "I am not part of a religion."

It's just my view that it is not religion is why I am different. The word religion stems from literally means, "to bind back," hence, religion is man's attempt to bind himself to God. Christianity is different in that it is God trying to get man to come to him.

I don't care what etymological roots the word religion has.  Many modern words meant many things in the past which they do not mean now.  You're not going to convince me that christianity is not a religion.  Your poor attempt at semantical skulduggery fails.

Also, I was actually Wiki-ing it as I was typing it, that's where my sources come from... look up "Historical Jesus."

Wikipedia, while an invaluable resource for lower level school reports and personal acculturation, is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Oh, yes. To me, for no apparent reason, when something hasn't happened in billions of tries, somehow that indicates to me that it should be happening sometime soon. Don't ask why. It's my weird mannerism.

I don't need to ask why.  Having studied psychology, I know that your condition is called "clinical insanity."

I move to end this argument, on account that it is getting nowhere.

Of course you do, you're wrong and so now are desperately trying to grasp at some way to end this in which you save face.  Too bad I see through your obvious ruse, eh?

This happens in debate. You and are both convinced absolutely that we are in the right, and we each have extremely strong convictions. This debate will not go either way, neither of us is getting anyway, in other words, it is utterly pointless. I will no more believe that I am wrong than you undoubtedly do. And, as you probably know with your undoubtably large intellect, doing something pointless is stupid. Actually, I think this proves we're both insane... we keep doing the same thing over and over as if expecting different results.

You say that this debate will not go either way, and that is correct, because it has already gone my way.  I have strong, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence, you have "something someone wrote."  Sounds to me like you're trying to 'weasel' your way out of this argument by appealing to the moderators to end end a discussion rather than let me speak.  This is exactly the tactic hitler and countless other book-burning tyrants have employed to silence words which do not promote their aims.  The results which I expect from this exchange is not to convince you of anything.  I couldn't care less what someone like you thinks.  My aims are to shoot down the lies that you and people like you purvey to the poor minds of this board, and expose those lies for what they are.  Therefore it is only you who persist in banging your head against the wall: bringing to the table again and again falsehoods and lies, while I continue to eruditely defeat your feebly constructed 'thoughts,' if you can even call them thoughts..  ..more like groupthink.  To be succesful in this endeavor to champion the unheard party in this debate, I must continue with fervor that matches and in fact exceeds yours, which I have apparently done, since after only one half a day you are ready to throw in the towel.

You have thrown your best arguments at me, and I have obviously addressed each of them in turn.  You are evidently not the man for the job.

Like I said, get the best debator amongst you to champion your christ doctrine, your allah doctrine.  I will simply continue to poke holes and point out pre-existing holes in doctrinal 'logic.'

[Perc]

This is exactly the tactic hitler and countless other book-burning tyrants have employed to silence words which do not promote their aims.

It didn't work for them either, don't feel bad.

[cctmsp13]

This topic has become like a trainwreck, horrible, yet I can't make myself look away.

(breathe)
OK, I tried to be subtle, but this is beyond even the powers of Funktaur to stop.  

First things first...
 
Perc, you will not compare a fellow RIA member, or anyone on these forums to Hitler. Hitler and the Nazis worked hard being as evil as they were, and I will not have you disgracing their determination and hard work in the persuit of evil.

That being said, it is time for all to understand that it is completely possible for two people to draw differing, even contradictory conclusions from the same evidence.  We humans are limited, we do not understand everything.  We can not look past the Planck time to the beginning.

We've reached a point in this discussion, where productive discussion has stopped.  Anything further is pointless.

Ultimately I'm powerless to stop you, but I will say this.  It takes two to have a fight, if one of you doesn't show up, this ends.  So, I plead with you just walk away.  Don't even post that you agree with this post, just let this topic die the death it deserves.

And if one of you sticks around, and proclaims they have won because the other "ran away", just know it will tell me far more about your maturity (or lack thereof) than it does the correctness of your arguement.

If anyone wishes to respond, use a PM.  This topic is dead to me now.      

 

[Perc]

I have to reply, just on general principal, since you told me not to.

That's all