FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Funny arguments for God

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion
 


loyal
peace be upon you all.

I discovered this page with lots of ridicolous to the point of being funny philopsical arguments:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm wrote:

#

ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE RIGHT
(1) God saves the queen.
(2) The queen hasn't died.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM SQUARE CIRCLES
(1) There is no such thing as a square circle.
(2) God is not a square circle.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM DICTATORSHIP
(1) Dictators do not believe in God.
(2) Dictators are wrong.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM TERROR (Martin Luther's argument)
(1) The lightning storm filled me with the terror of God's wrath.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM MEANING
(1) Nothing has meaning without God.
(2) I mean...
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM SEMANTIC UNCERTAINTY
(1) Atheists can't quite agree on the exact definition of Atheism.
(2) Therefore all Atheists are wrong.
(3) Therefore God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM TROUBLESOMENESS
(1) God really, really bothers me.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#

WAYSON'S ARGUMENT
(1) Scientists generally accept the theory of evolution.
(2) I don't.
(3) Therefore, they are lying or fabricating their data.
(4) Therefore, God Exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM ASHCROFT
(1) I say God exists.
(2) I could have you locked up, you know.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM IT'S MY BALL AND YOU CAN'T PLAY
(1) There is abundant logical and empirical evidence that God does not exist.
(2) There is no evidence that God does exist.
(3) But God plays by completely different rules.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM DISCOMFORT
(1) I am happy, believing in God.
(2) Then you come along and say all this nasty stuff to take my happiness away.
(3) *sniff*... *sniff*... why are you making me uncomfortable?
(4) Anyone who makes other people uncomfortable must be different. And bad. And ignorant.
(5) Daddy will hug me!
(6) Therefore, God exists.

#

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

#

DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

#

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.


Indi
loyal wrote:
I discovered this page with lots of ridicolous to the point of being funny philopsical arguments:

Wow, i remember that from years ago, back when it was still just 300 proofs. ^_^; Seems some people have been busy.

There is another version by the same people that goes the other way, but it doesn't have quite the same effect. The "proofs" one uses actual, real-life arguments for the existence of god (albeit in very crude language) mixed in with the nonsense ones (like the argument from Eric Clapton). Take a look at the ontological arguments for example - those are actually literally the real thing, and the various other arguments like the arguments from design and first causes are crudely but honestly represented too. The "disproofs" one just takes the proofs one and makes everything opposite... but it doesn't use any actual real proofs against.

Someone should take the time to make a proper 300+ arguments against the existence of god, using real atheist arguments. That would be amusing if it could be done, but i can't imagine anyone actually getting it done. There's really only one proof against, and all others are just different forms of that, so it would probably be a boring list in comparison to the proofs one.

There were a couple i remember liking. i remember the one about Eric Clapton being god, therefore god exists. There was one that basically went "you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, i have faith in god, it's the same thing", therefore god exists. There was another one about a challenge to prove evolution true that was hopelessly rigged so as to be impossible, and so no atheist has done it, therefore god exists. But the best was a really clever one about how god must exist or else atheists wouldn't talk about him so much, and when the atheist refutes... ^_^.
catscratches
Quote:
ARGUMENT FROM DICTATORSHIP
(1) Dictators do not believe in God.
(2) Dictators are wrong.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Ehrm, I've never heard of a dictator that does not believe in god...

Apart from that, they're rather funny.
HereticMonkey
Thought the quotes were sort of funny (a bit obscure in some cases, but basically funny...).

catscratches wrote:
Ehrm, I've never heard of a dictator that does not believe in god...

Apart from that, they're rather funny.


Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pinochet, Bonaparte, Hitler; I think dictators that actually believe in God are the exception rather than the rule....

HM
IceCreamTruck
Just curious what the atheists say is proof God does not exist.....

I'm pretty much pantheistic, so I say just the fact that anything exists at all proves God, but maybe not empirical proof, just my opinion.

I'm not sure I would call myself Pantheistic, I've just heard myself classified as that. I believe that God/The Universe is everything that is/was/will be, not some white bearded man in the sky judging us for what we do.
blackheart
IceCreamTruck wrote:
Just curious what the atheists say is proof God does not exist.....

I'm pretty much pantheistic, so I say just the fact that anything exists at all proves God, but maybe not empirical proof, just my opinion.

I'm not sure I would call myself Pantheistic, I've just heard myself classified as that. I believe that God/The Universe is everything that is/was/will be, not some white bearded man in the sky judging us for what we do.


I'm an Atheist - or at best agnostic - and I don't believe God can be proved or disproved. You either have faith, or you don't, and it all depends on the individual.

I don't, but people can believe what they want about the existance of a divine being, it really doesn't affect me all that much Very Happy .
tiboo211
I had a funny debate too about: Is God a woman?
and the answers were like those answers too.

I remembered those few arguments:

+ Women are sophisticated
+ God is sophisticated
=>So, God is a woman...

+ Woman are perfect(beautiful, nice...and so on of course! Laughing )
+ God is perfect
=>So, God is a woman

+ Woman are always right
+ God is always right too
=>So, God is a woman!!

For me, I don't think it's very relevant but it was only for debate... Rolling Eyes
spinout
I suppose Boatwright's argument was the best. Laugther is the best proof... The inventor of laughter must be a great nicname so say!
SlugDragon
To the original arguments -
___________________________
'God saves the queen' is not something able to be proved, therefore, the argument is invalid.

It is said, by christians themselves, that god is in and is everything. Therefore, god is a square circle, which, according to that proof, means he does not exist.

Most dictators DO/DID believe in god, it's the trend, as they believe that god wants a certain ideal for the world and carry it out. Before you give examples to prove your point, HereticMonkey, make sure it's proper proof. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all religious.

No where in Martin Luthers statement is it said that gods wrath does indeed exist with actual proof. The argument is invalid.

If nothing has meaning, and something was said, then nothing can't have meaning since nothing did not exist. Therefore, nothing is something untouched in that argument.

If it's said that all atheists are wrong due to their inability to completely define and pinpoint atheism, then it can be said that all other religions are wrong due to their utter inability to agree on the right supreme being to worship.

It's the idea that would have bothered the author. If this were in context, it might make sense.

Wayson is an egotistical ass.

Ashcroft is threatening us int he true heart of christian expansionism.

If there's prrof aqgainst him, then how do we know he not only exists, but plays by different rules? This is a nonsense and poorly construed argument at best.

This author must obviously be hopped up on Lexapro to be 100% happy, all the time, believing in god every second. Therefore, the argument is defunct due to the fact that it's written by a pill-popper.

Boatwright,it's obvious, is a patient at a mental institution.

Dore knows Boatwright as a roommate, apparently.

I refute one.
______________________________________

There are many proofs against, all of which make sense, and the main one, which no christian can sensibly answer, is this:

How do you know the bible is truly something you should base your life off of?

There's no proof that it is actually a non-fiction book, or was written as such.

There are so many things...start a forum on it, or revive an old one. The 300 proofs can be constructed there, from the collective minds of many,a s opposed to the possibly biased views of 1.

However, you miss the point. The 300 proofs for were meant to show the true ways of god, so the polar opposite would be 300 proofs to show the false ways of god. Learn you argument before you use it.
HereticMonkey
I hate it when people make something fun something hard...And isn't personally challenging someone else against Frihost policy somewhere?

SlugDragon wrote:
To the original arguments -
___________________________
'God saves the queen' is not something able to be proved, therefore, the argument is invalid.

Then explain her long life and near escapes...And how a woman that age can fit into her prom dress...

Quote:
It is said, by christians themselves, that god is in and is everything. Therefore, god is a square circle, which, according to that proof, means he does not exist.

Omnipotence means you can do anything. It's just a matter of perspective...

Quote:
Most dictators DO/DID believe in god, it's the trend, as they believe that god wants a certain ideal for the world and carry it out. Before you give examples to prove your point, HereticMonkey, make sure it's proper proof. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all religious.

Stalin and Mao were religious only in the sense that they were fanatic atheists. Hitler may have gone to church, but his private memos and his closest associates point out that he was using religion solely for the PR (my proof being the rather voluminous library of journals, diaries, and statements from Hitler and his friends (coming to a PBS station near you!)). Before you choose paladins, make sure that they support your cause.

Quote:
No where in Martin Luthers statement is it said that gods wrath does indeed exist with actual proof. The argument is invalid.

As an eyewitness statement from an acknowledged expert in the field, it doesn't require proof.

Quote:
If nothing has meaning, and something was said, then nothing can't have meaning since nothing did not exist. Therefore, nothing is something untouched in that argument.

But...you're having to add that something was said, which was not part of the original argument (you can define meaning without necessarily saying something (just ask any teenage boy in love, who object of affection gives meaning to the boy's life). In other words, my argument re: the semantics of nothing cancels your argument re: the semantics of nothing...

Quote:
If it's said that all atheists are wrong due to their inability to completely define and pinpoint atheism, then it can be said that all other religions are wrong due to their utter inability to agree on the right supreme being to worship.

Apple, meet orange. That is, defining what your religion is is different than defining what you worship.

Quote:
It's the idea that would have bothered the author. If this were in context, it might make sense.

So, you can have something bother you without it existing on some level? Even if you just believe in it, it exists on that level. And since a divine being is defined by people believing in it, God thus exists...

Quote:
Wayson is an egotistical ass.

So? How is that even relevant? "Dude, he's a jerk; so when he tells you something, just ignore it!" fails to be a good argument...

Quote:
Ashcroft is threatening us int he true heart of christian expansionism.

Actually, Christians have stopped doing that for decades, at least. Now we just threaten people with pamphlets, food, and water purifiers...

Quote:
If there's prrof aqgainst him, then how do we know he not only exists, but plays by different rules? This is a nonsense and poorly construed argument at best.

If humans have a sense of humor, and we can show that you don't have a sense of humor, does that mean that you aren't human? And if so, what does that make you?

Quote:
This author must obviously be hopped up on Lexapro to be 100% happy, all the time, believing in god every second. Therefore, the argument is defunct due to the fact that it's written by a pill-popper.

And there you go adding something that didn't exist in the original equation. If the only way you can win a debate is to throw something in that wasn't part of the original equation, can you actually win?

Quote:
Boatwright,it's obvious, is a patient at a mental institution.

Which would prove that God exists. Said patients are said to be "touched by God"; how can they touched by a divine being if one does not exist?

Quote:
Dore knows Boatwright as a roommate, apparently.

See above argument. Your pick.

Quote:
I refute one.

Er...Okay. Could you provide a translation? Of course, I could point out that the automatic need to refute something without actually understanding it is a form of insanity, but that just leads us back to Boatwright...
______________________________________

Quote:
There are many proofs against, all of which make sense, and the main one, which no christian can sensibly answer, is this:

Sensibly: That nifty word which means, there is no way you can possibly phrase it so that I never get over my knee-jerk reaction to refute it (see refuting (1), above).

Quote:
How do you know the bible is truly something you should base your life off of?

1) I don't base my life off "the bible"; I base it off "The Bible" (basic English grammar: A specific entity is capitalized).
2) The Bible has a lot of wisdom between its covers. It's easy to find something that you can disprove, but we've been able to show that large parts of The Bible either made sense at that time (such as the prohibition against pork), or make sense in larger sense (such as The Book of Proverbs). So it is possible to argue that a lot of it is dated, and that those parts don't apply, but you can't refute that much of it. And it can be argued that you need to keep the parts that don't make sense so that you can see the evolution...

Quote:
There's no proof that it is actually a non-fiction book, or was written as such.

And it's immaterial. Even if it's 100% fiction, it wasn't meant to be a history, but something to teach people how to live. Although historians have been able to use it to find important locations, and military strategists have been able to re-stage battles based of its passages, that's never been the point. The question is whether or not the basic philosophy works, and if it can be used for day-to-day living. That is, can what it says be applied to living? I think that it can, and ultimately that's all that matters....

Quote:
There are so many things...start a forum on it, or revive an old one. The 300 proofs can be constructed there, from the collective minds of many,a s opposed to the possibly biased views of 1.

Um...Can someone else take this one? I don't where to begin...

Quote:
However, you miss the point. The 300 proofs for were meant to show the true ways of god, so the polar opposite would be 300 proofs to show the false ways of god. Learn you argument before you use it.

Truer words were never spoken; now, if you could apply that to yourself...

HM
SlugDragon
HereticMonkey wrote:
I hate it when people make something fun something hard...And isn't personally challenging someone else against Frihost policy somewhere?


I'm challenging the post, as I have nothing against Loyal or his ideals in the sense of attack.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Then explain her long life and near escapes...And how a woman that age can fit into her prom dress...


'Near escapes'? How about 'guards and security'...it's 'cuz she's intelligent, not because a god is there to protect her.

SlugDragon wrote:
It is said, by christians themselves, that god is in and is everything. Therefore, god is a square circle, which, according to that proof, means he does not exist.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Omnipotence means you can do anything. It's just a matter of perspective...


I don't think you realize that you just helped to prove my point...

SlugDragon wrote:
Most dictators DO/DID believe in god, it's the trend, as they believe that god wants a certain ideal for the world and carry it out. Before you give examples to prove your point, HereticMonkey, make sure it's proper proof. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all religious.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Stalin and Mao were religious only in the sense that they were fanatic atheists. Hitler may have gone to church, but his private memos and his closest associates point out that he was using religion solely for the PR (my proof being the rather voluminous library of journals, diaries, and statements from Hitler and his friends (coming to a PBS station near you!)). Before you choose paladins, make sure that they support your cause.


Hitler based Nazism off the fact that the Blonde-Haired and Blue-Eyed were gods chosen. Note: I'm not being strictly literal here, I'm using that as the wide-spread (and, in it's core, true) interpretation.

SlugDragon wrote:
No where in Martin Luthers statement is it said that gods wrath does indeed exist with actual proof. The argument is invalid.

HereticMonkey wrote:
As an eyewitness statement from an acknowledged expert in the field, it doesn't require proof.


Only the dead can really know, and therefore, be acknowledged experts, on the afterlife, and therefore, religion and it's truths. Seeing as to how Martin Luther, when he wrote anything that you apparently consider truth, was alive, he was not an expert at any time of his religious career.

SlugDragon wrote:
If nothing has meaning, and something was said, then nothing can't have meaning since nothing did not exist. Therefore, nothing is something untouched in that argument.

HereticMonkey wrote:
But...you're having to add that something was said, which was not part of the original argument (you can define meaning without necessarily saying something (just ask any teenage boy in love, who object of affection gives meaning to the boy's life). In other words, my argument re: the semantics of nothing cancels your argument re: the semantics of nothing...


I'm not adding that something was said, I'm stating, showing, that something was said. After noting that little detail you missed, I feel I can now ignore the rest of this response, as that's the basis of your response/refutation.

SlugDragon wrote:
If it's said that all atheists are wrong due to their inability to completely define and pinpoint atheism, then it can be said that all other religions are wrong due to their utter inability to agree on the right supreme being to worship.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Apple, meet orange. That is, defining what your religion is is different than defining what you worship.


Now you're finally beginning to see what I mean by things like differing sects of atheism vs. different sects of theism. Think further; you may find my meaning.

SlugDragon wrote:
It's the idea that would have bothered the author. If this were in context, it might make sense.

HereticMonkey wrote:
So, you can have something bother you without it existing on some level? Even if you just believe in it, it exists on that level. And since a divine being is defined by people believing in it, God thus exists...


What? Sense and cohesion are appreciated.

SlugDragon wrote:
Wayson is an egotistical ass.

HereticMonkey wrote:
So? How is that even relevant? "Dude, he's a jerk; so when he tells you something, just ignore it!" fails to be a good argument...


It is relevant in that it shows that one who stated he is above all others is not, one cannot be fully above all others in any way, in completion, at least. That shows an ego, eh?

SlugDragon wrote:
Ashcroft is threatening us int he true heart of christian expansionism.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Actually, Christians have stopped doing that for decades, at least. Now we just threaten people with pamphlets, food, and water purifiers...


Really? War in Iraq. While forcing democracy upon the devastated nation (don't say it was diplomatic, learn something before you go to that inaccurate, blinded, viewpoint), christians, jews, etc., went and put the two together, being viciously cruel in blending the two to the extent of converting religion when the natives were forced, by threat, to convert to democracy.

SlugDragon wrote:
If there's proof against him, then how do we know he not only exists, but plays by different rules? This is a nonsense and poorly construed argument at best.

HereticMonkey wrote:
If humans have a sense of humor, and we can show that you don't have a sense of humor, does that mean that you aren't human? And if so, what does that make you?


I do have a sense of humor, however, I find matters of religion, matters of people blinding themselves with a false cause their whole life, to be fairly serious.

SlugDragon wrote:
This author must obviously be hopped up on Lexapro to be 100% happy, all the time, believing in god every second. Therefore, the argument is defunct due to the fact that it's written by a pill-popper.

HereticMonkey wrote:
And there you go adding something that didn't exist in the original equation. If the only way you can win a debate is to throw something in that wasn't part of the original equation, can you actually win?


And there you go, interpreting everything too literally. It's a literary device, right there, which you apparently couldn't pick up on. The author writes "I am happy, believing in god", and it's assumed by most anyone that such a statement infers a permanent state of happiness whilst believing in this god of the authors'.

SlugDragon wrote:
Boatwright,it's obvious, is a patient at a mental institution.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Which would prove that God exists. Said patients are said to be "touched by God"; how can they touched by a divine being if one does not exist?


Because it's a phrase, an idiom, etc. They are also said to be "lost", "useless"...I could even make up my own thing, saying it out loud, and saying "It is said that such people are 'useless and touched by reality, the lack of a god', as they seem to be." There, I just said it. Phrases are useless, as anyone can create one.

SlugDragon wrote:
Dore knows Boatwright as a roommate, apparently.

HereticMonkey wrote:
See above argument. Your pick.


I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this.

SlugDragon wrote:
I refute one.

HereticMonkey wrote:
Er...Okay. Could you provide a translation? Of course, I could point out that the automatic need to refute something without actually understanding it is a form of insanity, but that just leads us back to Boatwright...


This is an example of my form of humor, something you seem to believe I don't have. You ahve been disproved in that.
______________________________________

HereticMonkey wrote:

Quote:
There are many proofs against, all of which make sense, and the main one, which no christian can sensibly answer, is this:

Sensibly: That nifty word which means, there is no way you can possibly phrase it so that I never get over my knee-jerk reaction to refute it (see refuting (1), above).

Quote:
How do you know the bible is truly something you should base your life off of?

1) I don't base my life off "the bible"; I base it off "The Bible" (basic English grammar: A specific entity is capitalized).
2) The Bible has a lot of wisdom between its covers. It's easy to find something that you can disprove, but we've been able to show that large parts of The Bible either made sense at that time (such as the prohibition against pork), or make sense in larger sense (such as The Book of Proverbs). So it is possible to argue that a lot of it is dated, and that those parts don't apply, but you can't refute that much of it. And it can be argued that you need to keep the parts that don't make sense so that you can see the evolution...

Quote:
There's no proof that it is actually a non-fiction book, or was written as such.

And it's immaterial. Even if it's 100% fiction, it wasn't meant to be a history, but something to teach people how to live. Although historians have been able to use it to find important locations, and military strategists have been able to re-stage battles based of its passages, that's never been the point. The question is whether or not the basic philosophy works, and if it can be used for day-to-day living. That is, can what it says be applied to living? I think that it can, and ultimately that's all that matters....

Quote:
There are so many things...start a forum on it, or revive an old one. The 300 proofs can be constructed there, from the collective minds of many,a s opposed to the possibly biased views of 1.

Um...Can someone else take this one? I don't where to begin...

Quote:
However, you miss the point. The 300 proofs for were meant to show the true ways of god, so the polar opposite would be 300 proofs to show the false ways of god. Learn you argument before you use it.

Truer words were never spoken; now, if you could apply that to yourself...

HM


The rest of this is bull. Actual points are barely touched. Elaborate with what's true, and eradicate that which is weak.

I refuse to capitalize that which should not, in my personal opinion, be as great or as blown out of proportion as it is, i.e., the bible. If it's not proper English, that's fine, but it's proper Stevanese, so we're all good.

Oh, and by the way, good job completely ignoring the posed question.
HereticMonkey
SlugDragon wrote:

I'm challenging the post, as I have nothing against Loyal or his ideals in the sense of attack.

There was no need to challenge the post; it was submitted to make fun of some of the arguments presented to defend religion, and Christianity in general. You're not just tilting at windmills here; you're attacking the idea of tilting of windmills. It's just silly, putting it nicely.

Quote:
'Near escapes'? How about 'guards and security'...it's 'cuz she's intelligent, not because a god is there to protect her.

God does seem to help them that help themselves...As she seems to help herself rather well, it's obvious that God saves the queen...And he has all the mylar needed...


Quote:
I don't think you realize that you just helped to prove my point...

How? My physics background allows me to deal with paradoxes rather easily; Schrodinger's Cat makes sense, and I can logic my way around the Grandfather Paradox. Now, if I can do that, why should a supposedly divine being that supposedly built the laws of physics themselves not be able to deal with a basic paradox?

Quote:
Hitler based Nazism off the fact that the Blonde-Haired and Blue-Eyed were gods chosen. Note: I'm not being strictly literal here, I'm using that as the wide-spread (and, in it's core, true) interpretation.

Nope. Hitler based Nazism of the idea that it's easy to make people do what you want them to do. Even the Main Kampf (sp?) points out that you should only be as religious as you need to be in order to convince people that you are one of them. Nazism was not his formal belief; rather, it was a means to an end. I just don't see Hitler as someone who would bow to anyone unless he could get something out of it...

Quote:
Only the dead can really know, and therefore, be acknowledged experts, on the afterlife, and therefore, religion and it's truths. Seeing as to how Martin Luther, when he wrote anything that you apparently consider truth, was alive, he was not an expert at any time of his religious career.

How do figure that? I would call it limited perspective, but that's me...After all, Luther would have access to a lot of reports from near-death experiences, as well as everyone that had been written on the subject. You could argue that he lacks personal experience, but you can't really argue that he wasn't an expert in the field, at least as much of one as he could be without actually dying...

Quote:
I'm not adding that something was said, I'm stating, showing, that something was said. After noting that little detail you missed, I feel I can now ignore the rest of this response, as that's the basis of your response/refutation.

Heh. "I don't like losing, so I'm quitting." Sorry; adding more air to a balloon counts as adding something to the balloon. The argument is a joke, period; in order to dispute it, you need to give it meaning that it doesn't have. You gave it meaning that you didn't have, so you added to it; you had to add air to a balloon.

Quote:
Now you're finally beginning to see what I mean by things like differing sects of atheism vs. different sects of theism. Think further; you may find my meaning.

I've been told not to do that sort of thing; that you did makes me jealous...

[I've been told not to make the point that atheism has anything to do with religion; my pointing out that they both have sects, you've pointed out that atheism and religion have linkage. Thanks!]

Quote:
SlugDragon wrote:
It's the idea that would have bothered the author. If this were in context, it might make sense.

HereticMonkey wrote:
So, you can have something bother you without it existing on some level? Even if you just believe in it, it exists on that level. And since a divine being is defined by people believing in it, God thus exists...


What? Sense and cohesion are appreciated.

Okay; follow the bouncing ball: The basic context is that God bothers the author, therefore God exists; if God did not exist, then He could not bother the author. And, yeah, you missed the joke; it's poking fun at the idea that just because you believe in something, doesn't mean that it exists. Just ask any physicist about caloric theory or the ether...

Quote:
It is relevant in that it shows that one who stated he is above all others is not, one cannot be fully above all others in any way, in completion, at least. That shows an ego, eh?

How is one's ego relevant to his being wrong or right? You have an obviously inflated ego, and yet you want me to believe you. Why should I believe you? Should I pay attention to your argument or your ego in determining your legitimacy?

Quote:
Really? War in Iraq. While forcing democracy upon the devastated nation (don't say it was diplomatic, learn something before you go to that inaccurate, blinded, viewpoint), christians, jews, etc., went and put the two together, being viciously cruel in blending the two to the extent of converting religion when the natives were forced, by threat, to convert to democracy.

Let me get this straight: You're blaming something on a politician's decision, and calling it Christian? Just because someone in politics says something, there isn't an actual reason to believe it. If Bush said he was Santa Claus, would you believe it? Wait; yes, you would apparently.

Also, where are the conversion attempts forced by Bush? What is your source on that?


Quote:
I do have a sense of humor, however, I find matters of religion, matters of people blinding themselves with a false cause their whole life, to be fairly serious.

Not a bad non-sequitor...The joke here is that I see you as the one who is blind, after all, you're assuming that your perspective is the correct one, and the only one. I'm at least willing to consider that you may be right; this would be a much less fun argument for me if you did the same...

Quote:
And there you go, interpreting everything too literally. It's a literary device, right there, which you apparently couldn't pick up on. The author writes "I am happy, believing in god", and it's assumed by most anyone that such a statement infers a permanent state of happiness whilst believing in this god of the authors'.

I'm taking it literally because it's more in keeping with the original post. Please at least try to keep up...


Quote:
Because it's a phrase, an idiom, etc. They are also said to be "lost", "useless"...I could even make up my own thing, saying it out loud, and saying "It is said that such people are 'useless and touched by reality, the lack of a god', as they seem to be." There, I just said it. Phrases are useless, as anyone can create one.

Except that it kills any credibility you may have had. And you had precious little, attacking what was obviously a light-hearted post in the first place. And phrases, as any entymologist could tell you, aren't useless; they tell a lot about the culture, and especially how that culture believes. Mad people were seen as "God-touched" because they saw things differently, and that's not always a bad thing, especially in a society as tied as Arabian culture was. As insane people don't lie within their belief system, once you have that system down that person can give you valuable insight into the situation. By saying that the person has been "touched by God", you are pointing out that person has insight that is only possible thanks to God.

Quote:
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to this.

Because you're trying to provide entertainment for the rest of us, I suppose...


Quote:
This is an example of my form of humor, something you seem to believe I don't have. You ahve been disproved in that.

Not yet....
______________________________________

Quote:
The rest of this is bull. Actual points are barely touched. Elaborate with what's true, and eradicate that which is weak.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it bull. Just don't believe in it, and we're cool. Attack a joke statement, and be a jerk about it, I tend to have fun with you. Develop a sense of humor, and we won't have this conversation again...

Quote:
I refuse to capitalize that which should not, in my personal opinion, be as great or as blown out of proportion as it is, i.e., the bible. If it's not proper English, that's fine, but it's proper Stevanese, so we're all good.

Here's the deal: I don't care if you think it deserves to be capitalized or not. It's a respect issue; you want me to respect you, give me a reason to. In all honesty, you haven't. You've taken a joke post seriously, demonstrated a personal ego the size of a mountain, not had the intelligence to realize that I poking fun at you, not had the common sense to go, "Oh. He's making fun of me. I need to respond appropriately" and still keep up the attack, and demonstrated a lack of ever studied history as anyone acknowledges it. And then you top it off by disrespecting my beliefs.

So why should I respect you?

Quote:
Oh, and by the way, good job completely ignoring the posed question.

You can't ignore something that isn't there. There was no question posed; just a sad attempt to stop someone from having fun...Did you ever think that by just leaving it alone, you would have had a far more effective attack if you had just left it alone?

HM
prizma
It is quite entertaining to see people arguing just for the sake of arguing, I argree with HM that this guy is way out of line, in that It's a freakin' joke!!! haha just outrageous really, but I have to admit one point The Bible has been translated and translated, written and rewritten, and don't take all information as fact for that reason but that does not mean there are not points of value inside, but it does mean that whoever was translating and rewritting these things had a vested interest in what the readers would believe.
SlugDragon
Y'all need to chill and realize that when you say 'It was just a joke',, realzie I wasn't serious, either. Get with it. I post to post, for the fun of it, whether it's a thing like that or not. It's jsut the kind of stuff I do. Devils Advocate, if you will.

If you see me post, realize it's probably not either my true opinion, or that it's simply for the sake of typing.

Peace,
SlugDragon.
Related topics

why do christians make prophet jesus as a god?
Want to insult people?
Attack on Sri Lankan Cricket players in Pakistan.
Quran and creation
The God Who Wasn't There
Really funny christian Joke
Who All Believes In Evolution?
[insert ethnicity here]
Can anyone (preferrably a Muslim) 'splane this to me?
Unintelligent Design
Support Danish
A debate of religion, science, and more
Another religions
Some Funny IRC Chats
Anything is POSSIBLE!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.