Pete's QBASIC Site

As usual, a religious figure tries to disprove science to prove religion with a grasping-for-straws example. Do weathermen study fossils? Or biochemical reactions? What...no?! Well c'mon, why the hell not? They're "scientists" after all, right? RIGHT? And do biochemists study weather patterns? Do historians study the effects of acid rain? What...no? Why the hell not? Because neither biochemists nor historians are weathermen.

Nathan1993, that example is futile and frankly, quite pathetic, like I've come to expect from a religious figure who doesn't have the answer. So no, you cannot explain it...and as long as you follow the religious crap, you will never be able to.

One thing I do believe in is, as in science,

- balance of power
- Every Action has an equal and opposite reaction
- Extreme cold and extreme hot
- Infinitaly small and infinitaly big
- Extremely simple and extremely complex
- Ultimately, extreme good and extreme evil.

You can add to this list .

Not sure i'd call extreme good God and extreme evil Satan. But the two extremes must exist to achieve perfect balance. just looking at the people in this world, there's bad people and good people (some much worse than bad and some much better than good (as the words are defined in the dictionary).

One thing we can all notice, scentists, boudhists, whatever else system of belief exists out there "religion itself" is having less and less of an influence on the things humanity does be it good or be it bad. you can see a group of people pull together to save a whale on the shore of a beach while on the other side of the island another group of people is cutting one up to sell it's parts (ok maybe not the same island but you get the picture ). Same goes for war and peace, violence and gentleness, hate and love.

No scientist and prove or disprove love either, does it mean that there's no such thing? I know otherwise . Just like dreams, science can't say what dreams are...some say it's images from our past life or past lives, you can't dream of things your being has never experiences....I beg to differ, even with just my dreams. Some say it's all symbolism and representation, could be, but on the other hand, I've never had a premonition in my dreams.

What about the occult? Mediums, Ghosts, Spirits, telekeneisis, telepathy, astral projections and the whole rest of them. Science says the occult is non existent, can't be proven. But I say it can't be proven by scientific methods, but it doesn't mean it can't be proven period. Ok I'm gonna go trekky on you guys, logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end. Spock anyone? lol Same thing for science. Not one system of analysis can be trusted to lay down what is/should be and what isn't/shouldn't be. Science tries to explain how things happen in among other ways, a cause to effect kinda way. What can be touched, seen, smelled, heard, and tasted. Other types of analysis will try to find out now how but why things happen.

Like I said before (it's growing on me lol) anyone that claims one discipline has being the only one with the right answer can kiss my (_|_) .

What science can't explain something else can. Period

Nekrophidius wrote: Nathan1993, that example is futile and frankly, quite pathetic, like I've come to expect from a religious figure who doesn't have the answer.

Yes Nek I agree with you 100%. He didn't have a good answer, he's only new in this from what I've gathered and haven't been taught enough...He did make a good point though.

I don't think that I have a good enough answer eigther but I will give it a shot.

For one thing being skeptic is what I do best. probaly too much, but I'm willing to make a leap of faith once in a while.

PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ ALL OF THIS.

I have this other doctrine "Better safe than sorry, do be prepared". Ok I'm going to look at this big picture without any biasism at all for a minute.
There are two possible realities that I think that we all can agree to.

1. Its a hoax and the whole things a lie
2. It's all true and God exsists

Now MystikShadows says he believes in science and so do I. He also said for every action there's a reaction, for every choice there is a consequense.
Now lets see what to possible choices we would make if either possiblitity is true...

1. We believe and follow
2. We don't and remain unchanged by the possiblities that could be true.(which is not skeptic now is it?)

Now ok lets combine these two sets of data to form ever possible situation.

1. Its a hoax, and we believe its not a hoax
2. Its a hoax, and we believe it is a hoax
3. Its not a hoax, and we believe in God
4. Its not a hoax, and we don't believe in God

Ok, now those are the situations, now lets view the consequenses for those situations. (respectively arranged)

1. So what? We believed on something thats not true, how does that hurt us?
2. Ok, so we were right it is a hoax and we believed it is like Nek. What's bad about that? So that doesn't hurt us either.
3. Ok, so we are good and go to heaven. That doens't hurt us either.
4. Ok, now we're in trouble....oh no...where odes that get us, Peregtory, or if you rejected Him entirely Hell.

Ok, Now so lets come to our conclusion (In the true scientific manner).
#1,2, we're outcomes that Didn't hurt us or didn't help us.
#3 was an outcome that helped us
#4 was an outcome that hurt us
What does that mean. If you don't believe you got a 50% chance that it won't help or hurt you, and a 50% chance that it will hurt you.
If you do believe you have a 50% chance that it won't hurt or help you, and a 50% chance that it will help you.

So I'm using true logic here what would be the best choice to believe or not?

Ok. *Mit switches bias back on*

The Church doesn't like to look at this this way but I think its good to look at. (Me not skeptical my friend?) there is not enough evidence to say one or the other is right. So when in doubt...
The church thinks that you shouldn't know, love or serve Him with this logic because whats the point? But to someone like you it will get you thinking.

Our Church is old that its hard to prove things anymore but thats one of the things about time...

*Mit switches bias off*
Ok, to look through History in the right way you have to get inside peoples heads. Most people just look at history, and look at dates but never thought how the people thought or lived at the time.

Its the year 31 A.D.(or B.C.E. whichever) The year that Jesus lived and was preaching (Historical records from ancient Greece have proved His exsistance, including Jews accept this remember?). You are a simple craftsman in a place called Galile (Not sure on sp?). One day you heard Jesus came to your town and was preaching there. you say what the heck and go listen to Him. You belive Him and follow His ways (whether He was true or not). Ok, now its the year 33 A.D.
The year Jesus died, you are afraid of your life because anyone that said that they followed Jesus gets His head promptly chopped off. But you don't want to abadon your faith. So you have to go to underground (literaly underground) services and have the mass part back at your friend's home. You have to live in secrete because you are afraid what the Romans will do to you if discovered, not to mention the Jews...
One day Paul all of a sudden shows up at one of these weekly sevices and says stuff. About half way though you hear a noise at the top, and Roman guards show up! Somebody has betrayed you! you immidiatly start to run in the panic, Some get away, some are killed on the spot for attempting to do so. You pause for a minute and see Paul just standing there looking at the Guards. You then run and exscape. The next day Paul is brought before the Roman judges.

O.k. now for some science. You got two stituations here:

1. Paul gets tortured and relizing his life is in danger he denies Christ, and admits the whole things a lie (why stand for a lie when you get tortued? Jesus got tortured and killed and He didn't change his story) You walk away felling stupid as Paul gets crucified upside down. (That's what accually happend he got crucified upside down, the other part is just some stuff I made up to help you get into what these people were feeling)

2. Paul gets totured and truely believes in everything He dies for His cause and becomes a martyr. You think that after anyone going through so much torture would say anything to get them to stop. but he didn't. (just like Jesus).

Now which do you think is true (#2 is what happened)?

*Mit switches bias back on*
The early Catholics went through so much torture like that and publicaly encouraged persecution, that the Church would have to be true in order to survive that, even if it isn't it would be a next to 0 probalitlty.

Now did I use any religion to disprove science, no in fact I used science to prove religion.

I would also like to point out that science is made up of a lot of THOERIES that try to explain things in OUR PERSPECTIVE. Even the Laws we came up with are OBSERVATIONS in OUR PERSPECTIVE. They might not be true just like religion.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:The early Catholics went through so much torture like that and publicaly encouraged persecution, that the Church would have to be true in order to survive that, even if it isn't it would be a next to 0 probalitlty.

Every faith back then went through persecution and torture. Actually, it was the early Catholics who did most of the torturing and brutal slaying, often of their own kind. They were so suspicious of each other that they couldn't think straight and many a massacre happened between Catholic groups. When Constantine made Catholicism the state religion of Rome in 360CE, it began a large-scale war against other faiths that has persisted to this very day.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:Now did I use any religion to disprove science, no in fact I used science to prove religion.

History is not science, and vice-versa. Besides, you've not proven anything.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:I would also like to point out that science is made up of a lot of THOERIES that try to explain things in OUR PERSPECTIVE. Even the Laws we came up with are OBSERVATIONS in OUR PERSPECTIVE. They might not be true just like religion.

The point of science is not to prove or disprove but to explain. Science IS observations...observations, evidence, explanations. When a theory is disproven, it is removed from science. Plain and simple. In fact, when a scientist first develops a theory, he tries to disprove it himself. If it cannot be disproven, it is accepted as fact until it can be disproven. Most scientific theories have not been disproven and many never will be because humanity knows the answer in its absoluteness. However, religion is different. No one inside of any religion has any evidence of anything at all, yet they blindly defend their faith as if it was the last shred of hope they had in this world. This is because they themselves, subconsciously, are not really sure that the way they're following is correct because humans have a need for absolution and proof. Also, humans hate to be wrong, so by blindly defending their religious position, they've granted themselves a safety net against being wrong about their faith. When was the last time you saw someone say something that they knew was wrong, only to joyously admit being wrong? Never. No one enjoys being wrong. For the benefit of science, one has to overcome this human limitation. However, a religious person like I have spoken of (bear in mind that NOT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS) has no need to overcome it, so they take it to the extremes when they go out and try to preach the hogwash to others.

Being skeptical is what will free you from dogma. And let me fill you in on a little secret...fearing a "Hell" will only hinder your life. When you shed the shackles of fear, you're allowed to live a much better life. Do you honestly think most Christians do good things for their fellow man out of the kindness of their hearts? BS! They do it out of fear of going to Hell! Hell is the greatest thing ever invented! Along with Satan (I could go on for hours about Satan, believe me). The Church can't even get his story straight, the Bible is full of contradictions regarding Satan. But still they use him to inspire fear in the hearts and minds of their people. Why? To keep the flock in line, of course. Jesus was right when he called the people "sheep".

Sorry I'm replying again (I said I wouldn't)... but I think someone has to point out this fundamental flaw in your logic:

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote: PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ ALL OF THIS.

I have this other doctrine "Better safe than sorry, do be prepared". Ok I'm going to look at this big picture without any biasism at all for a minute.
There are two possible realities that I think that we all can agree to.

1. Its a hoax and the whole things a lie
2. It's all true and God exsists

Now MystikShadows says he believes in science and so do I. He also said for every action there's a reaction, for every choice there is a consequense.
Now lets see what to possible choices we would make if either possiblitity is true...

1. We believe and follow
2. We don't and remain unchanged by the possiblities that could be true.(which is not skeptic now is it?)

Now ok lets combine these two sets of data to form ever possible situation.

1. Its a hoax, and we believe its not a hoax
2. Its a hoax, and we believe it is a hoax
3. Its not a hoax, and we believe in God
4. Its not a hoax, and we don't believe in God

Ok, now those are the situations, now lets view the consequenses for those situations. (respectively arranged)

1. So what? We believed on something thats not true, how does that hurt us?
2. Ok, so we were right it is a hoax and we believed it is like Nek. What's bad about that? So that doesn't hurt us either.
3. Ok, so we are good and go to heaven. That doens't hurt us either.
4. Ok, now we're in trouble....oh no...where odes that get us, Peregtory, or if you rejected Him entirely Hell.

Ok, Now so lets come to our conclusion (In the true scientific manner).
#1,2, we're outcomes that Didn't hurt us or didn't help us.
#3 was an outcome that helped us
#4 was an outcome that hurt us
What does that mean. If you don't believe you got a 50% chance that it won't help or hurt you, and a 50% chance that it will hurt you.
If you do believe you have a 50% chance that it won't hurt or help you, and a 50% chance that it will help you.

So I'm using true logic here what would be the best choice to believe or not?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed, because you assume that there is only one God and one religion. There are thousands of religions in the world, and thousands of Gods. Which one is the right one?

According to most religions if you believe in a DIFFERENT God or religion, you will go to Hell. That's just the way it is.
*If you're a Christian and you worship Zeus, you will go to Hell.
*If you're a Muslim and you believe Jesus is your savior, you will go to Hell.
*If you're an ancient Egyptian and you worship Thor, you will go to Hell.
*If you're a Navajo and you worship Quetzl'coatl, you will go to Hell.
*And so on...

Which one to choose? How do you know if you're right? Every true believer in a religion believes that THEY are right. And they choose their religion by being born into it. You were born in the East coast of the USA and raise a Catholic, so that's what you believe. If you were raised in India, you'd probably be a Hindu and worship a completely different God -- meaning that according to your Catholic faith, you will go to Hell.

No matter which religion you choose to follow, you're doomed to Hell by hundreds of other ones. If you choose the wrong one, you're fork.

So that logic just doesn't fly. You're better off NOT wasting your time following any one religion, because it will make you no safer or no less sorry.


Now hopefully I'm done with this topic. It's pretty clear that nobody here is going to convince anybody else, since everybody thinks they're right.

Nekrophidius wrote:
Actually, it was the early Catholics who did most of the torturing and brutal slaying, often of their own kind. They were so suspicious of each other that they couldn't think straight and many a massacre happened between Catholic groups.

What are you talking about? No. I have never heard of this Nek. What exact persectutions of their own kind are you referring to? And what are you talking about between Catholic groups. Ummm...there's only one Catholic religion and thats the Roman Catholic Church, with the Orthadox Churches as close relatives. Mabey are you thinking of Christain Churches? Which there are many of? Plus Roman Catholics wouldn't argue and fight amoung themselves thats why the is a structure. Priest preaches and makes sacrifices to the people, a Bishop does what a priest does but watches over a few priests in their diosces, then there's the Pope which is the Bishop of Rome, he basicaly does all the above+more and watches over all the cardnals, which watch over the bishops. *Mit takes a breath*. The Pope would be the person that has the final word, which he was given the power to do that by Jesus Himself (starting with Peter).

Nekro wrote: History is not science, and vice-versa. Besides, you've not proven anything.

Your right I didn't prove anything and I didn't say History was science, by the way did you just agree that the history was correct?

Nekro wrote: The point of science is not to prove or disprove but to explain. Science IS observations...observations, evidence, explanations.

I believe I said that. Science focuses on How (look at earlier posts).

Nekro wrote: When a theory is disproven, it is removed from science. Plain and simple. In fact, when a scientist first develops a theory, he tries to disprove it himself. If it cannot be disproven, it is accepted as fact until it can be disproven.

Yes, but what about those theories that are false that were excepted as true for so many years? Ex. Archimedes Theory of Spontanious Generation was excepted for so may years but it finally got proven false. (Or the earth is flat?) People regared those as true and thought it was like that BECAUSE FROM THERE POINT OF VIEW IT WAS TRUE!!! Hence my arguement. What about the thoery of Quantum Physics? Is that true? We don't know. BTW when a thoery is regected it is not totaly lost in science so we don't think of that thoery again (wouldn't want to make the same mistakes twice now would we?).

Nekro wrote: Most scientific theories have not been disproven and many never will be because humanity knows the answer in its absoluteness.

NOW THAT IS SHORTSITED AND AROGANT! Either that or you have WAY to much faith in us. I believe I expained this above.

Nekro wrote: However, religion is different. No one inside of any religion has any evidence of anything at all, yet they blindly defend their faith as if it was the last shred of hope they had in this world.

Ummm...yes we do. I believe I already explained this issue too. Just think for a moment and go back and earlier posts. Or we defend it because its true? And as you said humans crave knowlege and they don't like it when they think that other people are wrong, hence this arguement.(That goes both ways).

Nekro wrote: This is because they themselves, subconsciously, are not really sure that the way they're following is correct because humans have a need for absolution and proof.

Your right all humans have a wanting for knowlege, thats why I'm very skeptical. Science is just as much as sketchy as religion...and I'm a science nut. Somethings may seem different but ask yourself "Am I sure?" is a common thing in science as religion.

Nekro wrote: Also, humans hate to be wrong, so by blindly defending their religious position, they've granted themselves a safety net against being wrong about their faith.

Or is that an illusion? Mabey Its that truth and your here trying to disprove the truth?

Nekro wrote: When was the last time you saw someone say something that they knew was wrong, only to joyously admit being wrong? Never. No one enjoys being wrong.

Your right Nekro, humans don't enjoy being wrong, but I know that when I know that I've been proven wrong I correct myself AND ADMIT IT.
You should know, because I have done it many times in this forum (different from thread).

Nekro wrote: For the benefit of science, one has to overcome this human limitation.

Ummm...yes same with religion.

Nekro wrote: However, a religious person like I have spoken of (bear in mind that NOT ALL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE ARE LIKE THIS) has no need to overcome it, so they take it to the extremes when they go out and try to preach the hogwash to others.

Just one thing...I'm not preaching it here, I'm defending it from you.

Nekro wrote: And let me fill you in on a little secret...fearing a "Hell" will only hinder your life. When you shed the shackles of fear, you're allowed to live a much better life.

What are you saying if everyone one day all of a sudden do what they want to do and don't fear Hell, this world would KILL ITSELF in a chaos of viloence!!! This religion is rooted deep in our society and taking away it would take away are most basic values as human. (ie. murders, cheating, stealing, raping, etc.) All of those would let us live a better life, but this world would kill itself. Are you defending those positions that are DIRECTLY against our soceitic values that were BASED on our religion BECAUSE of our fear from hell as you put it?

Nekro wrote: Do you honestly think most Christians do good things for their fellow man out of the kindness of their hearts? BS! They do it put of fear of going to Hell! Hell is the greatest thing ever invented! Along with Satan (I could go on for hours about Satan, believe me).

I deeply and truely resent that remark. Are values as Catholics are not based apon fear of going to hell. One of our greatest values is to give without thinking of a reward. Now if we did good stuff because of our fear of eternal damnation then isn't that a contradictory to that value? Yes, so we don't do that, or we should and sometimes do. BTW even if we did, what bad are we doing to do good stuff no matter what are reasons?

Nekro wrote: The Church can't even get his story straight, the Bible is full of contradictions regarding Satan. But still they use him to inspire fear in the hearts and minds of their people.

Yes, please do tell, what story about satan don't we get straight?

Nekro wrote: Why? To keep the flock in line, of course. Jesus was right when he called the people "sheep".

Satan is fear not God. If our religion is based upon happiness for eternity then why would somebody make satan up?

My fingers hurt.

I guess you're going to say that fear really stands for:
False Evidence Appearing Real?

And Mitth, just by mentioning God, or even hinting it you're trying to showe your "hogwash" on us.

If we wanted to hear about the greatness of God (read: bullshit) then we would go to the appropriate forum.


Most people I know, that I'm around, that I get along with are non-religious people, they are all pretty smart too.

Now, I used to have a friend, who became religious, and I mean really religious, sort of like you Mitth.

Everything he did was the work of God, he passed a test? Praise be the lord!
He won some class competition, PRAISE THE LORD!

But, if he failed a test, immediately: Omg, I'm so bad, I deserve this punishment, I shall repent my lord, thanks for showing me mercy/humbleness etc


So really, you're religion boils down to:
All good you ever do in your life, is caused by someone/something else, you never do good by your own.
All bad you ever do is caused by you, you suck, you're a bad person, go repent or burn in hell!

Gradually he "slipped" away from the rest of the class, and in the end was expelled from school because contrary to the US, swedish schools teach science. (That and he started bashing out on everything that he saw as non-christian: kissing, teaching biology, teaching of the universe, history, religion (non christianity) etc etc etc etc)

Example: In sweden we dont get public outcry if a book on Big Bang is given to the students
Nor do we get uprisings if students are given _MOUSEX education.

Nor do we have this blind view of people having to be married to have _MOUSEX. Really, _MOUSEX is a BIG DEAL, if it doesent work out, a relationship is likely to fail (Yes it is, love can only do that much, other things must work too, and ofcourse it CAN work out even if the _MOUSEX part is bad)

What religion is actually doing is:
Create mindless slaves that devote their lives and accomplishments to the church.


And I see it has done a great job on you Mitth.
I suggest you take a step back, don't reply to this thread for a few days, and really think about it instead.
Because you see, we won't convert to christianity, we have been there, and left when we realized what it really was/is.

Telling me that God is real in person, would probably result in me kicking your ass. Seriously. I take it as an insult. Why? Non of your bussiness.
Do you care? Probably not, because that is the christian way, go preach now!

Nekrophidius wrote:Know Her, Love Her, Serve Her. To hell with "Him".

Z!re wrote: If we wanted to hear about the greatness of God (read: bullshit) then we would go to the appropriate forum.

Now tell that to Nek he was the one that brought it up.

Z!re wrote: Gradually he "slipped" away from the rest of the class, and in the end was expelled from school because contrary to the US, swedish schools teach science. (That and he started bashing out on everything that he saw as non-christian: kissing, teaching biology, teaching of the universe, history, religion (non christianity) etc etc etc etc)

Ummm...Our public school system teaches science, in fact it DOESN'T teach religion. As you know that our first admendment from the Constitution is the freedom of religion. Thats the basis why our public school system doesn't tech religion. (BTW I don't view kissing, teaching biology, teaching of the universe, history, and the "Background" of the worlds major religions as non Christain, and NEITHER does the Church.)

Z!re wrote: Example: In sweden we dont get public outcry if a book on Big Bang is given to the students
Nor do we get uprisings if students are given _MOUSEX education.

Shows how much you know about us, neither do we.

Z!re wrote: Nor do we have this blind view of people having to be married to have _MOUSEX. Really, _MOUSEX is a BIG DEAL, if it doesent work out, a relationship is likely to fail (Yes it is, love can only do that much, other things must work too, and ofcourse it CAN work out even if the _MOUSEX part is bad)

How shallow...We think that _MOUSEX is the pinnacle of when two people l;ove each other, not to love each other for _MOUSEX.

Z!re wrote: What religion is actually doing is:
Create mindless slaves that devote their lives and accomplishments to the church.
And I see it has done a great job on you Mitth.

I'm not mindless, I didn't just swollow this because I was fed it. As I said I looked at this info, and thought that it was the best way to go.

Z!re wrote: I suggest you take a step back, don't reply to this thread for a few days, and really think about it instead.

Already did that a long time ago and thought to stay.

Z!re wrote: Because you see, we won't convert to christianity, we have been there, and left when we realized what it really was/is.

Ok...Z!re I hope thats not what I was appearing to do because I wasn't, its against our religion. God is the only one who converts people. Mabey not directly.

Z!re wrote: Telling me that God is real in person, would probably result in me kicking your ass. Seriously. I take it as an insult. Why? Non of your bussiness.
Do you care? Probably not, because that is the christian way, go preach now!

Bah. I take that as an insult, Why? non of your business...lol

I would like to say that we all have different views and as Pete said we weren't going to change anyone's views. Speaking of which I don't remember attacking your beliefs. So I submit that we stop this debate, I don't care who wins but we could call it a deadlock.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:

Nekrophidius wrote:Know Her, Love Her, Serve Her. To hell with "Him".

Z!re wrote: If we wanted to hear about the greatness of God (read: bullshit) then we would go to the appropriate forum.

Now tell that to Nek he was the one that brought it up.

Actually, it was whoever said "Know Him, Love Him, Serve Him" that brought it up.

And no...you cannot win a religious debate, because people are blockheads. I, however, have this little personality quirk which involves helping people in need of guidance. When I see someone who is so entrenched in religion, I do what I can to show them the way out of their bondage. Unfortunately, I lack the finesse required to do this most of the time. I'm harsh, brutal, and direct, and freeing someone from their chains requires a level of finesse I don't have, unfortunately. Thankfully, some of these people, when they are old enough to think for themselves, think back and understand what I said and are able to free themselves. See...I can't help anyone who doesn't want to be helped...no one can. Everyone must help themselves in the end. But anyone who listens to what I say on this subject may one day think back, realize that what I'm saying IS the truth, and will become emancipated. Nothing gives me greater joy than knowing that someone's freed themselves from the harsh chains of dogma.

Nekrophidius wrote:

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:

Nekrophidius wrote:Know Her, Love Her, Serve Her. To hell with "Him".

Z!re wrote: If we wanted to hear about the greatness of God (read: bullshit) then we would go to the appropriate forum.

Now tell that to Nek he was the one that brought it up.

Actually, it was whoever said "Know Him, Love Him, Serve Him" that brought it up.

Oooo! ouch, that makes me dizzy!^

Lol that was me, but if you noticed the ... on that which ment that I really didn't what to go on the subject.

Nekro wrote: And no...you cannot win a religious debate, because people are blockheads.

Don't be so harsh...

Nekro wrote: I, however, have this little personality quirk which involves helping people in need of guidance.

So do I but I know when to repect someone's beliefs and stop. Who's qualified to say that anyone's right? You still didn't answer my questions by the way and until you do you should think about this "bondage".

Nekro wrote: realize that what I'm saying IS the truth, and will become emancipated. Nothing gives me greater joy than knowing that someone's freed themselves from the harsh chains of dogma.

Judge yourself before you judge others, and don't judge others to yourself. If we say that either of us is false then who is false when there is NO conclusive evidence on either side? Its not going to change until that happens and probaly never will so you believe what you want to and I will believe what I want to.


So I say to stop this debate because neither of us is convinced that the other is right therefore its a deadlock and does not need to continue.

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:Judge yourself before you judge others, and don't judge others to yourself. If we say that either of us is false then who is false when there is NO conclusive evidence on either side? Its not going to change until that happens and probaly never will so you believe what you want to and I will believe what I want to.

An expected reply from one so deeply entrenched in the religion. You're exactly the kind of person I try to help. And judging people is a human capability, one I make use of quite often. I'll judge however I see fit whether the one being judged likes it or not, and whether it conflicts with their religion or not. Judging one's self only makes sense when there is need of self-judgement, and I haven't had that need in a number of years now.

If you would like to drop out of this debate which you yourself started, then feel free.

An expected reply from someone who believes in nothin.

Putting religion aside...
You just don't think that other people matter do you? Its always me all the time which is selfishness. How do you think other people feel when you judge them, but that makes it alright because its what you want to do. There's over 6.0 billion people in this world and they all count just as the same as you. If you don't think that then I was wrong about you, you do believe in something 'cause you made yourself a god.

Instead on focusing on other people try focusing on yourself and make yourself a better person for yourself.

I thought you weren't supposed to judge other people, eh? You just betrayed your own religion. And that was the weakest comeback you've made so far. And you're right...it's me a lot. You wanna know why? Because in this world, all we really have is ourselves. You gotta look out for #1 (but try not to step in #2!). And I could care less what other people think when I judge them...they don't care what I think when they judge me, so why should I care what they think when I judge them? You've drawn a conclusion that I believe in, as you put it, "nothin". That's judgemental, in addition to incorrect.

Now, this is a country of liberty. Basically what that means is that I have a lot of rights, one of which is to say whatever I want. If you don't like what I say, then that's just too bad. In addition, you said I focus on me and am selfish...how them am I aso focusing on other people? And you said I SHOULD focus on me, but didn't you already say I do that already and am selfish? Circular logic, dude... And make myself a better person, eh? I am always making myself a better person, that's what personal improvement is for. Are you doing that too? If not then why not, eh?

If anything though, at least you're entertaining. I haven't laughed this much in years. Thanks for the amusement.

Nekrophidius wrote:I thought you weren't supposed to judge other people, eh? You just betrayed your own religion.

I wasn't judging.

Nekro wrote: And that was the weakest comeback you've made so far.

*cough* Judging *cough*

Nekro wrote: That's judgemental, in addition to incorrect.

That was an assumption not judging.

SO lonely....so lonely....Watch out for yourself? Of couse. But make yourself #2 and everyone else #1: Wait a minute what did I just say? Did I just call you shit, and everyone else, including me piss? Not what I meant....

Nekro wrote: Now, this is a country of liberty. Basically what that means is that I have a lot of rights, one of which is to say whatever I want.

Dude...news flash...this country IS the first modern country with liberty of speech, and we own your country...
Also even though we have the freedom of speech we can't slander or libel, so we can't say anything we want.

Nekro wrote:
In addition, you said I focus on me and am selfish...how them am I aso focusing on other people?

Did I say selfish...? Oh yeah I did... . I wanted to say that you were selfish because you don't care what everyone else feels, you just care about your wants, hence the DEFINITION of selfish...

Nekro wrote: And you said I SHOULD focus on me, but didn't you already say I do that already and am selfish? Circular logic, dude...

NOT circluar reasoning... I said that you should focus more on yourself BECAUSE you are looking at others and say stuff to them that YOU don't care on how they feel but do it because that's what YOU want to do, so you should focus on it. Your getting confused...

Nekro wrote: And make myself a better person, eh? I am always making myself a better person, that's what personal improvement is for. Are you doing that too? If not then why not, eh?

Ever here of civil virtue? And I don't mean making yourself a better person for yourself as in what will suit you the best, but I mean make your self a better person for yourself so that other people will like you better. Differnce...

Nekro wrote: If anything though, at least you're entertaining. I haven't laughed this much in years. Thanks for the amusement.

, peanut butter my friend peanut butter...

Oh yeah, I'm resigning from this topic because we are getting no where either way, and we have strayed too much from the topic: What's the Meaning of Life...

But I will check in ever once in a while, and relpy to something when I want to, in the mean time argue amonst yourself Nek....

Mitth'raw'nuruodo wrote:Dude...news flash...this country IS the first modern country with liberty of speech, and we own your country...
Also even though we have the freedom of speech we can't slander or libel, so we can't say anything we want.

Dude, news flash...Puerto Rico is PART of the USA. PR is not a country. When I said this country, I was referring to the USA.

Well frankly, I'm glad you're retiring from this topic because I'm getting bored of arguing with a child. You were fun at first but this has gone on too long. I'm not going to change your mind, and you stand no chance in hell of changing mine (I already went down your path, I won't do it again). So I'll follow suit and retire from this topic as well, but at the same time, I'll answer the question:

The meaning of life is the continuation of the species. Everything else is superficial.

I'm pretty sure I said that.

No point in life, it's a circle. You live to reproduce so your kids can reproduce so their kids can reproduce [...]

Who you calling a child?

He called you a child.

No...Way! *Mit types sarcasticaly*

Rhetorical, Z!re, Rhetorical....Look it up.

*sigh*...
I suggest you do the same