Whats your belief? (short 20 Qs. quiz)

[John Uskglass]

Needless to say, I think the Buddha was wrong on alot of things- his notion of balance in favor of Christ's teachings of goodness, and it's triumph, but Buddhism certainly is a much greater religion then your current one. Try it out some time, I actually flirted with it for a while in Japan.

Goddamnit, man. WHen will you learn to stop making insulting remarks about other people's religions out of the blue? STOP IT. Anyone has the right to ANY kind of religion, and no religion is actually "greater" or "more valid" than another relgion. Sheesh.

EDIT: I don't like moral relitivism, as I view it as being intellectually bankrupt and an excuse for laziness. Anyway, what you are saying is obviously untrue. The Aztecs massacered entire villages for the sun to stay in the sky; the worst thing the Finnish Lutheran church has ever done is send money to feed starving children in Tanzania.

 

[Ozrat]

Dove won!

 

[John Uskglass]

Dove won!

oh rly?

 

[Brother None]

Dove won!

No, the bet was about the thread being vatted

It isn't

 

[Ozrat]

Actually, you did not, as there is no proveable spirit, and every one of those things is made out of things in itself.

rly

 

[John Uskglass]

Actually, you did not, as there is no proveable spirit, and every one of those things is made out of things in itself.

rly

What is "Earth"? It is not an element, surely not in the scientific sense.
And is magic possible? Surely not. A higher being capable of performing "magic" is much more likely then a human being able to practice it.

 

[Brother None]

What is "Earth"? It is not an element, surely not in the scientific sense.
And is magic possible? Surely not. A higher being capable of performing "magic" is much more likely then a human being able to practice it.

This would work better if you actually had anything to back your arguments up with

Christianity is based on irrationalism, if you're going to disprove another religion with rationalism, you'll end up disproving Christianity as well. Not recommended, ey?

 

[John Uskglass]

What is "Earth"? It is not an element, surely not in the scientific sense.
And is magic possible? Surely not. A higher being capable of performing "magic" is much more likely then a human being able to practice it.

This would work better if you actually had anything to back your arguments up with

Christianity is based on irrationalism, if you're going to disprove another religion with rationalism, you'll end up disproving Christianity as well. Not recommended, ey?

You have a point there;but she was calling it more rational.

 

[Ozrat]

there is no proveable spirit

And is magic possible? Surely not. A higher being capable of performing "magic" is much more likely then a human being able to practice it.

o rly?

EDIT:

You have a point there;but she was calling it more rational.

Nope, she was saying that for her it is more rational. She doesn't give a fuck whether or not it is rational for you.

 

[Sander]

EDIT: I don't like moral relitivism, as I view it as being intellectually bankrupt and an excuse for laziness.

Wow. So you dislike it because you dislike it! That's good! Tschh....
By the way: "Intellectually bankrupt" come on, man. Come up with an actual argument.

Anyway, what you are saying is obviously untrue. The Aztecs massacered entire villages for the sun to stay in the sky; the worst thing the Finnish Lutheran church has ever done is send money to feed starving children in Tanzania.

So?
Enter: Moral relativism.

Ignoring moral relativism, you do realise that this is completely off the point and you're molesting what I was trying to say?
My point was in regard to modern religions, and I surely don't see any pagans murdering innocents to have the sun rising from the sky. With regard to modern religions, there is no way to say that one religion is better than the other, since there are simply no arguments. And it's also insulting to do so. So: don't do it.

On the teaching of the elements, she showed you where the elements exist in life. I have yet to see you disprove that they actually exist. When you do that, I'll say that both paganism and Christianity are equally rational. (Actually, I'll do that now anyway, because they're both beliefs. But you get my point).

 

[Dove]

How did you convert to paganism?

I always was, as far as I can remember.

Actually, you did not, as there is no proveable spirit, and every one of those things is made out of things in itself.

Then stop trying to prove that there's a god, if there is no proveable spirit. Isn't that what the trinity is? The father, son, and holy SPIRIT.

 

[John Uskglass]

Ignoring moral relativism, you do realise that this is completely off the point and you're molesting what I was trying to say?
My point was in regard to modern religions, and I surely don't see any pagans murdering innocents to have the sun rising from the sky. With regard to modern religions, there is no way to say that one religion is better than the other, since there are simply no arguments. And it's also insulting to do so. So: don't do it.

oh rly?

On the teaching of the elements, she showed you where the elements exist in life. I have yet to see you disprove that they actually exist. When you do that, I'll say that both paganism and Christianity are equally rational. (Actually, I'll do that now anyway, because they're both beliefs. But you get my point).

She is arguing that her entire faith is more logical then a diestic belief. That is wrong, logically.

Then stop trying to prove that there's a god, if there is no proveable spirit. Isn't that what the trinity is? The father, son, and holy SPIRIT.

The holy spirit is part of the trinity-hence a part of God, thus spirit is only a name.

And you prove my point, that paganism is as logical, if not less, then Christanity.

What is "Earth"? It is not an element, surely not in the scientific sense.
And is magic possible? Surely not. A higher being capable of performing "magic" is much more likely then a human being able to practice it.

Christianity is based on irrationalism, if you're going to disprove another religion with rationalism, you'll end up disproving Christianity as well. Not recommended, ey?

I am arguing this from the Diests' perspective, something as rational as the agnostic's or the athiests', as watergirl is saying that her faith and all it's tenants are more likely then the exsistance of a God.

Realize that for every individual peice of information, the chances of it being a lie increase. For instance
In 1071 the Turks defeated the Byzantines at Manzekirt.
That is true, and defensible. However
In 1071 the Turks, lead by Alp Arslan, conquered most of Anatolia after the battle of Manzerkirt from the Byzantines
is not true, as the conquest of Anatolia came a few years afterwords. See?

 

[EyeMaster7]

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)

2. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (95%)

3. Unitarian Universalism (94%)

4. Reform Judaism (81%)

5. New Age (80%)

6. Falloutism (78%)

7. Orthodox Quaker (78%)

8. Roman Catholic (76%)

9. Bahá'í Faith (76%)

10. Secular Humanism (73%)

11. Theravada Buddhism (69%)

12. Orthodox Judaism (65%)

13. Silkism (63%)

14. Islam (60%)

15. Taoism (60%)

16. New Thought (59%)

17. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (54%)

18. Non-theist (52%)

19. Jainism (52%)

20. Seventh Day Adventist (51%)

21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (50%)

22. Scientology (49%)

23. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Morons) (39%)

24. Hinduism (39%)

25. Eastern Orthodox (39%)

26. Marihuana Buddhism (39%)

27. Jehovah's Witness (27%)

 

[Sander]

oh rly?

Nice way to get around "Pwned", CCR.

She is arguing that her entire faith is more logical then a diestic belief. That is wrong, logically.

Again, she has demonstrated that is based on the simple fact that there are, in one way or another, those elements. YOu have yet to disprove that those elements exist. Until you do, her belief is still more logical, since YOUR belief is NOT based on the world, but on belief ONLY.

 

[Ozrat]

I have no clue who the hell this is supposed to be. Care to elaborate?

She is arguing that her entire faith is more logical then a diestic belief. That is wrong, logically.

Then stop trying to prove that there's a god, if there is no proveable spirit. Isn't that what the trinity is? The father, son, and holy SPIRIT.

The holy spirit is part of the trinity-hence a part of God, thus spirit is only a name.

And you prove my point, that paganism is as logical, if not less, then Christanity.

Oh, so it's "logical"? SAYING something is logical is in no way PROVING that it is logical. What is your logic? You have yet to explain this in full.

Realize that for every individual peice of information, the chances of it being a lie increase. For instance
In 1071 the Turks defeated the Byzantines at Manzekirt.
That is true, and defensible. However
In 1071 the Turks, lead by Alp Arslan, conquered most of Anatolia after the battle of Manzerkirt from the Byzantines
is not true, as the conquest of Anatolia came a few years afterwords. See?

Okay, you completely lost me here on this tangent. What the hell are you trying to say here?

 

[DJ Slamák]

1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (94%)
3. Non-theist (81%)
4. Theravada Buddhism (79%)
5. Liberal Quakers (78%)
6. Neo-Pagan (67%)
7. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (60%)
8. Taoism (57%)
9. New Age (51%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (50%)
11. Reform Judaism (46%)
12. Orthodox Quaker (40%)
13. New Thought (36%)
14. Sikhism (31%)
15. Jainism (31%)
16. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (30%)
17. Scientology (30%)
18. Bahá'í Faith (27%)
19. Hinduism (19%)
20. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (18%)
21. Islam (17%)
22. Orthodox Judaism (17%)
23. Seventh Day Adventist (13%)
24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (13%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (6%)
26. Jehovah's Witness (6%)
27. Roman Catholic (6%)


Okay, I guess.

 

[John Uskglass]

I have no clue who the hell this is supposed to be. Care to elaborate?

That is Brother Ministier Elijah Muhammed!

Oh, so it's "logical"? SAYING something is logical is in no way PROVING that it is logical. What is your logic? You have yet to explain this in full.

That God is just as likely as a spirit world, and a creator is more likely then both.

Okay, you completely lost me here on this tangent. What the hell are you trying to say here?

With each statement, the chances of it being a lie increase.

Again, she has demonstrated that is based on the simple fact that there are, in one way or another, those elements. YOu have yet to disprove that those elements exist. Until you do, her belief is still more logical, since YOUR belief is NOT based on the world, but on belief ONLY.

A good point, BUT AGAIN NONE OF HER ELELEMENTS ARE REALLY ELEMENTS! Scientific Elements......THEY ALL EXSIST, BUT THEY ARE NOT "ELEMENTS" IN ANY SENSE.

 

[Sander]

That God is just as likely as a spirit world, and a creator is more likely then both.

Ehh...bull? Utter, utter BULL??
As Kharn has said before, there is no way of saying ANYTHING about the likelihood of ANYTHING happening if you don't know anything about it. And you don't know anything about it.

A good point, BUT AGAIN NONE OF HER ELELEMENTS ARE REALLY ELEMENTS! Scientific Elements......THEY ALL EXSIST, BUT THEY ARE NOT "ELEMENTS" IN ANY SENSE.

They are elements of existence. Thusly, they exist. Tsch. They are elements in the sense that they are a recognizable part (though spirit is a bit trickier) of the existing world (or at least, for as far as we know it).
In other, HER BELIEF IS BASED ON WHAT SHE SEES IN THE WORLD --> It is more logical. For some.

With each statement, the chances of it being a lie increase.

Bwahahahaaa!! You just killed the bible.
Seriously, compare the five statements of the elements, to the thousands of statements in the bible.
Now, which one is less likely?
Plus, your example sucked donkey balls.

 

[Tyler]

ehmm...

1. Mahayana Buddhism (100%)

2. Theravada Buddhism (97%)

3. New Thought (93%)

4. Unitarian Universalism (88%)

5. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (84%)

6. Neo-Pagan (83%)

7. Scientology (79%)

8. New Age (77%)

9. Taoism (76%)

10. Liberal Quakers (75%)

11. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (73%)

12. Hinduism (67%)

13. Reform Judaism (64%)

14. Sikhism (63%)

15. Jainism (58%)

16. Secular Humanism (55%)

17. Orthodox Judaism (51%)

18. Bahá'í Faith (45%)

19. Non-theist (43%)

20. Islam (41%)

21. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (38%)

22. Orthodox Quaker (35%)

23. Eastern Orthodox (30%)

24. Roman Catholic (30%)

25. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (23%)

26. Jehovah's Witness (23%)

27. Seventh Day Adventist (11%)

cool...

 

[EyeMaster7]

As Kharn has said before, there is no way of saying ANYTHING about the likelihood of ANYTHING happening if you don't know anything about it. And you don't know anything about it.

How do you know he does not know SOMETHING about ANYTHING related to the likelihood of ANYTHING. If there is indeed SOMEONE taking care of us (or not , just watching). There is the possibility that there is NOTHING at all and the probability of that is the same as having ANYTHING. ANYONE can say that there is SOMEONE out there watching us but how can ANYONE be sure about that? The problem here is that ANYONE can say SOMETHING about ANYTHING related to SOMEONE and there is no way to prove that he is wrong or right.
How do you know what you know is really what you think you know? How do you know that you are not a brain in a vat?