-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
I think this pretty much sums up a lot of Christians...
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
- Status
Anerythristic
Member
viakado said:
The Bible never states that Peter is at the "gates of heaven." There really is no argument there this is where these artistic interpretations come from throughout history.
perfectchaos007
Member
I'm a Christian, but I think we get a bad reputation by the Bible bashers. I figure just about everyone in America has at least heard the word of Christ, and after that it's not up to us to convert them. IMO. They have to make the decision on their own.
Anerythristic
Member
Xun said:
You have to understand to many on GAF it truly confusing because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
soul creator
Member
eh, my criticisms of the major religions usually have nothing to do with whether people are jerks about it or not.
They're usually based on an entirely flawed premise with no evidence for it (invisible being that can telepathically talk to us and also make universes and cares about humans and wants us to do certain things), and this applies whether you're Martin Luther King or Jerry Falwell. Hell, the fact that Falwell and MLK can both be considered Christian by a large majority of the population is pretty obvious evidence that "Christianity" as a philosophy or approach to life is pretty meaningless (from a descriptive standpoint. Of course, individual believers will feel different in their individual lives)
Of course, as a practical matter and in everyday life, I prefer MLK Christians for obvious reasons, but Christianity (or any other philosophy that makes claims with no evidence) doesn't become more true depending on how nice someone is about it.
They're usually based on an entirely flawed premise with no evidence for it (invisible being that can telepathically talk to us and also make universes and cares about humans and wants us to do certain things), and this applies whether you're Martin Luther King or Jerry Falwell. Hell, the fact that Falwell and MLK can both be considered Christian by a large majority of the population is pretty obvious evidence that "Christianity" as a philosophy or approach to life is pretty meaningless (from a descriptive standpoint. Of course, individual believers will feel different in their individual lives)
Of course, as a practical matter and in everyday life, I prefer MLK Christians for obvious reasons, but Christianity (or any other philosophy that makes claims with no evidence) doesn't become more true depending on how nice someone is about it.
Herpes Reasons
Banned
exactly. just an artistic representation well over 500 years after his death.Anerythristic said:
it has zero bearing on doctrine. And this thread is a funny illustration of a 1500year old art rendition of peter.
....what the fuck was the point of this?
oh well, someone show me a funny gif, please.
perfectchaos007
Member
jon bones said:
Unless you have no access to media whatsoever I'm sure you have heard of Christ. I just refuse to see the US as a third world country however I can see how some spots in the country may not have access to any media whatsoever and may not have heard of Christ. But unless I go on a mission trip to these places, I'll assume people have heard of Christ.
TheRagnCajun
Member
perfectchaos007 said:
Sure most North Americans have heard of Christ. Its one thing to have heard of someone, another to understand who he is. I can list off dozens of names of people I see in the news or referenced in pop culture, though I really know nothing about them.
DanteFox
Member
The problem with that thinking is that most mainstream media representations of Jesus are mere charicatures of him, most making fun of him. I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find people in your immediate area who have never heard of Jesus, but I think you'd be surprised at how many haven't heard the message of salvation he brought about.perfectchaos007 said:
Anerythristic
Member
FiRez said:
I understand your point. That post might have been a joke.
Pushing common sense as a way of "conversion" away from faith based beliefs, putting up a displays of your common sense that compete with Jewish or Christian Holiday displays, advertising and clothes complete with symbols of your common sense.
What do you expect some people to think?
Shawnwhann
Banned
Who is that dancing Asian girl that I keep seeing in all of those animated gifs?
Anerythristic
Member
MattKeil said:
I honestly might have misunderstood your post. Is this just another jab at the religous about being devoid of critical thought ?
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Atheists too.
Though I guess they don't have to answer to anyone for being dicks.
Though I guess they don't have to answer to anyone for being dicks.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
I like how whenever one side of an argument is attacked on GAF, the response is almost always "no, u" except in usually longer prose.
Does anyone disagree with the first post, or is this whole thread just going to be "no, u" over and over?
Does anyone disagree with the first post, or is this whole thread just going to be "no, u" over and over?
MilesWebber
Member
TiVo said:
I must know more about this! Please, tell me!
(the gif, not the comic. sorry OP)
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
lol even the self-deprecating christians can't bash their own religion now.DanteFox said:
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Actually Atheism is a religion.
Put simply:
"It is impossible for us limited human beings to know for a fact that a god does not exist. To know absolutely that a god does not exist one would have to be omniscient. Since no one is omniscient then it stands to reason that there is a chance that a god exists. This then becomes Agnosticism instead of Atheism.
So how can those who follow the idea that there is no god really say that for sure? Well, listen carefully now it's kinda tricky, they MUST take it on FAITH - **GASP** dirty word - that no god exists. Atheism is just a word, but those who promote the idea that there is no god have turned it into the "religion" of Atheism. There is no other explanation for it. It is a nothing more than a belief in a concept. The concept being of course that god does not exist."
Agnostic =/= Atheist.
Put simply:
"It is impossible for us limited human beings to know for a fact that a god does not exist. To know absolutely that a god does not exist one would have to be omniscient. Since no one is omniscient then it stands to reason that there is a chance that a god exists. This then becomes Agnosticism instead of Atheism.
So how can those who follow the idea that there is no god really say that for sure? Well, listen carefully now it's kinda tricky, they MUST take it on FAITH - **GASP** dirty word - that no god exists. Atheism is just a word, but those who promote the idea that there is no god have turned it into the "religion" of Atheism. There is no other explanation for it. It is a nothing more than a belief in a concept. The concept being of course that god does not exist."
Agnostic =/= Atheist.
FunkyMunkey said:
This is a pretty well worn path but being an atheist doesn't necessitate you claim there is no god. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. Some take it a step further and make the claim that god definitely doesn't exist but it's not a very intellectually honest thing to say.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
KHarvey16 said:
Atheism?
A belief is a belief. Agnosticism is only way out as it is, by definition, no belief.
speculawyer
Member
No. You do not know the correct definitions of the terms. Look them up.FunkyMunkey said:
FunkyMunkey said:
Eh, that is basically arguing semantics here. There is a division between Agnostic and Atheist, without having to put faith in the lack of a god. I don't consider myself Agnostic because I don't contemplate the possible existence of a God anymore than I do of a Pastafarian Deity. Could one exist? Sure, but as far as I am concerned, it does not.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
TheWiicast said:
Actually, I introduced that gif to GAF.
. . .MilesWebber
Member
RJNavarrete said:Actually, I introduced that gif to GAF.
And......Video? Story? etc...
FunkyMunkey
Banned
speculawyer said:
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "absolute agnosticism")
the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism]
No opinion on a god or not.
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[12]
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[13] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[14] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[15] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[16] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[17] theist in 1662;[18] theism in 1678;[19] and deism in 1682.[20] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[21]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism]
Even the roots depict "no god".
I know it's wikipedia, but I'm lazy and they have proper citations.
Now, it's your turn to argue the "shades of gray" argument about how "but there's light atheism and medium agnosticism" and whatever else people can think of. But in summary, it doesn't matter and those are different things. They even have different names than just "atheism" or "agnosticism".
Kinitari said:
Then you aren't simpy and athetist or agnostic then, are you? Exactly.
Just because people forget what words mean, doesn't change their meaning.
Khalifa Jayy
Banned
Nothing. I stumbled upon it.TheWiicast said:
- Status