http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures...motivator1.jpg
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...r_zombie_l.jpg

So, respect for others is out the window in this thread, thanks :shifty:

Everyone has been pretty respectful so far, don't see why a few images would change that.

Apparently Stealth Hunter's hatred for Christians extends far beyond just the Creationists. :nope:

OH those poor persecuted christians...
Personally i have a beef with every organized religion out there.

Escalation. I've seen it many times in the Internet.

So what does your problem have to do with the topic of this thread?

Hatred? What hatred? There's been no such thing here. If you can't see that for yourself, well- that sucks; but it's not going to stop me from posting a few pictures I find funny. Furthermore, what does my problem, assuming I had one, with Christianity have to do with the topic of this thread?

Which reminds me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dyVYsjz5M0

:har:

Though it hasn't exploded yet. And unlikely it will. I had no problem with the "Evolutionists" demotivator, you didn't have any problem with the Biblical circular logic image, yet there's something wrong with a Christianity demotivator and zombie apostles shopped image?

What about this?

http://brian.carnell.com/wp-content/.../jesus_brb.jpg

Or this?

http://images.encyclopediadramatica....ombie_lulz.gif


EDIT:

I thought the last one was cute and funny at the same time, from a textual perspective.

Nothing at all.

Well, I guess it helps us know more about you.

Is this the after-thread party?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/...54d887a3ef.jpg

Agnostic Creationists such as myself believe that the original universe was created in its original form by a deity of some form, but that the identity of said deity is unknown or impossible to prove. The Creation and the Afterlife are not so tightly linked as atheists might like to think. They only draw power from our inability to ponder the meaning of Nothing, the one before life and the one after it.

Recent physics theories have pushed this question even further. In an age of such wonderful advances, the search for the start of existence (creation of Mass in the universe), the meaning of life and the long death of all existence are all a single entity. There is a slight possibility that scientists will prove that this Universe is merely a burning match in another greater Mega Universe. They might very well reach the end of possible research, a recursive theory that explains everything and nothing at the same time.

At that time, passionate atheists will have a hard time to explain how their view can be viewed as scientific Truth and not as a simple Belief, like all others. Any final belief is wrong, and the bad part about atheism is that it's an end to all questions, not a start. I was one myself until I started asking new questions and found even less philosophical support that the one Christianity gave me. In the end, the best philosophy is this : "Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing."

The Gettier problem applies to all "Final Solution" religions and beliefs.
Christianity (Bible):
- God exists
- S believes that God exists
- if God exists, S (because the Bible says he exists) would believe that God exists
- if God doesn't exist, S (because the Bible doesn't say he exists OR because the Bible says that God doesn't exist) wouldn't believe that God exists.

Since the last condition is not true, it means that Christians have no knowledge of the existence of god, purely based on the Bible.

Atheists (science):
- God doesn't exist
- S believes that God doesn't exist
- if God doesn't exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he doesn't exist) would believe that God doesn't exist
- if God does exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he exists) would believe that God exists.

Since there is no scientific proof that God doesn't exist, an atheist cannot yet claim knowledge of this fact.

Agnostics (proof):
- God is unknown or unknowable.
- S believe that God is unknowable.
- If God is unknowable, S (because there is no proof of God) would believe that god is unknowable.
- If God is knowable, S (because there is proof of God) wouldn't believe that God is unknowable.

Which is true. Since agnostics do not try to put a face on God and take as only proof of his existence the existence of the Universe itself, they are not wrong.

Agnostics:
- God created the Universe (or, the Universe was created, or the Universe exists)
- S believes that God created the Universe
- If God did create the Universe, S (because the Universe exists) would believe that God created the Universe
- If God didn't create the Universe, S (because the Universe doesn't exist, therefore S doesn't exist) wouldn't believe that God created the Universe.

This is almost a form of "I exist therefore I think, I think therefore I exist."

Man.. my head hurts :doh:

You should probably define yourself as an Agnostic Theist, not an Agnostic, as plain agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity or deities as there is no proof either way. Agnostic Theists believe there is a deity or deities, but as you say they do not try to explain it in humanistic terms as such entities are unknowable.

Here's my much researched theory results;
1. God may exist.
2. God may not exist.
Nobody knows. Period.

I've no idea what that has to do with what I posted but it's interesting at least. I'll respond to the bit that applies to me:

Atheists (science):
- God doesn't exist
- S believes that God doesn't exist
- if God doesn't exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he doesn't exist) would believe that God doesn't exist
- if God does exist, S (because there is scientific proof that he exists) would believe that God exists.

What would constitute "scientific proof" of God's existence? If a big bearded face appeared in the sky, visible to everyone, and said "I am God. I created the universe" would that be proof? No, not of God. It would be proof that there is a big face in the sky.

One will tend to run into big problems when making statements involving the "scientific proof" of something that isn't even "scientifically" defined.

I could say I am an atheist not so much because there is no scientific proof of (the Christian) God, but because the (Christian) definition of God makes no sense to me. Asking me to believe in him is like asking me to believe in a purple Tuesday.

What would constitute "scientific proof" of onelifecrisis' existence?
If a person appeared at a subsim meet, visible to everyone, and said "I
am onelifecrisis. I created SH3 mods" would that be proof? No, not of
onelifecrisis. It would be proof that there is a person at the subsim meet.

Extraordinary theories like gods may require extraordinary evidence, but
big faces in the sky should be close to extraordinary enough.

I disagree.
There are plenty of descriptions of gods that are coherent.

I just realised something, we can't use the logic of science in disproving a God.
Because using the logic of science, we shouldn't be here to begin with. Science tells us that nothing can come from nothing (I can't magically make a pencil appear in front of me now), therefore how can the Big Bang have started?
Even a single molecule or whatever is smaller than that, needs to have come from something. So it was impossible for the Big Bang to have started, it's impossible that we're even here now.
My simply point is that not everything can be explained by science. :hmmm:

No one is claiming that the big bang came from nothing, if you think that then clearly you do not understand it. The big bang theory explains the expansion of space-time from a singularity, nothing less and nothing more. What was before that, we do not know and maybe we will never know. Scientists as a whole are a group that are not afraid to say "We simply do not know." instead of claiming absolute certainty, unlike religious folk.
Just because science can not explain something does not mean it has a supernatural cause, it simply means we do not know yet.

I dunno, personally I have always thought that human descriptions of deities are far too simplistic. IMHO if such an entity or entities exist, they would have to be far beyond our ability to even conceive of them in any accurate manner.

Lets face it, most human created deities through out our existence have been super versions of ourselves, and our books tend to depict them as being contrary entities that are both kind and loving, and vicious and vengeful in nature. Probably in an attempt to reflect the reality of life on this planet.

I also find the idea of there being a single true religion an absurd concept to be honest. There have been countless belief systems proposed by humanity since its existence. All have had equally devout followers who believe utterly in the truth of their faith, willing to kill and die for their beliefs, and many of them have claimed their god(s) to be the only true gods.

This is why I could never believe in either Christianity or Islam, as their claims are just as unsubstantiated and for me as difficult to believe in as any other religion. Religion is a human creation, and as such is as flawed as anything else we create. This doesn't mean a creator(s) does not exist though, or that spiritual belief is worthless.


Lastly Iceman... I hadn't really wanted to comment on your post as I don't much care for deriding the spiritual beliefs of others, but you left yourself wide open to it by your own criticism. Do you really fail to see the vanity in your own claim? How you are committing the exact same fallacies you accuse others of. Also last I checked one of the key missions of Christianity is the conversion of non believers, ie. selling their version of god.