Atheism vs. Christianity

[Tarsonis Survivors]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years.

No it hasn't. Until very recently, declaring oneself atheist was death. Literally. You'd get killed. There's no debate when everybody on one side gets executed.

Yeah but nobody expected it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Atheism has one simple advantage. It isn't a religion.

As with any form of theistic religion, the major con is that it lacks any factual evidence pointing to as to why you should bother investing in something that can't stand up to the scientific method.

There never was an instance of the scientific method disproving theistic religion.

Mormonism.

[Creepoc Infinite]

I know about Christianity.
As for other religions, I couldn't care less about them.
I don't know much about Islam, nor do I care about Islam.
I don't know about Hinduism nor do I care about it
I don't know anything substantial about any other religion nor do I really care.

I am only interested in Christianity and Judaism because they are the only ones that have any real potential to affect my everyday life.

I am more interested in atheism than all of them and put more thought into atheism than other religions.

The main reason why I don't know much about most religions or care about them is because is don't have the time or patience to. Im 17 years old and I'm focussing more on writing a book and learning about filmmaking.

But you don't even know about Christianity. You're aware of it in the way I'm aware that tumblr is a thing. But its history, theology, etc, you barely have any comprehension of though. Your constant gaffs in this and the CDT thread are clear evidence of that. Worst of all you appear to think that you in fact do know about Christianity and are somehow smarter than its adherents by virtue of being an atheist.

You can't have a thoughtful discussion when A. You have little to no knowledge of the subject, and B. You clearly are only interested in satisfying your own personal bias.

I find so fascinating that you seem to know so much about me without so much as a personal conversation. How is it so clear to you that I've no idea what I'm talking about when I discuss Christianity?

And oh no, you've cracked the case!!
I have... A personal agenda!!

But seriously, I am clearly interested in supported my atheism in a debate. But I'm better at countering arguments than bringing new information into the arguments. Whenever I do, I have a bunch of people who feel the urge to counter what I say and claim I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Just because I have no formal education on this particular subject doesn't mean I'm a moron who can't argue for shit. I make good points, and sure, I get some things wrong.
But that doesn't warrant you accusing me of not being able to have a thoughtful discussion. Which I can do well when I have the patience to.

[The New Communist Order]

GOD'S NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE.

[Transyl]

GOD'S NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE.

And you know this how exactly? And which 'God' are you talking about, because every religion has their own 'God' or 'Gods' . So make sure your specific.

[The New Communist Order]

GOD'S NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE.

And you know this how exactly? And which 'God' are you talking about, because every religion has their own 'God' or 'Gods' . So make sure your specific.

HE'S LIVING ON THE INSIDE ROARING LIKE A LION.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

But you don't even know about Christianity. You're aware of it in the way I'm aware that tumblr is a thing. But its history, theology, etc, you barely have any comprehension of though. Your constant gaffs in this and the CDT thread are clear evidence of that. Worst of all you appear to think that you in fact do know about Christianity and are somehow smarter than its adherents by virtue of being an atheist.

You can't have a thoughtful discussion when A. You have little to no knowledge of the subject, and B. You clearly are only interested in satisfying your own personal bias.

I find so fascinating that you seem to know so much about me without so much as a personal conversation. How is it so clear to you that I've no idea what I'm talking about when I discuss Christianity?

And oh no, you've cracked the case!!
I have... A personal agenda!!

But seriously, I am clearly interested in supported my atheism in a debate. But I'm better at countering arguments than bringing new information into the arguments. Whenever I do, I have a bunch of people who feel the urge to counter what I say and claim I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Just because I have no formal education on this particular subject doesn't mean I'm a moron who can't argue for shit. I make good points, and sure, I get some things wrong.
But that doesn't warrant you accusing me of not being able to have a thoughtful discussion. Which I can do well when I have the patience to.

1. You don't need to be a formal scholar. Autodidactic knowledge is a perfectly acceptable thing, if you have it.

2. Strop stawmanning, I never insulted your intelligence, only pointed out the fallacy of trying to foster thoughtful and meaning discussion on a subject you have little understanding of. It'd be like me trying to foster a meaningful discussion on Black and Hispanic relations in Oakland. I don't know a damned thing about it, short of what I've seen on gangland.

3. I can tell you don't know much about the subject because as I said your gaffs in here and the CDT. You get like 95% wrong and we spend most of our time correcting you instead of debating.

4. Your skill at countering arguments instead of bringing new ones in, is systemic of your lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence or debatory prowess.

[Creepoc Infinite]

I find so fascinating that you seem to know so much about me without so much as a personal conversation. How is it so clear to you that I've no idea what I'm talking about when I discuss Christianity?

And oh no, you've cracked the case!!
I have... A personal agenda!!

But seriously, I am clearly interested in supported my atheism in a debate. But I'm better at countering arguments than bringing new information into the arguments. Whenever I do, I have a bunch of people who feel the urge to counter what I say and claim I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Just because I have no formal education on this particular subject doesn't mean I'm a moron who can't argue for shit. I make good points, and sure, I get some things wrong.
But that doesn't warrant you accusing me of not being able to have a thoughtful discussion. Which I can do well when I have the patience to.

1. You don't need to be a formal scholar. Autodidactic knowledge is a perfectly acceptable thing, if you have it.

2. Strop stawmanning, I never insulted your intelligence, only pointed out the fallacy of trying to foster thoughtful and meaning discussion on a subject you have little understanding of. It'd be like me trying to foster a meaningful discussion on Black and Hispanic relations in Oakland. I don't know a damned thing about it, short of what I've seen on gangland.

3. I can tell you don't know much about the subject because as I said your gaffs in here and the CDT. You get like 95% wrong and we spend most of our time correcting you instead of debating.

4. Your skill at countering arguments instead of bringing new ones in, is systemic of your lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence or debatory prowess.

1. ...okay

2. Straw manning? The closest thing to that that I did was misinterpreting what you said. And seeing as I'm not paying much attention to these conversations half the time, that's probably what's happened.
Also, I know more about Christianity than you know about Black and Hispanic relations in Bumfuk, Wherever

3. I don't have time for this. If you have problems understanding what I write, ask for me to elaborate instead of assuming I'm dead wrong all the time. It gets annoying when everyone I meet does this when I have a conversation with them.
Goddammit humans are such a pain in the ass

4. What is you problem with me?
I may be very smart for my age, but I never claimed to be genius on religion. It's mainly my intuition that religions are full of shit that I care little for the details. I order to bolster my position on atheism, all I have to do is look at how ridiculous and counter-intuitive religious beliefs are.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

1. You don't need to be a formal scholar. Autodidactic knowledge is a perfectly acceptable thing, if you have it.

2. Strop stawmanning, I never insulted your intelligence, only pointed out the fallacy of trying to foster thoughtful and meaning discussion on a subject you have little understanding of. It'd be like me trying to foster a meaningful discussion on Black and Hispanic relations in Oakland. I don't know a damned thing about it, short of what I've seen on gangland.

3. I can tell you don't know much about the subject because as I said your gaffs in here and the CDT. You get like 95% wrong and we spend most of our time correcting you instead of debating.

4. Your skill at countering arguments instead of bringing new ones in, is systemic of your lack of knowledge, not a lack of intelligence or debatory prowess.

1. ...okay

2. Straw manning? The closest thing to that that I did was misinterpreting what you said. And seeing as I'm not paying much attention to these conversations half the time, that's probably what's happened.
Also, I know more about Christianity than you know about Black and Hispanic relations in Bumfuk, Wherever

3. I don't have time for this. If you have problems understanding what I write, ask for me to elaborate instead of assuming I'm dead wrong all the time. It gets annoying when everyone I meet does this when I have a conversation with them.
Goddammit humans are such a pain in the ass

4. What is you problem with me?
I may be very smart for my age, but I never claimed to be genius on religion. It's mainly my intuition that religions are full of shit that I care little for the details. I order to bolster my position on atheism, all I have to do is look at how ridiculous and counter-intuitive religious beliefs are.

3. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. We understand, and you're wrong, and we correct you. The "I'm not wrong you just don't understand my argument" copout has been used famously to avoid criticism. If we don't understand your arguments than you need to make your points clearer. Your lack of time or attention is your problem not ours, nor is it a valid excuse for the deficiencies in your prose.

4. I think your paragraph perfectly exemplifies my problem. Your aversion to religion has actually nothing to with the beliefs themselves. You say you don't care for the details. Since logically you wouldn't actually be able to make any sort of valid assessment on a belief system without knowing the details, you have no actual foundation to determine if religious beliefs are counter intuitive or not. So I conclude your repeated attempts to bolster atheism at the expense of Christianity stems from need to satisfy your own ego and self perceived level of intelligence. Thus your presence n the CDT and in creating threads like these are your own personal version of a power trip.

[Creepoc Infinite]

1. ...okay

2. Straw manning? The closest thing to that that I did was misinterpreting what you said. And seeing as I'm not paying much attention to these conversations half the time, that's probably what's happened.
Also, I know more about Christianity than you know about Black and Hispanic relations in Bumfuk, Wherever

3. I don't have time for this. If you have problems understanding what I write, ask for me to elaborate instead of assuming I'm dead wrong all the time. It gets annoying when everyone I meet does this when I have a conversation with them.
Goddammit humans are such a pain in the ass

4. What is you problem with me?
I may be very smart for my age, but I never claimed to be genius on religion. It's mainly my intuition that religions are full of shit that I care little for the details. I order to bolster my position on atheism, all I have to do is look at how ridiculous and counter-intuitive religious beliefs are.

3. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. We understand, and you're wrong, and we correct you. The "I'm not wrong you just don't understand my argument" copout has been used famously to avoid criticism. If we don't understand your arguments than you need to make your points clearer. Your lack of time or attention is your problem not ours, nor is it a valid excuse for the deficiencies in your prose.

4. I think your paragraph perfectly exemplifies my problem. Your aversion to religion has actually nothing to with the beliefs themselves. You say you don't care for the details. Since logically you wouldn't actually be able to make any sort of valid assessment on a belief system without knowing the details, you have no actual foundation to determine if religious beliefs are counter intuitive or not. So I conclude your repeated attempts to bolster atheism at the expense of Christianity stems from need to satisfy your own ego and self perceived level of intelligence. Thus your presence n the CDT and in creating threads like these are your own personal version of a power trip.

4.
It's precisely the details of religious beliefs that make me not take religions seriously.
I find religion counter intuitive because of those beliefs. It's not that I don't care about details, it's that I care very little for them because of how stupid they usually are.
I am also confused as to why you think I am on a power trip by starting conversations? If I wanted to feel better than others I'd go to a catholic school. I am genuinely more interested in challenging my position than satisfying my own ego, that is, at most peripheral to the conversation, and not relevant to you or anyone else.
So stop assuming I don't care about beliefs, because I do.

[Creepoc Infinite]

3. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. We understand, and you're wrong, and we correct you. The "I'm not wrong you just don't understand my argument" copout has been used famously to avoid criticism. If we don't understand your arguments than you need to make your points clearer. Your lack of time or attention is your problem not ours, nor is it a valid excuse for the deficiencies in your prose.

4. I think your paragraph perfectly exemplifies my problem. Your aversion to religion has actually nothing to with the beliefs themselves. You say you don't care for the details. Since logically you wouldn't actually be able to make any sort of valid assessment on a belief system without knowing the details, you have no actual foundation to determine if religious beliefs are counter intuitive or not. So I conclude your repeated attempts to bolster atheism at the expense of Christianity stems from need to satisfy your own ego and self perceived level of intelligence. Thus your presence n the CDT and in creating threads like these are your own personal version of a power trip.

4.
It's precisely the details of religious beliefs that make me not take religions seriously.
I find religion counter intuitive because of those beliefs. It's not that I don't care about details, it's that I care very little for them because of how stupid they usually are.
I am also confused as to why you think I am on a power trip by starting conversations? If I wanted to feel better than others I'd go to a catholic school. I am genuinely more interested in challenging my position than satisfying my own ego, that is, at most peripheral to the conversation, and not relevant to you or anyone else.
So stop assuming I don't care about beliefs, because I do.

And I think you have trouble finding the difference between not caring about details and not caring for the details.

The difference being that not caring about details means I do not pay attention to them.
But I do, and I don't care for them!! It's a phrase my dad uses, so get it right.

[Washington Resistance Army]

In a way Atheism and Christianity have no proof to back up what they believe. In fact no religion can actually find good proof of anything they believe, its just not possible unless you have a time machine or were there when it happened, which is not logical in any way. Now I am not saying any religions views are wrong or anything, i'm just saying they have nothing but old documents that could've been fabricated to back them up. It is possible that Christians are correct, or that Atheists are correct, along with any other religion. Further more the only question is, what really happened that created the world, and those that live in it? We may never know. Perhaps there is some proof out there as to what happened, we just haven't found it yet, and until we do religions will continue to argue with each other about who's right and who's wrong. Heck even if we do find proof religions will still argue about it all, even if the proof is standing right in front of them.

I don't think you understand some of the stuff you're talking about. Atheism needs no proof because it makes no claims, it's simply the rejection of theistic claims and beliefs. There are some Atheists who say things such as they know a god doesn't exist, but they don't given they can't prove it and it's as much a nonsensical statement as someone saying they know a god exists. Also, we know how the world was created and how life came to be, same with how the universe came to be.

Anyways, what exactly is the point of this thread OP?

[Creepoc Infinite]

In a way Atheism and Christianity have no proof to back up what they believe. In fact no religion can actually find good proof of anything they believe, its just not possible unless you have a time machine or were there when it happened, which is not logical in any way. Now I am not saying any religions views are wrong or anything, i'm just saying they have nothing but old documents that could've been fabricated to back them up. It is possible that Christians are correct, or that Atheists are correct, along with any other religion. Further more the only question is, what really happened that created the world, and those that live in it? We may never know. Perhaps there is some proof out there as to what happened, we just haven't found it yet, and until we do religions will continue to argue with each other about who's right and who's wrong. Heck even if we do find proof religions will still argue about it all, even if the proof is standing right in front of them.

I don't think you understand some of the stuff you're talking about. Atheism needs no proof because it makes no claims, it's simply the rejection of theistic claims and beliefs. There are some Atheists who say things such as they know a god doesn't exist, but they don't given they can't prove it and it's as much a nonsensical statement as someone saying they know a god exists. Also, we know how the world was created and how life came to be, same with how the universe came to be.

Anyways, what exactly is the point of this thread OP?

I asked a simple goddamn question: which side makes better arguments?
But now I have to deal with some jerkoff doing a character study on my ass because I apparently make these threads because I get off to them or something.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

3. It's not that we don't understand what you're saying. We understand, and you're wrong, and we correct you. The "I'm not wrong you just don't understand my argument" copout has been used famously to avoid criticism. If we don't understand your arguments than you need to make your points clearer. Your lack of time or attention is your problem not ours, nor is it a valid excuse for the deficiencies in your prose.

4. I think your paragraph perfectly exemplifies my problem. Your aversion to religion has actually nothing to with the beliefs themselves. You say you don't care for the details. Since logically you wouldn't actually be able to make any sort of valid assessment on a belief system without knowing the details, you have no actual foundation to determine if religious beliefs are counter intuitive or not. So I conclude your repeated attempts to bolster atheism at the expense of Christianity stems from need to satisfy your own ego and self perceived level of intelligence. Thus your presence n the CDT and in creating threads like these are your own personal version of a power trip.

4.
It's precisely the details of religious beliefs that make me not take religions seriously.
I find religion counter intuitive because of those beliefs. It's not that I don't care about details, it's that I care very little for them because of how stupid they usually are.
I am also confused as to why you think I am on a power trip by starting conversations? If I wanted to feel better than others I'd go to a catholic school. I am genuinely more interested in challenging my position than satisfying my own ego, that is, at most peripheral to the conversation, and not relevant to you or anyone else.
So stop assuming I don't care about beliefs, because I do.

I assume nothing, I conclude on observation. Empiricism in its purest form. You, by my calculation, aren't genuinely interested in just having your position challenged to grow your foundation. You want people to challenge your opinion so you can refute them and for lack of a better word "defeat" them. Many would say that's symptomatic of the narcissistic attitude expected of a 17 year old.

And it's probably correct to conclude that my "problem" as you call it, comes from the fact that at 17 I was pretty similar.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't think you understand some of the stuff you're talking about. Atheism needs no proof because it makes no claims, it's simply the rejection of theistic claims and beliefs. There are some Atheists who say things such as they know a god doesn't exist, but they don't given they can't prove it and it's as much a nonsensical statement as someone saying they know a god exists. Also, we know how the world was created and how life came to be, same with how the universe came to be.

Anyways, what exactly is the point of this thread OP?

I asked a simple goddamn question: which side makes better arguments?
But now I have to deal with some jerkoff doing a character study on my ass because I apparently make these threads because I get off to them or something.

Watch the flaming. I don't care but others might so just good practice to avoid it all together.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

4.
It's precisely the details of religious beliefs that make me not take religions seriously.
I find religion counter intuitive because of those beliefs. It's not that I don't care about details, it's that I care very little for them because of how stupid they usually are.
I am also confused as to why you think I am on a power trip by starting conversations? If I wanted to feel better than others I'd go to a catholic school. I am genuinely more interested in challenging my position than satisfying my own ego, that is, at most peripheral to the conversation, and not relevant to you or anyone else.
So stop assuming I don't care about beliefs, because I do.

And I think you have trouble finding the difference between not caring about details and not caring for the details.

The difference being that not caring about details means I do not pay attention to them.
But I do, and I don't care for them!! It's a phrase my dad uses, so get it right.

I'm well aware of the semantical difference. Problem is you don't seem to apply them differently. If you cared about the details, you would know them, which has become ever clearer that you don't.

[Creepoc Infinite]

4.
It's precisely the details of religious beliefs that make me not take religions seriously.
I find religion counter intuitive because of those beliefs. It's not that I don't care about details, it's that I care very little for them because of how stupid they usually are.
I am also confused as to why you think I am on a power trip by starting conversations? If I wanted to feel better than others I'd go to a catholic school. I am genuinely more interested in challenging my position than satisfying my own ego, that is, at most peripheral to the conversation, and not relevant to you or anyone else.
So stop assuming I don't care about beliefs, because I do.

I assume nothing, I conclude on observation. Empiricism in its purest form. You, by my calculation, aren't genuinely interested in just having your position challenged to grow your foundation. You want people to challenge your opinion so you can refute them and for lack of a better word "defeat" them. Many would say that's symptomatic of the narcissistic attitude expected of a 17 year old.

And it's probably correct to conclude that my "problem" as you call it, comes from the fact that at 17 I was pretty similar.

Narcisism? Bah, my only problem is I have little patience when I'm stuck in a bullshit class in my school passing the time listening to a person like you trying to figure out my psyche.
I appreciate your attention, although I would wish that somebody would at least acknowledge my achievements once in a fucking while.
(And this is more talking to myself)
I'm sick of people not paying attention to me, they don't acknowledge or attempt to understand why I have to drop things my way in order to do it right by my standards.
These threads exist because I'm more interested in discussing religion then I am discussing bullshit school stuff I don't care about (I'm in class). I want my opinions challenged because it excites me, not so I can "defeat" others in order to feel good about myself.
I can do that in real life all I want, especially when I live in the simple minded south.

You know how I think this stuff out? I've been led by example that challenging your position is how you become more dynamic as a person. So that's what I'm doing, that's why I'm interested in being converted, that's why I'm experimenting with video game franchises I don't like, that's why I'm reading books I don't normally read.

[Transyl]

In a way Atheism and Christianity have no proof to back up what they believe. In fact no religion can actually find good proof of anything they believe, its just not possible unless you have a time machine or were there when it happened, which is not logical in any way. Now I am not saying any religions views are wrong or anything, i'm just saying they have nothing but old documents that could've been fabricated to back them up. It is possible that Christians are correct, or that Atheists are correct, along with any other religion. Further more the only question is, what really happened that created the world, and those that live in it? We may never know. Perhaps there is some proof out there as to what happened, we just haven't found it yet, and until we do religions will continue to argue with each other about who's right and who's wrong. Heck even if we do find proof religions will still argue about it all, even if the proof is standing right in front of them.

I don't think you understand some of the stuff you're talking about. Atheism needs no proof because it makes no claims, it's simply the rejection of theistic claims and beliefs. There are some Atheists who say things such as they know a god doesn't exist, but they don't given they can't prove it and it's as much a nonsensical statement as someone saying they know a god exists. Also, we know how the world was created and how life came to be, same with how the universe came to be.

Anyways, what exactly is the point of this thread OP?

Look, I don't understand the point in this thread either. Only thing thats really happening is pointless arguments about what the 'better' one is, Christianity or Atheism. Personally I don't care about Atheism or Christianity, I have my own religion just like everyone else does. The one who created this thread just likes to bitch about how much they hate Christianity and love Atheism, which in my point of view it sounds like he's a child looking for attention and something to do. Its pretty childish to argue about stuff you know nothing about. The creator of this thread has argued with me before, he was dissing on Atheism which now he is backing up? He makes no goddamn sense, before you start an argument, make sure you *know what your talking about, know what side you're on, and especially in religion discussions, don't go dissing on other peoples religions just because you don't like them.

[Vazdaria]

Well Christians on Twitter seem to be happier than Atheists on Twitter (http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/on ... sts-60745/) and may by chance be healthier (http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... r-atheists)

Perhaps this is why I've never met a nice atheist person.

[Creepoc Infinite]

And I think you have trouble finding the difference between not caring about details and not caring for the details.

The difference being that not caring about details means I do not pay attention to them.
But I do, and I don't care for them!! It's a phrase my dad uses, so get it right.

I'm well aware of the semantical difference. Problem is you don't seem to apply them differently. If you cared about the details, you would know them, which has become ever clearer that you don't.

I know of the details and I don't care for them. I've done plenty of my own research and I find it mildly interesting, all this religious stuff. But do you know how goddamn frustrating it is to study a certain passage and when you use it to undermine the person's religious claim, they just pull the "well you gotta interpret it a certain way to get what I'm saying". Card.
AAAAAAAAAGH
WHATS THE POINT OF STUDYING SHIT IF IT DOESNT AMOUNT TO ANYTHING BECAUSE OF SOME ASSHOLE WHO IGNORES YOUR POINT FOR SILLY REASONS???

[Kelinfort]

Well Christians on Twitter seem to be happier than Atheists on Twitter (http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/on ... sts-60745/) and may by chance be healthier (http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... r-atheists)

Perhaps this is why I've never met a nice atheist person.

These people are so happy and nice

Not to say every Christian is unlikable, but you saying you've never met a nice atheist seems to belie the fact that discussion on religion is the only way you find an atheist...and this is a passionate debate.

[Vazdaria]

Well Christians on Twitter seem to be happier than Atheists on Twitter (http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/on ... sts-60745/) and may by chance be healthier (http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/ ... r-atheists)

Perhaps this is why I've never met a nice atheist person.

These people are so happy and nice

Not to say every Christian is unlikable, but you saying you've never met a nice atheist seems to belie the fact that discussion on religion is the only way you find an atheist...and this is a passionate debate.

I like Ann Coulter....We have the same birthday


can't say the same for the rest.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I assume nothing, I conclude on observation. Empiricism in its purest form. You, by my calculation, aren't genuinely interested in just having your position challenged to grow your foundation. You want people to challenge your opinion so you can refute them and for lack of a better word "defeat" them. Many would say that's symptomatic of the narcissistic attitude expected of a 17 year old.

And it's probably correct to conclude that my "problem" as you call it, comes from the fact that at 17 I was pretty similar.

Narcisism? Bah, my only problem is I have little patience when I'm stuck in a bullshit class in my school passing the time listening to a person like you trying to figure out my psyche.
I appreciate your attention, although I would wish that somebody would at least acknowledge my achievements once in a fucking while.
(And this is more talking to myself)
I'm sick of people not paying attention to me, they don't acknowledge or attempt to understand why I have to drop things my way in order to do it right by my standards.
These threads exist because I'm more interested in discussing religion then I am discussing bullshit school stuff I don't care about (I'm in class). I want my opinions challenged because it excites me, not so I can "defeat" others in order to feel good about myself.
I can do that in real life all I want, especially when I live in the simple minded south.

You know how I think this stuff out? I've been led by example that challenging your position is how you become more dynamic as a person. So that's what I'm doing, that's why I'm interested in being converted, that's why I'm experimenting with video game franchises I don't like, that's why I'm reading books I don't normally read.

Well I don't know any of your achievements other than surviving to 17, which in this day and age sadly is one.

If you seriously want to be "converted", I'd suggest start caring for the details then.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I'm well aware of the semantical difference. Problem is you don't seem to apply them differently. If you cared about the details, you would know them, which has become ever clearer that you don't.

I know of the details and I don't care for them. I've done plenty of my own research and I find it mildly interesting, all this religious stuff. But do you know how goddamn frustrating it is to study a certain passage and when you use it to undermine the person's religious claim, they just pull the "well you gotta interpret it a certain way to get what I'm saying". Card.
AAAAAAAAAGH
WHATS THE POINT OF STUDYING SHIT IF IT DOESNT AMOUNT TO ANYTHING BECAUSE OF SOME ASSHOLE WHO IGNORES YOUR POINT FOR SILLY REASONS???

Welcome to the daily frustrations if inter-Christian dialogue. You should have been there for me and Constantanopolis discussing the implications of Mathew 16

[Benuty]

I think this thread fills my monthly quota of straw.

That is for damn sure.