#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Religion itself is proof of evolution.
Microevolution is the reason we have religion in the first place, I just find it hilarious that the thing religion tries to disprove so much was in deed a result of evolution in our cognative reasoning.
This is true.
Side Score: 52
|
 |
Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
Side Score: 27
|
|
3
points
I would very much agree, though I do think evolution at least plays a big part in why those believe in god or any particular religion. Religion has for people, comforted them in times of fear, united people as expressed in the video, and may have jump started us on a path to becoming civilized. Religion I suspect to be a defense mechanism for humanity towards confusion, fear, being overwhelmed, etc. Side: This is true.
Religion was needed for our very own survival, religion taught humanity the concept of civil order, it was a big step in human social evolution, although not perfect it still kept us from killing our selves off, despite the atrocities committed in the name of religion, what ever the personal motivations for one to follow religion it worked out pretty well to get us to this point, but as humans continue to evolve both mentally and physically religion will in time die out and be replaced with a more efficient adaptation of human survival. Side: This is true.
2
points
2
points
Religion didn't begin from mid air, so we humans brought the question of our existence to ourselves, and built Religious landmarks, ornaments. Religion was like science, an explanation to everything. And it can be referred to as our evolution of religion and further stems of our society as we all know it. Side: This is true.
Microevolution is the changes in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift. Side: This is true.
|
If anything religion is proof that evolution is not true. Why has it lasted so long? Religion asks you to give your life for God. Religion tells you that you will have to leave your family behind to follow God. Religion asks you to not care for the things of the world. This is why humanism came about! Humanism was against religious notions of only the afterlife mattering. Religion said that this world didn't matter--though thats not what Christianity says at all, but people still thought it did--and that we should only do that which would help in the other life. So, evolutionarily, religion should have been gone a long time ago, since it goes against everything that would help provide for life. So, actually, religion is proof against naturalistic evolutionary beliefs. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
4
points
If anything religion is proof that evolution is not true. Why has it lasted so long? Religion asks you to give your life for God. Religion tells you that you will have to leave your family behind to follow God. Religion asks you to not care for the things of the world. In other words, religion lasted as long as it has, because it requests life long loyalty, which you will eventually raise your children to be religious so they to can go to heaven, causing religion to be passed down for generations, this gives evolution a huge opportunity to contribute to our survival through religion since it effects our species. This is why humanism came about! Humanism was against religious notions of only the afterlife mattering. Humanist was for a morality based on the well being of humans, not necessarily being against religion but was strongly tied to the anti-religious because religion got in the way of what humanism is intended to accomplish. where as religion is less about that and more about the approval of god, certain interpretations of most religions compliment humanism, but religion as a whole has stalled the progress of humanism throughout history (I refer to humanism even when the term humanism was never applied but the philosophy was still there). Religious have oppressed human rights, and scientific progress, humanism having the goal to better the well being of humanity originally was birthed with an opposition towards religion. However humanism doesn't necessarily have to be secular. Religion said that this world didn't matter--though thats not what Christianity says at all, but people still thought it did--and that we should only do that which would help in the other life. Christianity IS a religion. So, evolutionarily, religion should have been gone a long time ago, since it goes against everything that would help provide for life. So, actually, religion is proof against naturalistic evolutionary beliefs. It is rather outdated however, two things you have to keep in mind, evolution in our own species has gotten significantly less efficient since we became more civilized, because we don't die as often thanks to our technology and union as a species, natural selection is less effective at weeding out those whom would be/are holding us back. Evolution I suspect is a significantly slower process for humanity as we have hijacked our own evolution, however their is evidence that secularism is increasing and religion is decreasing. http://www.alternet.org/belief/ Side: This is true.
1
point
1
point
3
points
First, You claim that if religion was a byproduct of evolution then it should be gone by now, since you claimed religion is all about giving your life away to god, in theory this would make evolution solely counter-productive to our evolution, however, I was pointing out that since religion is being passed down to generation, to generation, to generation it has a capability of manipulating our survival, and by "giving our lives away" to follow whatever religious texts, allows us to evolve with the practice of religions, allows us to use religions as a means of survival. A lot of things that religion does, yes is counter-productive, but some things are able to be an advantage for us, like for example sex only should have the purpose to go out and multiply, by holding that belief, we are more likely to try to expand as a species. Secondly, you were saying that religion opposes humanism, I was pointing out that yes there have been some conflict between humanism and religion, however religion is perfectly capable of being interpreted in Humanisms interest. Third point was to say that Christianity was a religion, since it seemed you were implying that it was something else entirely. Fourth point was you finishing up with your original thesis that religion shouldn't have lasted as long as it has if evolution was true, I was pointing out that although evolution is already an incredibly slow thing, it is even slower for us as a species thus, evolution being true, religion might not have died out yet, but I provided evidence of it's decline, being evidence that religion is a product of evolution by your own logic, since if it was it should be dying out, and slowly it is... Side: This is true.
First, You claim that if religion was a byproduct of evolution then it should be gone by now, since you claimed religion is all about giving your life away to god, in theory this would make evolution solely counter-productive to our evolution, however, I was pointing out that since religion is being passed down to generation, to generation, to generation it has a capability of manipulating our survival, and by "giving our lives away" to follow whatever religious texts, allows us to evolve with the practice of religions, allows us to use religions as a means of survival. Simply because it is passed down, it does not make it a means to survival. If a religion says that we are to give as an offering the best of our flock, then we are losing resources. Religion also states that not only are our families going to differ with us on religion, but we are going to be at war with our family members who have different religions. Christianity makes this point very explicitly. A lot of things that religion does, yes is counter-productive, but some things are able to be an advantage for us, like for example sex only should have the purpose to go out and multiply, by holding that belief, we are more likely to try to expand as a species. Most religions do not hold the belief that sex is only for reproduction. Secondly, you were saying that religion opposes humanism, I was pointing out that yes there have been some conflict between humanism and religion, however religion is perfectly capable of being interpreted in Humanisms interest. When did I say that? I never said that religion opposes humanism. I stated that Christianity was humanistic, though people don't think it is. The point I was making is that humanism came about because religion was focussed on the afterlife, not this life. A large portion of history was dedicated to people who believed this. It should have weeded itself out sooner. Third point was to say that Christianity was a religion, since it seemed you were implying that it was something else entirely. No I didn't. Fourth point was you finishing up with your original thesis that religion shouldn't have lasted as long as it has if evolution was true, I was pointing out that although evolution is already an incredibly slow thing, it is even slower for us as a species thus, evolution being true, religion might not have died out yet, but I provided evidence of it's decline, being evidence that religion is a product of evolution by your own logic, since if it was it should be dying out, and slowly it is... Religion declining proves Christianity; it rebuts many other religions. However, it also rebuts evolution, since it still should have weeded itself out a long time ago. It never should have become prominent, if naturalistic evolution is true. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
2
points
Simply because it is passed down, it does not make it a means to survival. If a religion says that we are to give as an offering the best of our flock, then we are losing resources. Religion also states that not only are our families going to differ with us on religion, but we are going to be at war with our family members who have different religions. Christianity makes this point very explicitly. Actually it does, because my point was, is that religion offers both advantageous and disadvantageous to our survival, the advantageous contributes to prolonging it while the latter contributes the opposite, making the decline of religion significantly slower than if it was ONLY contributing in a negative way. Most religions do not hold the belief that sex is only for reproduction. Not in my experience, I've seen many people, ESPECIALLY Christians claim that sex should only be done to multiply, that sex should only be done for reproduction, in fact it is the very core behind an occurring argument for why homosexuality is immoral, that it doesn't contribute to our expanding our species, reproduction. You know the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing... yeah it kind of does at least in some interpretations. When did I say that? I never said that religion opposes humanism. I stated that Christianity was humanistic, though people don't think it is. The point I was making is that humanism came about because religion was focussed on the afterlife, not this life. A large portion of history was dedicated to people who believed this. It should have weeded itself out sooner. Except religion isn't that fast, especially with us. It will weed itself out, just because it hasn't yet, doesn't mean that it won't eventually. Religion declining proves Christianity; it rebuts many other religions. well the decline is mostly happening here in America that I am aware of, the link I gave you anyway, isn't Christianity the biggest religion in America? However, it also rebuts evolution, since it still should have weeded itself out a long time ago. Like I have said, evolution doesn't work that quickly especially with us. It never should have become prominent, if naturalistic evolution is true. Actually at one point in time I suspect religion was more advantageous then disadvantageous, it probably sped up our path to civilization, since back in the good ol' days, people weren't co-operative enough to come together to create an authority to enforce laws necessary for a civilization, religion probably took the first place of authority in human history preying on people's fears of hell fire, and this is evident in how religion was used by kingdoms to more strongly enforce the kingdoms laws. Side: This is true.
Actually it does, because my point was, is that religion offers both advantageous and disadvantageous to our survival, the advantageous contributes to prolonging it while the latter contributes the opposite, making the decline of religion significantly slower than if it was ONLY contributing in a negative way. It being passed down is irrelevant. The issue is the issuance of it. When the mutation happened (i.e. religion being introduced), it should have been weeded out quickly, as opposed to those without the mutation. But even if you want to argue about the passing of it down being relevant, it would still not be an advantage. Chins are supposedly pointless; however, humans have them. There is no advantage, nor disadvantage. A family having the same religion is equivalent to them not having a religion at all, which means that the only advantage that could come about would be that of community, which is already there without religion; but with religion, you get rules and regulations, and all the negative things that atheists hate about religion. Not in my experience, I've seen many people, ESPECIALLY Christians claim that sex should only be done to multiply, that sex should only be done for reproduction, in fact it is the very core behind an occurring argument for why homosexuality is immoral, that it doesn't contribute to our expanding our species, reproduction. You know the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing... yeah it kind of does at least in some interpretations. They don't understand their religion, then. And even if it were to be the case, religion would then be harder to pass down, since they don't have sex, except to reproduce. Most children are oops babies, not planned babies. Except religion isn't that fast, especially with us. It will weed itself out, just because it hasn't yet, doesn't mean that it won't eventually. Religion isn't that fast? Paul converted the "entire" Roman empire single handedly. He made people lose their faith in other religions, and have faith in Christianity. Religion bounces up and down very easily. There is no reason it shouldn't have weeded itself out by now. well the decline is mostly happening here in America that I am aware of, the link I gave you anyway, isn't Christianity the biggest religion in America? Christianity is the biggest religion in America. However, I would say that most Americans are not religious. Like I have said, evolution doesn't work that quickly especially with us. Of course it does. Culture is not the same as a genome. Culture changes very quickly. People immigrate from one place to another, and one will notice that very quickly they will pick up the new place's culture. The same is with religion. Religion and culture are both passed down. They are both easily changed. They are both easily destroyed. For example, referring to the degrading religious population in America, the Red Scare culture was what made everyone appear to be Christian. The culture was to be Christian, and appear that way. This held until, at least, the end of the Cold War. After that, people can see that it fell dramatically. And people who immigrated to other places changed culture quickly also. Religion and culture are very bendable. There is no reason it couldn't have been all but destroyed by now. Actually at one point in time I suspect religion was more advantageous then disadvantageous, it probably sped up our path to civilization, since back in the good ol' days, people weren't co-operative enough to come together to create an authority to enforce laws necessary for a civilization, religion probably took the first place of authority in human history preying on people's fears of hell fire, and this is evident in how religion was used by kingdoms to more strongly enforce the kingdoms laws. And do you know what the rulers did with religion? Within the first few hundreds of years with religion being introduced, people were going to war over religion, being killed for religion, people were being oppressed because of religion, and much more. Religion should not have lasted this long. It getting started should have puttered out quickly. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
only advantage that could come about would be that of community, which is already there without religion This isn't true. People came together because of religion. Most children are oops babies, not planned babies. Any evidence of this in historical times? Paul converted the "entire" Roman empire single handedly. Obviously a false statement. made people lose their faith in other religions Jumping from one religion to another is not a huge change. There is no reason it shouldn't have weeded itself out by now. That is not an actual explanation for how long it should take to disappear. And do you know what the rulers did with religion? Within the first few hundreds of years with religion being introduced, people were going to war over religion, being killed for religion, people were being oppressed because of religion, and much more. Religion should not have lasted this long. It getting started should have puttered out quickly. This is saying that religion can be used as a tool for rulers to get what they want. Why does this mean it could just suddenly disappear? That's like saying shovels are great for yard work, therefore they would disappear because yard work is a tough job. Side: This is true.
2
points
It being passed down is irrelevant. The issue is the issuance of it. When the mutation happened (i.e. religion being introduced), it should have been weeded out quickly, as opposed to those without the mutation. But even if you want to argue about the passing of it down being relevant, it would still not be an advantage. Chins are supposedly pointless; however, humans have them. There is no advantage, nor disadvantage. A family having the same religion is equivalent to them not having a religion at all, which means that the only advantage that could come about would be that of community, which is already there without religion; but with religion, you get rules and regulations, and all the negative things that atheists hate about religion. 1.) we don't hate rules and regulations anymore than you do... we prefer there be laws and what not, dogma though, yeah we don't like dogma... 2.) That is EXACTLY it's biggest advantage is it brought us together and sped up our forming of authority amongst us as a species, which has been one of our BIGGEST advantages as a species is having society, it sped up the formation of society back in the old days, and back in the day it kept society glued together. Before society religion is a huge advantage because like I said it gives us reason to come together and create a society by offering authority, after society developes and advances beyond religion and doesn't need religion anymore to exist, religion becomes a HUGE disadvantage, however those whom are religious aren't dying off because in our society we have in a sense gotten to the top of the food chain. It is significantly easier to survive in society that it is in the wild, thus less organisms in our species dies, the less natural selection plays it's part, the less natural selection plays it's parts those whom are less fit than others pass down their genes still. This is why we are soooo physically weak towards majority of wildlife around our size, a bear could kill us easily as well as a tiger, monkey, wolf, etc. On a purely naturalistic level, we are the most unfit species on the planet, however the fact that we have created civilization has made us fit to survive better than any other species on the planet. Therefore the reason religion hasn't been weeded out yet, is because we have the best survivability rate, thus natural selection doesn't play as big of a part, thus natural selection is less efficient, thus natural selection takes significantly more time to weed out religion. What do you not understand about this? They don't understand their religion, then. And even if it were to be the case, religion would then be harder to pass down, since they don't have sex, except to reproduce. Most children are oops babies, not planned babies. That is because even though that is a strong belief, it ironically causes a lot of teen pregnancies, which expands us as a species even more... Religion isn't that fast? Paul converted the "entire" Roman empire single handedly. He made people lose their faith in other religions, and have faith in Christianity. Religion bounces up and down very easily. There is no reason it shouldn't have weeded itself out by now. Yes but that wasn't caused by evolution on it's own. As a civilized species there are other factors in play here, that evolution actually depends on. Right now there isn't one man with the resolve and capacity to convert an entire religion right now for evolution to use (especially in this day and age were we are all globablly connected). Christianity is the biggest religion in America. However, I would say that most Americans are not religious. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports look at this then. Of course it does. Culture is not the same as a genome. Culture changes very quickly. People immigrate from one place to another, and one will notice that very quickly they will pick up the new place's culture. The same is with religion. Religion and culture are both passed down. They are both easily changed. They are both easily destroyed. For example, referring to the degrading religious population in America, the Red Scare culture was what made everyone appear to be Christian. The culture was to be Christian, and appear that way. This held until, at least, the end of the Cold War. After that, people can see that it fell dramatically. And people who immigrated to other places changed culture quickly also. Religion and culture are very bendable. There is no reason it couldn't have been all but destroyed by now. Only if we are in a specific situation where this can happen again. Evolution also only effects us on a genetic level, it then manifests from there throughout society. It effects people's predispositions in general which then effects society, so evolution effects out species, it doesn't directly effect entire religions, just individuals predispositions to be religious. You realize that there is a gene for being religious right? a gene that if you possess you are significantly more likely to be religious. http://www.newscientist.com/article/ Evolution has no control over entire religious just people, and evolution doesn't have direct control of socialization. Religion more effected by socialization then it is by evolution, but still strongly effected by evolution. It's not like when an entire religion is at it's most vulnerable situation to be deconverted evolution is going to possess someone to deconvert the entire religion, if someone has enough resolve, care, and opposing view to convert them to (by predisposition) and an entire populace of an entire religion are in a situation where they can easily be deconverted due to the balance of genetics, socialization, situation then it might happen however it isn't a common occurence. Evolution isn't a sentient thing that goes out of its way to better species, it is like an algorithm with that end result. And do you know what the rulers did with religion? Within the first few hundreds of years with religion being introduced, people were going to war over religion, being killed for religion, people were being oppressed because of religion, and much more. Religion should not have lasted this long. It getting started should have puttered out quickly. Which was incredibly disadvantageous, however as much as it turned us against each other, it did bring us together ironically. What it essentially did was divide us into groups, as groups we got significantly better at surviving than any other species enough to balance out how much we were killing each other, in the end being more advantageous then disadvantageous. Side: This is true.
I'm going to be honest with you: I didn't read that. I read the first paragraph and realized that you hadn't taken a world civ course, so I'm just going to respond to it. We had authority before religion came about. We didn't use religion to establish rules and regulations. We established religion after there was already the state. So, all the rules and regulation to which I was referring to were to the needless and detrimental rules, if the religion is not true, such as offerings. So, no, your analysis was wrong. The origin of religion, in secular circles, is that of control and oppression, not society. So, we were adding disadvantage onto what was already there. Once you can go against this, then we can talk. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
1
point
I'm going to be honest with you: I didn't read that. I read the first paragraph and realized that you hadn't taken a world civ course, so I'm just going to respond to it. Yeah you are right, I haven't... I will admit I am rather ignorant in that area. We had authority before religion came about. . We established religion after there was already the state. So, all the rules and regulation to which I was referring to were to the needless and detrimental rules, if the religion is not true, such as offerings. However it doesn't seem you know much about religion other than Christianity When humans first became religious remains unknown, but there is credible evidence of religious behavior from the Middle Paleolithic era (300–500 thousand years ago)[citation needed] and possibly earlier. Perhaps though my claim that religion sped up the process to civilization could be a bit presumptious, at the same time, with how much religion tries to be an authority it only seems likely that it would speed up the process for civilization. The origin of religion, in secular circles, is that of control and oppression, not society. It has been used to to more strongly establish primitive societies back in the day. So, we were adding disadvantage onto what was already there. Once you can go against this, then we can talk. Religion in history was used to establish control in kingdoms, thus is still an advantage with supporting civilization when we were to primitive abide on our own. So, let's talk... EDIT* I left out a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Side: This is true.
oh, and the other clear and blatant incorrect fact was that of evolution being only that of genetics. If this is the case, then the debate origin is pointless. We are talking of memes, which are behavioral aspects. They too have evolutionary impacts, which are quicker. Do not equivocate the two notions of evolution. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
1
point
oh, and the other clear and blatant incorrect fact was that of evolution being only that of genetics. If this is the case, then the debate origin is pointless. We are talking of memes, which are behavioral aspects. They too have evolutionary impacts, which are quicker. Do not equivocate the two notions of evolution. It is not only that of genetics, however, evolution doesn't select out religions, cultures, and socializations as directly as they do genetic dispositions of individual organisms. Side: This is true.
1
point
Why has it lasted so long? Religion was an evolutionary necessity. Why do your eyes still work? Religion asks you to give your life for God. But has a whole bunch of ways to get around it if you didn't actually live for God. Religion said that this world didn't matter--though thats not what Christianity says at all, but people still thought it did--and that we should only do that which would help in the other life. If this were actually true, what was the purpose of the 10 commandments? So, evolutionarily, religion should have been gone a long time ago, since it goes against everything that would help provide for life. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If telling you not to care for Earthly possessions causes you to not kill others to get their stuff wouldn't that be an evolutionary advantage. So, actually, religion is proof against naturalistic evolutionary beliefs. Religion hasn't actually led to people doing what you claim religion was teaching, therefore it didn't go against evolution. Side: This is true.
But has a whole bunch of ways to get around it if you didn't actually live for God. Actually, depending on the religion, religion has but a few ways to live. Christianity, for example, says explicitly that one must believe in Jesus. Thats the only way. If this were actually true, what was the purpose of the 10 commandments? The 10 commandments have no bearing on the issue of this world not mattering or not. There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. If telling you not to care for Earthly possessions causes you to not kill others to get their stuff wouldn't that be an evolutionary advantage. No, because the prisoner's dilemma shows that you would only get taken advantage of when you don't act selfishly. Religion hasn't actually led to people doing what you claim religion was teaching, therefore it didn't go against evolution. Religion has done it, actually. Study the Medieval ages, the times to atheists like to claim religion caused a lot of violence. Study your history. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
Actually, depending on the religion, religion has but a few ways to live. Christianity, for example, says explicitly that one must believe in Jesus. Thats the only way. That's proof that I am right. Just believing in Jesus is not living for God. If you don't live for God, but you believe in Jesus, you are in. The 10 commandments have no bearing on the issue of this world not mattering or not. There are commandments that do not talk about living for God, like not killing, stealing, or coveting. And how is honoring your parents living for God? Some of the commandments are describing ways to make living better and not describing how to live for God. No, because the prisoner's dilemma shows that you would only get taken advantage of when you don't act selfishly. So, the Bible described the prisoner's dilemma. The prisoner's dilemma is how people interact with each other. The Bible described a process that protects society, an evolutionary advantage. Religion has done it, actually. Study the Medieval ages, the times to atheists like to claim religion caused a lot of violence. Study your history. I just did the research and it turns out you are wrong. In the Medieval ages people didn't give up there possessions and live for God like you claim. So, still points to evolution. Side: This is true.
1
point
That's proof that I am right. Just believing in Jesus is not living for God. If you don't live for God, but you believe in Jesus, you are in. Jesus was the Messiah. The messiah was God. Jesus is God. Jesus was the living flesh of the word of God. The word of God is God. Jesus is the living flesh of God. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
1
point
Uh, but just believing in Him is not the same as living for Him. My point was that the religion has ways of getting around the whole living for God thing. For Christians believing in him and living for him go hand it hand. It's illogical to separate the two for Christians. Thanks for not adding to the conversation just like the Christians do. Hmm. This doesn't seem consistent. Conversation: the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words. Adding: join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount. I believe I have added an idea to the mix. Therefore I can rule out your ignorance and just move on. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
For Christians believing in him and living for him go hand it hand. Not true. Sorry. Try again. It's illogical to separate the two for Christians. No, it makes sense because living for Him is very restrictive. Don't use the wrong words if you don't want to be misinterpreted. Hmm. This doesn't seem consistent. Conversation: the informal exchange of ideas by spoken words. Adding: join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount. I believe I have added an idea to the mix. No, you did not add an idea to the mix. You stated what someone else has claimed previously, so it is not original, and you didn't actually tie it to the conversation. There is no reason to consider that adding to the conversation. Thankfully, I added to the conversation on my own which allowed you to finally add to the conversation just now. Praise be to me. Therefore I can rule out your ignorance and just move on. Apparently you can't, you responded. Side: This is true.
1
point
Not true. Sorry. Try again. Why am I wrong? I was a Christian. I studied with my father. I think he knows more than you do about Christianity and it's system of beliefs. Living for God involves believing in God. Believing in God, in the way the bible wants it done, involves living for God. No, it makes sense because living for Him is very restrictive. Don't use the wrong words if you don't want to be misinterpreted. Restrictive in what sense? Also what "wrong words" am I using? You have not given me a credence. No, you did not add an idea to the mix I totes did. You stated what someone else has claimed previously, so it is not original Ideas do not have to be original. They can be derived from similar notions. and you didn't actually tie it to the conversation. It was relevant to your rediculous post. There is no reason to consider that adding to the conversation. It actually is unless you don't understand the semantics of structure within English. Thankfully, I added to the conversation on my own which allowed you to finally add to the conversation just now. Praise be to me. I'll allow you to rant. Apparently you can't, you responded. Yep. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
Why am I wrong? I was a Christian. I studied with my father. I think he knows more than you do about Christianity and it's system of beliefs. You weren't talking about their system of beliefs, you were talking about how they actually act. Living for God involves believing in God. Believing in God, in the way the bible wants it done, involves living for God. This is not a vice versa type of deal. You can't live for God without believing in Him, but sure as heck can believe in Him without living for Him. The Bible does not say that if you ever don't live for God there is no turning back and you are damned forever. Sorry, the Bible does not involve living for God. Restrictive in what sense? Also what "wrong words" am I using? You have not given me a credence. Living for God is restricting how you live, how hard is that to understand? You switched believing to living for. Are we talking about believing or living. I totes did. Totes didn't. Random phrases about Jesus is not an idea. Ideas do not have to be original. They can be derived from similar notions. If your ideas were original you added something. If your ideas were not original, they need to have something to do with the conversation. It was relevant to your rediculous post. My post is ridiculous and yours is not. That's a funny one. It may have been relevant. I didn't accuse you of being irrelevant though. I specifically accused you of not tying it to the conversation, which you failed to do. It actually is unless you don't understand the semantics of structure within English. I like jelly beans. There, did I just add to the conversation? Nope. I'll allow you to rant. No, you have nothing to do with it. You have no control. Yep. So, maybe you should slow down before you are wrong again. ;) Side: This is true.
1
point
You weren't talking about their system of beliefs, you were talking about how they actually act. I was talking about there systems of beliefs. I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't try to tell me what I said. This is not a vice versa type of deal. For Christians it is. As I have said twice now. Get the picture? You can't live for God without believing in Him, but sure as heck can believe in Him without living for Him. True for non believers are some other individuals. However for Christians that devout their lives to Christ their belief in God and their lifestyle go hand in hand. This is a subjective type of deal. They believe that God will do things for them by living for him. The live for him in hopes of strengthening their belief in God. The Bible does not say that if you ever don't live for God there is no turning back and you are damned forever. Sinning without repentance. Enough said. The bible points this out. Sorry, the Bible does not involve living for God. Really? Are you really saying that? What is the point of the bible giving rules then? Hmm? What is the point of sin? Hmmm?! The bible is completely about living for God. Living for God is restricting how you live, how hard is that to understand? How? How can you define my life? Another man's life? What if we feel free living for God? This would make your argument fall apart. You switched believing to living for. Are we talking about believing or living. You know I have been talking about both. Don't play stupid. Totes didn't. Random phrases about Jesus is not an idea. Idea: Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity. This means I am correct. Also it was not random blabbering. I was using comparatives to give hints to a correlation. If your ideas were original you added something. If your ideas were not original, they need to have something to do with the conversation. If I presented an idea, at ALL, I am adding something. They were relevant to your post. My post is ridiculous and yours is not. Never said mine wasn't. That's a funny one. It may have been relevant It was. I didn't accuse you of being irrelevant though. I specifically accused you of not tying it to the conversation, which you failed to do. If it was relevant it logically ties itself to the conversation. I like jelly beans. There, did I just add to the conversation? Nope Yes, you have. It's isn't relevant to my point. It may be relevant to yours though. No, you have nothing to do with it. You have no control. I will still allow you to rant. So, maybe you should slow down before you are wrong again. ;) Yep. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
I was talking about there systems of beliefs. I think I know what I'm talking about. Don't try to tell me what I said. No, if you were talking about the system of beliefs you would have said Christianity. If you wanted to talk about what they actual do, you would have used Christians. You used Christians, so... And, I am talking about what they actually do because systems of beliefs are worthless if you don't follow them. For Christians it is. As I have said twice now. Get the picture? Now you are wrong for a third time. You can say it 50 times for all I care. True for non believers are some other individuals. Labeling people non Christians is going against Christian values. :) However for Christians that devout their lives to Christ their belief in God and their lifestyle go hand in hand. Yeah, but priests make up a small portion of Christians. This is a subjective type of deal. Why do you treat it like it is objective then? They believe that God will do things for them by living for him. The live for him in hopes of strengthening their belief in God. Newsflash, almost no one is living for Jesus. Sinning without repentance. Enough said. The bible points this out. Oh, would you look at that, you just lost the entire argument. Sinning with repentance gets you into heaven, and you don't have to live for Jesus. Really? Are you really saying that? What is the point of the bible giving rules then? Hmm? What is the point of sin? Hmmm?! The bible is completely about living for God. There isn't a single part of the Bible that isn't about living for God? How? How can you define my life? Another man's life? What if we feel free living for God? This would make your argument fall apart. No, feeling free and being free are different. It is a statement of fact. Just deal with it. You know I have been talking about both. Don't play stupid. I know you are because you are not understanding the conversation. Idea: Something, such as a thought or conception, that potentially or actually exists in the mind as a product of mental activity. This means I am correct. Also it was not random blabbering. I was using comparatives to give hints to a correlation. You failed to add the thought part. You didn't give any comparatives. If I presented an idea, at ALL, I am adding something. They were relevant to your post. No, a conversation is a set of ideas about a topic. You said something that was off topic, so it can not be considered part of the conversation. You added to the debate, not the conversation. Fortunately, I helped get you back. Praise be to me. Never said mine wasn't. Ok, thanks for clarifying. It was. No, it wasn't. Just talking about Jesus doesn't make it relevant until you describe how your posts about Jesus have to do with our conversation. If it was relevant it logically ties itself to the conversation. It didn't logically tie to the conversation, it was just stuff about Jesus. Good thing I got you back on track, man I am good. Yes, you have. It's isn't relevant to my point. It may be relevant to yours though. It wasn't relevant to anything, just like your Jesus posts. How are jelly beans related to anything going on here? Since you can't grasp this simple concept it shows you have problems. I will still allow you to rant. You aren't doing anything. But you are delusional, so I guess you probably do think you are doing something. Side: This is true.
1
point
, you would have used Christians. You used Christians, so... Now you dont evem know what you're saying. And, I am talking about what they actually do because systems of beliefs are worthless if you don't follow them. Okay. Now you are wrong for a third time. You can say it 50 times for all I care. Just forget it. Labeling people non Christians is going against Christian values. :) So? Yeah, but priests make up a small portion of Christians. I was talking about devouted followers. Why do you treat it like it is objective then? Well I am debating. I would try to make my point larger than yours. Newsflash, almost no one is living for Jesus. That is false. Lots of people do. Sinning with repentance gets you into heaven, and you don't have to live for Jesus. Repenting is apart of living for Jesus. No, feeling free and being free are different. It is a statement of fact. Just deal with it. Nope. It's subjective. I don't feel free, yet I am wealthy enough that I should. I have enough power to do almost whatever I wish. You failed to add the thought part. You didn't give any comparatives I already explained why I am right about this. No, a conversation is a set of ideas about a topic. You said something that was off topic, so it can not be considered part of the conversation It was completely relative to your first point. It didn't logically tie to the conversation, it was just stuff about Jesus It did. I quit. I stand you. I totes can't. Side: This is true.
Now you dont evem know what you're saying. HAHAHAHA, you can't understand basic English and you think I don't understand something. That's awesome. So? Do you think you are the only one who does it? I was talking about devouted followers. No, your description only applies to priests. That is false. Lots of people do. No, they live for themselves and try to pretend they have repented. Repenting is apart of living for Jesus. Wrong, repenting is the evidence that you haven't been living for Jesus. If you were living for Jesus, you wouldn't have anything to repent. Nope. It's subjective. I don't feel free, yet I am wealthy enough that I should. I have enough power to do almost whatever I wish. You just agreed with me, thanks. I already explained why I am right about this. Which one of your statements was a comparative? Maybe I missed something. It was completely relative to your first point. I mentioned the fictional character Jesus. That is the only link to your post. It was not relevant to just describe the fictional character. It did. I quit. I stand you. I totes can't. You claim that it ties to the conversation, but you haven't given an explanation to how it tied to the conversation. Praise me for being able to get you to actual join the conversation when I responded to you. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
1
point
I think what he means by that, is that people can be christian while still living a rather secular lifestyle, especially with how many different interpretations of the bible there is. What he means by "believing in god but not living for god" is more like being a christian without being devoted to the Christian god in the same sense that a priest would. Also with being able to be forgiven for your sins, a lot of people can convert to Christianity, without doing much more to serve god then they already are, other than praying to the god every once in a while for forgiveness. Side: This is true.
1
point
Saying that Jesus was the Messiah and the word of God is not the same thing as saying that believing in Jesus and living for Jesus go hand in hand. It is just gibberish, good thing we respond to you before you added to the conversation so that you can actually contribute eventually. Side: This is true.
1
point
This is what you said (which brought forth my comment). If you don't live for God, but you believe in Jesus, you are in. This is what I said to say that they are they same and God's law is God himself. Jesus is God so if you believe in God you believe in his word "Jesus was the Messiah. The messiah was God. Jesus is God.Jesus was the living flesh of the word of God. The word of God is God. Jesus is the living flesh of God." This comment meant that they were inherently the same person, but in different form. This also meant that the word of God (which is his commands and moral precedent) is Jesus. This counts towards living for him. This is part of the initial step for Christians. That is all I said. Now leave me alone. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
This is what I said to say that they are they same and God's law is God himself. Jesus is God so if you believe in God you believe in his word Your gibberish didn't say anything close to this. This comment meant that they were inherently the same person, but in different form. If God and Jesus are really the same like you claim, you would have assumed they were the same thing in my comment. You assumed they were different, which means you don't believe that they are the same. This also meant that the word of God (which is his commands and moral precedent) is Jesus. This counts towards living for him. This is part of the initial step for Christians. That is all I said. Now leave me alone. Saying that the word of God is the word of God is not saying that living for God is the same as believing in God, sorry. Good thing we responded to you or you wouldn't have ever had anyone make any sense of what you said. Praise be to us. Side: This is true.
1
point
Your gibberish didn't say anything close to this. Cool. If God and Jesus are really the same like you claim, you would have assumed they were the same thing in my comment Your comment treated them as of they weren't. You assumed they were different, which means you don't believe that they are the same. My beliefs don't matter. Saying that the word of God is the word of God is not saying that living for God is the same as believing in God, sorry. I know. I said it was an initial step towards living for God. Thus believing in him is the starting point in living for him. Which means that in technicality you are doing both. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
Cool. Finally, I got through to you and you realize you were wrong. Your comment treated them as of they weren't. Did it? Did you actually read it? Did you try to understand it? My comment was specifically talking about accepting Jesus, it had nothing to do with whether they were the same. Good job screwing that up. My beliefs don't matter. Sure they do. Your thoughts don't agree with your beliefs, it almost indicates that you know you are wrong. I know. Clearly you don't, because you continue to say the exact opposite. I said it was an initial step towards living for God. You didn't say this with your rambling either. Which means that in technicality you are doing both. When you live for Jesus you obviously believe, but believing doesn't mean living for Jesus for most Christians. Side: This is true.
1
point
Did it? Did you actually read it? Yep. You- If you don't live for God, but you believe in Jesus, you are in. I stated that they are the same person and thus if one believs in God they are making the initial step towards living for God. Sure they do. No. Your thoughts don't agree with your beliefs My beliefs are unknown. You didn't say this with your rambling either. I pointed this out later in my argument. When you live for Jesus you obviously believe, but believing doesn't mean living for Jesus for most Christians. On order to live for God one has to first believe on God. They automatically start the process. Side: This is true.
Yep. You- If you don't live for God, but you believe in Jesus, you are in. I stated that they are the same person and thus if one believs in God they are making the initial step towards living for God. The key there, "initial step". Believing in Jesus is only the initial step which is what I have been trying to say. Most Christians use only the initial step as the gateway to heaven. Sad, but true. My beliefs are unknown. Maybe to you, but you indicate your beliefs with what you write. I pointed this out later in my argument. You still can't admit directly that you didn't say anything useful, at least you admit it indirectly. On order to live for God one has to first believe on God. They automatically start the process. You never started something that you didn't finish? Assuming someone gets to the finish line because they walked up to the start line is foolish. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
1
point
The key there, "initial step". Believing in Jesus is only the initial step which is what I have been trying to say. Most Christians use only the initial step as the gateway to heaven. Sad, but true. Then we are on the same page. Maybe to you, but you indicate your beliefs with what you write. Then tell me what my beliefs are. You never started something that you didn't finish? Assuming someone gets to the finish line because they walked up to the start line is foolish. What are you talking about? Believing in God automatically starts the process of living for him. Side: Blah,blah,blah,LIES,blah,blah,
Then we are on the same page. You say that, but then you keep saying stupid stuff. Then tell me what my beliefs are. I did already. What are you talking about? Believing in God automatically starts the process of living for him. There is a huge difference between starting the process and completing the process. You are trying to defend the ridiculous viewpoint that as long as someone claims to believe in God that they actually live for God. The only thing you can conclude is that if someone lives for God, they believe in God. You try to go the other way which is wrong. Side: This is true.
1
point
1
point
|
