Gwazi Magnum

Star wars Canon NO MORE!!!

I grew up with Star Wars (hell, my room is still star wars themed from when I was little), my experience is mostly with the movies and the Old Republic. Old Republic being my favourite time era in the star wars universe.

I got 3 books in with the skywalker twins, and about a book in with Admiral Thrawn so I'm familiar with them but not an expert.
So losing them as EU? I can't really say for sure, from what I read of Thrawn he was awesome and I think the movies owe it put him in the movies.
The twin's I'm more neutral on, I enjoyed reading about them (I only really stopped cause no book store ever had the next copy available) but I did read up online on the Yuuzhan Vong and it does get pretty over powered... Just like the clone war animated series, it might be wise to do something else with it.

But there's no reason to touch the Old Republic. That shit is far better written than the movies thanks to Bioware. They executed that time era so well that when I beat Revan in the sith flashpoint on the MMO I felt like I killed my childhood. I have never had another game do that to me.

Pokemon Games 'Omega Ruby' and 'Alpha Sapphire' announced for 3DS.

Songs to play on Guitar?

Why was this stickied? o.O

State-Church Separation

This seems to be ending so I'm not going to bother keeping the debate going.
Unlike Brovo who did it out of boredom, I was sticking around cause I cannot just leave something alone when someone is ignoring so much evidence and being so... gah!!!
If you guys noticed me vanishing for a day or so at a time that was me taking a break from being Mario banging my head against a brick wall.

Lesson learned: If there is not an outside person reading the information can help, learn to drop it if someone shows no intent to listen to reason or evidence.

So Boerd said Now we're going in circles.

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said Here we go again with that whole making claims without showing evidence. Your priest of science would be proud.Why should that matter? You make decisions with serious, tangible, consequences on much shakier testimony, or testimony that says it has evidence. This decision has no consequences and stronger proof. Go up to a mathematician and say the Riemann hypothesis is false because no one has proven it. Watch them laugh and ask to see your proof.

We've provided many evidence/logical reasoning in this debate, you've brought up none.

Just because when we showed you the evidence the first time and you chose to ignore it doesn't mean we're owed to re-cite the same evidence 10 times over because you just don't want to hear it.
And your example there is terribly flawed, if something has no proof it means just that. No proof, it doesn't exist. We have no more reason to believe it than invisible pink unicorns. And unless you want to argue that people will be laughed at for "not providing proof that the invisible pink unicorn is false" (and if you do, go to a mental hospital... like now) you have nothing to stand on in ridiculing people for needing proof or evidence to believe something.

So Boerd said
Any reason why your moral values are acceptable and a religious person's are not? Can you prove your moral values? You can't argue consequences, Communism has killed more and in less time. Communism made the lot of the common man worse in the long run. But I don't see you taking such a hard stance on it.Biggest killers in history, all atheists. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot.

It's giving people the right to being taught proven fact and be able to think for themselves.
You 'morals' is basically indoctrination/in-slavement of the human mind to raise them to think like you do without ever getting the chance to think for themselves or question outside it.

And the ability to think for one's self... Well let's just say it's kind of an ability you need in order to get by in life.

Also, I can't say if Hitler was Christian, Pagan, Atheist or anything. But there is definitely more proof pointing towards him being religious than non-religious, now may he have been quoting religions just to gain power? Yes, he could of. But many religious people will lie about a religion to gain influence over others, Hitler being caught claiming to be members of several different religions doesn't mean he's atheist, it means he's a con artist.

And we've already addressed your Communism claim, it's a dictatorship where they simply adopted the name Communism.
But I already know you're not listening to that, you haven't listened the past several times. So until you actually start listening to other points I'm listing this as a battle you lost.

Vortex said I don't think anyone ever said a religious persons morals are less acceptable than a AthiestsI highly doubt "Communism" has killed more than religion. When you compare every religious related death, be it war, persecution, or death for heresy to "Communism" and all related deaths, Religion far exceeds the death toll. Communism made the common man worse? Mate do you have any blinking idea what Communism actually stands for? Look if your talking about Stalin, Mao, Pol pot then fair enough because yes they did kill many people but THEY WERE NOT MARXIST, THE ONLY COMMUNIST THING ABOUT THEM WAS THEIR NAME. It's not really fair to compare all these 20th century killers to ancient religious murderous tyrants, for the modern killers had modern weapons which enabled more death. Think what would have happened if a medieval religious leader got their hands on some tanks?Also I'm fairly sure I mentioned Hitler was not a Atheist but a devout Catholic.

Good point, and combine this with the rapidly increasing human population as well with far more being alive today than in the past.
It would probably be more accurate if we looked at the genocides through a population percentage rather than a flat out number.

William Draconius said it does seem odd to me, that if you have a room of 300 Christians, and one atheist, and if the one atheist is offended, the other 300 have to stop praying....where's the logic in that? if it works that good, does that mean if I go to say, California, everyone there has to become Christian? Don't see it happening.*smiles*

If they're praying in an area that's meant for something else such as education, and said pray is either

a) Forcing/Trying to make everyone else pray
b) Halting everyone else from following with the purpose of being there (Such as say, being taught if prayer is in a classroom)

Then it's a problem, it's Religion halting/stopping everyone else's day and routine for their own sake. But no one is going to go around and say "Do not pray around me", they just don't want people forcing it on others and/or stopping everyone else from what they're doing for it.

Also not praying doesn't mean being an atheist.

So your example of expecting 300 people in California to become Christian doesn't match at all.

State-Church Separation

The Nexerus said They are all divinely inspired. You seem to misunderstand the teachings of Christianity with regard to scripture; God did not literally reach down with an ethereal hand and physically write the Bible. It was written, according to Christian teaching, by human beings who were divinely inspired. The same thing occurs with Islam and the Quran—Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel, as a representative of God, gave Muhammad the knowledge to write what he did, just as he had done with the prophets of the older faiths, whom Muslims recognize as legitimate prophets (including Jesus, even). Jews believe the same sort of thing about the prophets.You need to remember that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are entirely separate, and made with God between two different parties—in the older case, the Israelites, and in the newer case, all of humanity. The reason that the Old Testament and New Testament are both within the Bible is what I've been telling you in all of my posts so far, but that you've apparently ignored. Context. The Old Testament explains the prophecy of the Messiah, of 'Christ', and tells the mutual heritage of all of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. There's also the matter of a disagreement amount the different denominations of Christians over whether some of the Old Testament, specifically the Old Covenant, does apply to Christians. In my previous post I expressed the most mainstream view: that they're entirely and completely separate, and the Old Covenant is in no way whatsoever binding to Christians. There is also a popular view among Protestant Christian denominations that the moral teachings of the Old Covenant apply to Christians, but not the pen of the laws and rules for Orthodox Jews.The Old Testament is a part of the Bible chiefly for contextual and historical reasons, but some denominations also believe that the moral teachings ring true as well. No one besides Jewish Christians would tell you that Christians must be Torah-submissive.

So basically you're saying the OT is man's word and the NT is God's word?

If so, how are we to know that the NT is not also just mans word?
If you look at it from what the Bible says, it's all Gods word so you're expected to listen to all of it.

If you look at it from personal interpretation, that's where the thousands of different denominations of Christianity popped up from.
But once you're at that point it's no longer trying to establish fact on what God said, but rather what you personally want God to of said.

Since we currently have no proof of God existing and no way of asking said God which parts are his own, all we have to go by is the Bible (Well, we could actually go by history, but history would show the Bible is 100% man made, no God's intervention. So to give you some benefit of the doubt, we'll go at it from what the Bible says). And the Bible says it is all God's word, OT and NT.

So Boerd said Let me adopt a different tactic. Every scientist on Planet Earth, Dawkins included, knocks on your door and says there is a God. Do you then believe?

Do they provide proper proof and evidence?
Observable, physical, repeatable proof and evidence?

If so, probably. If no, I have no more reason to believe them than I do Ray Comfort.

So Boerd said I don't pretend to be rational.

You sure you don't want to take that back?

Kho said I am here to debate and learn. If we avoid this topic at school, and we avoid it at social gatherings, and we avoid it in the workplace and only ever see opinionated people who will not change their minds argue about it on T.V, then why can we not discuss it here, on the internet. I understand you might have seen many God debates, but as you may have noticed, this is a first for me here, and I am quite interested in learning more and in contributing what I believe I know. We need to end this custom of 'argument for the sake of argument and debate for the sake of debate.'

I am here to debate, and I am here to learn from it and change my mind, and I am hoping people are just as open as I am in that regard. I will personally be the first to end it if I feel it is going nowhere.

Heh, I like you! :)

Kho said Edit: I just realised that I have suddenly lost interest in this debate. I have too many other things to focus on, it was a mistake to join, but I couldn't help it Maybe I'll start a proper debate about this and we can continue this some other time. Adios.

Well darn... :(

ActRaiserTheReturned said The burden of proof is one whomever there is more evidence against. There is yet no proof that there is more evidence against theists.

It's simple math.
Science has tons of proof and evidence.
Religion has no proof and evidence.
Therefore by subtracting nothing from a ton our total is... There is more evidence against.

ActRaiserTheReturned said If you think there is no evidence against athiests or agnostics, etcetera, then leave theists alone and let them believe what they want. Hands off their freedom of belief. Agree to disagree and be civilized.

As long as they agree to stop...

1) Teaching it to the next generation as if it's fact
1a) And down talk/shelter/hide the teaching of science to the next generation

2) Trying to push it into schools

3) Push it into law

4) Let it influence how they treat others

5) Trying to push it into Science

Then sure. But all these things are still happening, so it's still going to be debated.

So Boerd said The burden of proof is on whomever is making the statement. I can say green swans exist. You cannot prove they don't. Therefore you can only say you don't know. By making the assertion that they don't, the burden is on you to prove it. Green swans exist is an verifiable, unfalsifiable statement. The opposite is unverifiable and falsifiable. Making a definitive statement which is unverifiable is silly, don't you think?The burden is on the atheist and the theist both. It is not on the agnostic.

Like was already stated, the burden on proof is whoever make's the claim.
You claim God is real? Prove it. If you can't we have no reason to believe in it.
Combined with the fact it is impossible to disprove a negative since it has no evidence to start with (therefore leaving nothing to truly disprove it with), it is safe to say it doesn't exist rather than to simply say you don't know.

Brovo said I am now a God because I say so.

Praise be onto you

Brovo said You can't disprove that. Now worship me in my newly founded church of Brovism.

All bow before the almighty and logical Brovo!

Brovo said The one tenet is that you must wear a silly hat.

Oh boy! This is my favourite tenet ever! :D

Brovo said Or else you will go to candy-land and die over and over from cholesterol.

... I LOVE THIS NEW RELIGION!

A topic about topics: Argument concerning arguments

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Then why do you always want me to be wrong? Or do you just want to argue all the time?

Or perhaps Halo just hasn't ran into a case of agreeing with you yet?
So whenever you two do debate Halo is debating against you?

Captain Jordan said
Don't forget that they have to say it in their own words. Which is why you said the exact same thing that I did, but you felt the need to post anyway. Hence, we have another post without any real contribution to the topic at hand, which happens all the time in these kinds of arguments.

People are entitled to post their own opinion, even if others have stated it.
If anything it helps highlight it's not just one person with said mindset but multiple people.

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said The whole point of the video is that Hitler lied. Nazis were un-Christian, and even if you're saying that you don't believe they were Christian, you compared them to Nazis in the first place.There is no coherent way to equate the two.

Like I said, I never took part in the whole "was Hitler a Christian" part.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Christianity does not produce mad men and lunatics. Lunatics and mad men produce corruptions of Christianity.

People would be violent without Religion, this much is true. We are a naturally violent species.
But Religion is what people used to justify being violent, it was a tool, a weapon and excuse for such violent acts to take place.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Furthermore, the evil, despicable acts attributed to the Bible are either always because of some form of ignorance coming from the critic, or dishonesty.

Or maybe the book really does support these despicable acts... which we have referenced and shown you in the Bible many times now.

Like honestly, this isn't a debatable topic. The Bible is a violent book that allows/accepts violent acts.
It says this constantly.

ActRaiserTheReturned said I like you enough to know that even though you are intelligent, you aren't dishonest either. You have a form of ignorance that's not from a lack of brain power or dishonesty, but it's still ignorance.

No, it's just me understanding basic English and that "Stoning your child" or "Raping women" means "Stoning your child and raping women" and not something like "God was kind and only allows for good".

ActRaiserTheReturned said when these critics don't listen to what Christians, or even secularists are even saying, and instead just gloss over what they say, censor them, if not in deed then at least in their attitudes.

No, we're listening to you. We're just not agreeing with you, there's a difference.

If you want to say "God says X and does Y" but then we look at the Bible/Gods words and it in fact says "God says N and does M" we're going to by what your God is saying.

ActRaiserTheReturned said The definition of bigotry is refusing to learn when you are wrong, or at least refusing to accept you're wrong so that you can learn.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

It seems to mean someone who is hateful or un-accepting of others, not someone who doesn't to admit when they're wrong.
However, regardless of that me and Brovo had been the only one's referencing/quoting your God. You've been the ones to ignore your own God's words and substitute it for other things.

So obviously I'm not going to say I'm in the wrong if even your own God disagrees with you.

ActRaiserTheReturned said The atrocities which were committed in the OT, and even the atrocities which are only claimed yet not present in the OT, are in the past, where they belong, and stay there.

It's all still there though, in the Bible. As God's word, something which he at least at some point supported, allowed and accepted among his followers.
But then we still get to the fact that the Bible never dismissed these as simply OT, as far as God and the Bible is concerned the OT is still to be listened to.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Not only that, but the Bible is written for whomever wants to read it, in Greek, Hebrew, and just plain English.

Like all pieces of literature, they are made for a specific audience.
But that does not change the contents inside of it.

ActRaiserTheReturned said It is very plain that the Bible wants us to live in moral ways that are very pleasant, produce good Samaritan neighbors, and peaceful men and women who are honorable and charitable, and seek the exhortation of others and not just themselves.

Any single Bible quote referenced in this entire debate disagree's with this statement entirely.

The Nexerus said Nothing that occurred before the birth of Christ could possibly be construed as the teachings of Christianity. Mosaic Law, or the "rules of the times" as you call it, is not a Christian principle. It has been universally agreed not to be since the Council of Jerusalem. You're confusing Christianity with Jewish Christianity, which is just ordinary orthodox Judaism but with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Jewish Christians are Christians, but Christians do not have to be Jews (i.e. do not have to follow Mosaic Law). Councils and ecumenical conferences succeeding the Council of Jerusalem made this disparity even wider, further differentiating Christianity as a distinct faith rather than a branch of Judaism, and cementing the distinction between Christian Law and Jewish Law.What you're arguing is about 1,960 years out of date. The Old Testament is context, not law. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ ARE the teachings of God, as per the principle of hypostasis.

But are they not all teachings of the same God? OT and Jesus's words alike? Same mouth, same source, same book.
If OT was honestly meant to be something separate and not part of Christianity why is it even still part of the Bible?
If it truly was not part of Christianity, what point does it have in the book that is meant to be the Religion of Christianity?

If they were simply Jewish teachings should they not be separate and not in the same book? And not be counted as Gods words?

State-Church Separation

ActRaiserTheReturned said
-My new favourite video which I take with pride-

Funny as hell! XD
However you're both resorting to not only insults, but video mockery's now. That's basically admitting defeat. :P

Also, you're confusing Brovo's points with my own, as if you paid attention I never even took part in the whole "Was Hitler a Christian" topic. I simply compared the rationale of defending the violent acts of Christianity to defending the violent acts of Nazis.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
What is your opinion on Hitler's explanation?

Well ignoring all the point's you confused between me and Brovo (which was basically the whole video), all I can say is ignoring the Nazi's hideous actions cause of one or two good things they may do or say is no different than ignoring all the violent acts of Christianity cause of one or two good things they may do or say.

So Boerd said
I did not say prove the Christian God, I said ANY God, even a non-descript one.Um, no it isn't. That's just flat wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science 101.

That still takes you back to the whole "Christianity is right" debate though we've been having after the fact though pre-warning.

But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.
How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.
But it would have be some kind of observable and show able proof and nothing something such as "Look at the world around us" or "My toast has a face on it".

State-Church Separation

So Boerd said
This is becoming too much text for me to answer timely on my phone, but I will focus in on one aspect and return to your biblical citations later..Ladies and gentlemen, if I ever talk about the Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Church of Science, this is the example want you to think of. Belief in a God in no way contradicts science. There are plenty of Nobel Laureates who believe in a God. This God you believe in could be anything you want, as consistent with Science as you want. So I will ask the question more directly.What PIECES of evidence do you require. List and describe them.

That's still not proof.
Just because a god existing doesn't conflicting with a proven theory doesn't automatically give it evidence.

I mean I could say a Unicorn exists, that technically doesn't conflict Evolution. A species could of always evolved into one.
But there is no evidence to support it, so if I were to make such a claim it would have no evidence. Regardless of who else also believed it.
And if we're talking strictly the Christian God, it does actually conflict. The Bible claims the earth is 6,000 years old. Science has proven the earth is several billion years old

So the Bible is off by such a margin a calculator had to switch to letters and other signs to shorten the number it's off by it's so big. :P

As for specific pieces?

You need to disprove evolution, cause the Bible is against that.
You need to disprove the age of the Universe, the earth, etc.
You need to disprove there are any other planets capable of supporting life, cause we are also meant to be the only planet there is with life.
You need to disprove every other religion out there.

You need to prove the existence of a god.
You need to prove that said God is the Christian God.
You need to prove the earth is 6000 years old.
You need to prove there was a great flood that killed almost all of human life.
You need to prove that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time.

And this is just off the top of the head, I guarantee if I bothered to sit down and think of this for a few hours I could add even more to both of these lists.

So Boerd said Prove it.

You have nothing, not being able to provide said evidence is proof of that.
God had 6000 years and infinite power to use to prove himself, yet he never does.

You are honestly getting to the point where you're not even listening to the point's your debating against, making me think it was a mistake to start responding to you again. Even if you basically planted yourself right in the middle of Brovo's and Act's debate.

The Nexerus said Christianity didn't exist before Christ did. You fancy yourself a logical person, so I would hope you can understand that easily.The Old Testament is context. Jesus himself, and his disciples alongside him, did not follow Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses is the law of the old covenant, of the Israelites, not the new covenant, which extends to all people.

The Bible talks about 4,000 or so years before Christ.
And that was rules, times etc lead by the Christian God, Jesus's dad.
Laws which were established as Christianity before Jesus came down, and according to the Bible (Which is also where Jesus's words come from), the OT was never ruled out/ignored.

Unless if you mean to imply you worship Jesus, but not God.