The Energon Pub

by **Salazaar** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:42 pm

This is why Tammuz disgusts me as a person. He basically calls me insane for believing in God, yet he's clearly showing signs of insanity himself with his unrelenting hatred and malice towards those who wish to believe. I can understand him being angry with God and the idea of God because he doesn't believe, or whatever. That's his right. I don't agree with it, but it's his right. I can't understand him going after someone like me, or let's say Mother Teresa who was a woman of God and gave 100% of herself completely to the people, and not once thought cruelly of those she helped, nor did she believe their lives were crap due to some sort of punishment from God. He'd drag her into the street and beat God out of her (or me) if he could, because he's just as insane as Robertson. (And yes I like to lump him in with Robertson repeatedly, because they're both whack-a-loons with an insane vendetta, for no real reason.)

You have no good points Tammuz, there's no rationale behind it, just inane (and insane) random ramblings of hatred and anger.

Tammuz, people like you say Christians promote a climate of violence, yet your ramblings clearly show that if you could, you'd do what you think is right to take our beliefs away and persecute us. You scare me, you frighten me to my core, because people like you create people like Hitler and Stalin.

And that attitude of your's goes well beyond a religious difference, you're scary in general. When this crusade of your's is over, what will it be next? Because people say the sky is blue, and you want it to be purple? When will you ever just say "You know what? It's just not worth it. I think he/she is an idiot. Let them deal with it, I ain't gonna get involved. It's not worth my health to let it get to me like that."? When? And yeah, I know you're going to say I'm a hypocrite and should do the same. Well, you just have to stoke the fires and push and prod until people can't take it anymore. You have the right to speak and be heard, but there are times you should just shut up and let things go. I don't always open my mouth, and it's something you should consider doing yourself.

I could say plenty more and be a bigger problem, but I find no need for it. You just bring the worst out in me, because you're an example of one of the worst kinds of people.

Hateful.

He might not be hateful, he might have some issues. I'm sure lots of people have lost their faith in God because of bad health, loss of close people, etc. That might not be the case with Tammuz, but that's just my two cents.

by **Salazaar** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:45 pm

Also, Atheism always confused me. It's a faith based on the belief of lack of faith. If I'm wrong, someone fill me in here.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:52 pm

Salazaar wrote:Also, Atheism always confused me. It's a faith based on the belief of lack of faith. If I'm wrong, someone fill me in here.

Seems about right.

I didn't get Atheism, and I didn't like anything else, so I picked Agnosticism. I can believe whatever I want out of the Bible, if anything!

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:55 pm

Shadowman wrote:
Salazaar wrote:Also, Atheism always confused me. It's a faith based on the belief of lack of faith. If I'm wrong, someone fill me in here.

Seems about right.

I didn't get Atheism, and I didn't like anything else, so I picked Agnosticism. I can believe whatever I want out of the Bible, if anything!

This brings an excellent point. Christians aren't going about this the right way, I admit. We seem contradictory and whatnot, but for the Atheists and their system to make the claims they do, they're no better, and therefore just as confusing to me.

Different sides of the same coin basically.

by **Tammuz** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:08 pm

I never called you insane, i said the faithless can't tell the difference. which means the faithless can't comprehend your reasoning which means your reasoning is somewhat incomprehensible.

if you can't make others understand your reason for doing something you will cuae conflict; if i take a gun and shoot off your ear, your probably gonna be pissed at me However, if i my shot was actually aimed at the man behind you about to bludgeon you to death with a lead pipe, and I killed preventing him from killing you you probably won't be so pissed. however aslong as you are oblivious to the murderer behind you the reason for me shooting you through the ear is incomprehensible

and the reason for doing something (whether that something is good or bad is important) it's the difference between killing someone becuase you want to inherit their money, and killing someone becuase he's about to set off world war III.

and yes deism is based on reason somewhat, though it's more a rejection of the supernatural as evidence of god, they beleive that any evidence of god comes from the natural world and human deduction, however the philosopher David hume wrote some succinct arguments against deistic beliefs which for the most part seem logically sound, pretty much becuase it's very hard to build an argument for a nice omnipotent, omnibenevolent god through reason without faith.

highlight all my text.

EDIT: Atheism can two things, what you describe is hard atheism, weak atheism is the lack of beleif in gods, agnostism and weak atheism are similiar however agnostism is more closely tied to christian beliefs, weak atheism being a much more general term.

by **Salazaar** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:17 pm

I've finally figured out the technical name for my beliefs!

Theistic Evolutionist Agnostic Catholicism. w00!

by **Tammuz** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:18 pm

which means?

by **Salazaar** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:21 pm

Theistic Evolutionist: Believes that science and religion do not contradict eachother

Agnostic: Takes only some parts of the Bible literally

Catholicism: Was baptized, can't leave that out.

So there you go, an entire collection of Sal's beliefs.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:21 pm

Tammuz wrote:which means?

He's believes there SOME God (Hence the Theism and Agnosticism) but that deity didn't create man, as man evolved naturally.

Also, he has some ties to the Catholic Church.

I have too much time on my hands, and too quick a link to Wikipedia.

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:22 pm

I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

by **Tammuz** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:26 pm

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently theistic. If there is a God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you believe in God. Extravagant theism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

the same is true for any Faith based stance Ravage

by **Salazaar** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:27 pm

Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

by **Tammuz** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:34 pm

the problem with the terms athiesm and agnostiscm is that they can infer a very wide spectrum of beleifs, for example a Hard atheist, and a agnostic theist, would have very little comon ground, however I've yet to determine the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic atheist

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 11:57 pm

Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

by **Tammuz** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:19 am

Operation Ravage wrote:
Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:20 am

Operation Ravage wrote:
Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

General perceptions of Christanity; why of course there are. Most nonchristians know very little about the differing versions of christanity; Tammuz I assure you is not one such neither am I, and I assure you the thing that strikes me the most when I read post like Autobot's about how not all Christians whant to get out there and tell us how wrong we are for not being Christian is the thing that almost all Christians have in common even if they are unwilling to accept it.

by **Nightracer GT** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:25 am

Shadowman wrote:Christianity. The world's biggest Religion. And only One God. But, certainly, there must've been something before Christianity?

Yes, there was. Hindu, Islam, Judaism (Which are still around), Norse, Greek, and it's remake Roman, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Rastafari, and MANY more exist and/or still exist.

Dude.

Islam came 600 years after Christ, and Rastafarianism only started to show up in the 30's. Haile Selassie wasn't even born until 1892.

And Christianity is wrong. Its tenants are right, but its claims are wrong.

by **Tammuz** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:32 am

and sikhism, all the yanks forget sikhism, only the 6th biggest religoen by population. more sikhs than jews.

and bahaism. no one remembers it either.

probably cuase they tend not to cuase trouble.

EDIT: though to be fair Jar, i couldn't tell you the differences between all the protestant churches. but then i don't see the need, very few christians don't beleive in god.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:35 am

Dark Zarak wrote:
Shadowman wrote:Christianity. The world's biggest Religion. And only One God. But, certainly, there must've been something before Christianity?

Yes, there was. Hindu, Islam, Judaism (Which are still around), Norse, Greek, and it's remake Roman, Shinto, Buddhism, Confucianism, Rastafari, and MANY more exist and/or still exist.

Dude.

Islam came 600 years after Christ, and Rastafarianism only started to show up in the 30's. Haile Selassie wasn't even born until 1892.

And Christianity is wrong. Its tenants are right, but its claims are wrong.

Oh, whatever. I prefer dead mythologies anyway.

(NORSE SIDE!)

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:42 am

Tammuz wrote:and sikhism, all the yanks forget sikhism, only the 6th biggest religoen by population. more sikhs than jews.

and bahaism. no one remembers it either.

probably cuase they tend not to cuase trouble.

Or have yet to cause trouble/be the victims of trouble causers

by **Tammuz** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:44 am

Shadowman wrote:
(NORSE SIDE!)

BABYLON SIDE!

News Credits: 1 · by **Operation Ravage** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:44 am

Tammuz wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:
Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

News Credits: 2 · by **Shadowman** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:45 am

Tammuz wrote:
Shadowman wrote:
(NORSE SIDE!)

BABYLON SIDE!

"Norse" sounds like "North" so I win.

*Drive by.*

News Credits: 668 · by **Autobot032** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:50 am

Jar Axel wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:
Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

General perceptions of Christanity; why of course there are. Most nonchristians know very little about the differing versions of christanity; Tammuz I assure you is not one such neither am I, and I assure you the thing that strikes me the most when I read post like Autobot's about how not all Christians whant to get out there and tell us how wrong we are for not being Christian is the thing that almost all Christians have in common even if they are unwilling to accept it.

*BUZZ* Incorrect.

You don't get it, I DON'T want to tell you you're wrong, and have no intentions of it. As I said, it's not between you and I, it's between you and your maker, therefore...it doesn't matter to me what you do or who/what you believe in. That's your right, that's your opinion, that's your whatever. There's no want to tell you you're wrong, right, whatever. I just want to live in peace and ask that I be treated fairly.

Which you have not done, you put words in my mouth, and said that I want to tell you that you're wrong. Guess what? No. I don't. It doesn't even enter my mind because it's none of my business. I don't know what your beliefs are and they're none of my business, therefore....I do not want to, don't care to, have no plans to, have no right to, and absolutely will not tell you you're wrong or whatever.

It's not my place to judge, and quite honestly, I don't care what your belief system is. Does it work for you? Good, fine. Excellent, I wish you well.

You owe me an apology.

by **Jar Axel** » Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:51 am

Operation Ravage wrote:
Tammuz wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:
Salazaar wrote:
Operation Ravage wrote:I don't know why people become so ardently atheistic. If there is no God, then there certainly must be a better way to spend your time than telling people you don't believe in God. Extravagant atheism is an excuse for ego masturbation, and hints at an undercurrent of self-doubt and insecurity.

Well, not all hardcore atheists are like that. General assumptions ftw.

The same can be argued about the perceptions of Christianity in this thread.

And nice way to defend atheism, Tammuz. I love it how the general perceptions of Christianity get flung around but when the same is done to atheism it's all, "but there's varying degrees!"

well it's not so much varying degrees, but totally different viewpoints

beleiving that their is no god, and not beleiving in god are very different, as different as beleiving in god and not beleiving in god. it's the difference between yes, no, and not sure. or male, female, aesexual.

hard atheism requires faith, weak atheism does not. which type of christianity does not require faith?

Edit:
hard atheism; negative beleif
weak atheism; no beleif
theism; positive belief

I'm arguing against theism in general.

And the same is true for Christianity. A Pentecostal will have drastically differing viewpoints than say, a Lutheran or a Catholic.

You have yet to prove that Atheism is a superior belief system. You have offered definitions, but no proof.

I'm not going to touch the "but it's a faith-based system, and you can't prove it!" cop-out.

Prove to me that atheism is superior using historical precedent and logic instead of general hand-waves and buzzwords.

Two words, but since I like to make people think for themselves I'll just use their english translation and say "Great King". Yup he was an Athiest or rather he simply had no use for the concept of God; he was known to consult belivers of some of the "Spiritualist" religions of his day.