A question for Christians? VOL:not a debate.

[dmv is rnb]

^^Here's the thing.  Nothing you said is of any relevance to what he and I were commenting on

.  And I never referred to atheism as a "belief system."  I said that they are both beliefs...meaning that religious people believe in what they believe in, but it can't be proven as a fact.  And atheists believe that there is nothing to believe in, and that can't be proven as a fact either.  

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DMV is RNB

^^Here's the thing.  Nothing you said is of any relevance to what he and I were commenting on

.  And I never referred to atheism as a "belief system."  I said that they are both beliefs...meaning that religious people believe in what they believe in, but it can't be proven as a fact.  And atheists believe that there is nothing to believe in, and that can't be proven as a fact either.  

...what?
I don't believe in god. That does not mean: You believe in not believing in god. 

You can't equate faith with a lack of faith. They're just not the same. You feel the need to ascribe the defintion of "belief" to counter myself to you. I'm not the opposite of you. I'm different from you. Beliefs counter each other.

The use of "facts" come in when debating faiths. There is no "fact" OF not believing. There are facts FOR not believing. You're not being consistent in your language and its confusing. 

 Like I said, you guys are playing football and i'm watching in the stands. 

 

[dame theory]

Originally Posted by DMV is RNB

^^Here's the thing.  Nothing you said is of any relevance to what he and I were commenting on

.  And I never referred to atheism as a "belief system."  I said that they are both beliefs...meaning that religious people believe in what they believe in, but it can't be proven as a fact.  And atheists believe that there is nothing to believe in, and that can't be proven as a fact either.  

...what?
I don't believe in god. That does not mean: You believe in not believing in god. 

You can't equate faith with a lack of faith. They're just not the same. You feel the need to ascribe the defintion of "belief" to counter myself to you. I'm not the opposite of you. I'm different from you. Beliefs counter each other.

The use of "facts" come in when debating faiths. There is no "fact" OF not believing. There are facts FOR not believing. You're not being consistent in your language and its confusing. 

 Like I said, you guys are playing football and i'm watching in the stands. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by DMV is RNB

I think it's pretty obvious what a "religious nut" is.  An extremist...someone condemning everyone that doesn't believe exactly what they believe to hell.  They try to force their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone at any cost, for no reason at all.  
I don't make statements out of nowhere...if I say something, I'm clearly speaking from my personal experience.  Therefore, if I say that religious nuts and a lot atheists seem to be pretty similar, I'm talking about those that I have met.  And I didn't say ALL atheists because funny enough, one of my best friends happens to be an atheist, and my relationship with him has disproved my previous encounters with them.  I'm not religious at all...however, I am very spiritual.  And he has no sense of faith at all.  But it has no bearing on our friendship, and we don't force those differences in opinion on each other.  

At the end of the day, you're 100% right though when you say that we're all just "people" and whether you believe in God or don't... it shouldn't change anything.  

I'm just saying, it's funny to me how religious nuts go sooo hard to prove that what they believe in is the only fact in life, and a lot of atheists go just as hard to prove what they don't believe in is indeed a fact in life.  And neither side is right, because no matter what anyone says...neither are facts. They are both in fact...beliefs.  

Religious nuts can't prove what they believe are facts though. I don't see any atheists in any of the the threads trying to prove what they don't believe in to be a fact. I've seen numerous users advocate the admittance they don't know everything and that there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." when you don't know, instead of using GOD of the gaps fallacious arguments. They're arguing for the logical reasons they do not belief and pointing out all of the illogical reasons others believe. If you look at the core of most of these arguments the common sense we're trying to convey is that why would one believe in something that there is no support or evidence for? One of if not the main reasons atheists lack belief in a GOD is because of that. We're saying if  you're gonna believe in something you should have some type of logical and reasonable support that directly points to what you believe in, instead of believing for the sake of believing. Atheism is not "there is no evidence for GOD therefore GOD does not exist."

A lot of these religious ppl don't even understand what faith is in the first place. One of the many reasons they can't articulate why they believe when asked. If they did they'd save their time from arguing nonsensically as well. Faith isn't a certainty. Faith does not exist without doubt.

If you and your friend don't want to have a discussion, fine. Don't discuss. I don't see atheists on here trying to force their common sense on others. These threads are made and ppl decide to come in here discuss/argue the topic. If atheists on NT were forcing their common sense on others how come they aren't in every thread randomly bringing it up? On the internet that would be force. I don't understand how you come in this thread and claim anybody is forcing anything.

Yall dudes seem mad or scared that ppl are voicing their opinions on here and others are actually discussing it. Ignore it. Why yall even reading through these threads if you don't like it? I mean really if you think atheists on NT are trying to force their opinions on you why not avoid them and their threads? Yall just want to chime in after a couple pages with a snide or degrading remark out of some problem yall are not willing to address.

Don't even know what being spiritual is now a days cuz each person that claims they are have a different definition for it. So for all I know you believe in ghosts or that nature is GOD.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by DMV is RNB

I think it's pretty obvious what a "religious nut" is.  An extremist...someone condemning everyone that doesn't believe exactly what they believe to hell.  They try to force their religious beliefs down the throats of everyone at any cost, for no reason at all.  
I don't make statements out of nowhere...if I say something, I'm clearly speaking from my personal experience.  Therefore, if I say that religious nuts and a lot atheists seem to be pretty similar, I'm talking about those that I have met.  And I didn't say ALL atheists because funny enough, one of my best friends happens to be an atheist, and my relationship with him has disproved my previous encounters with them.  I'm not religious at all...however, I am very spiritual.  And he has no sense of faith at all.  But it has no bearing on our friendship, and we don't force those differences in opinion on each other.  

At the end of the day, you're 100% right though when you say that we're all just "people" and whether you believe in God or don't... it shouldn't change anything.  

I'm just saying, it's funny to me how religious nuts go sooo hard to prove that what they believe in is the only fact in life, and a lot of atheists go just as hard to prove what they don't believe in is indeed a fact in life.  And neither side is right, because no matter what anyone says...neither are facts. They are both in fact...beliefs.  

Religious nuts can't prove what they believe are facts though. I don't see any atheists in any of the the threads trying to prove what they don't believe in to be a fact. I've seen numerous users advocate the admittance they don't know everything and that there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." when you don't know, instead of using GOD of the gaps fallacious arguments. They're arguing for the logical reasons they do not belief and pointing out all of the illogical reasons others believe. If you look at the core of most of these arguments the common sense we're trying to convey is that why would one believe in something that there is no support or evidence for? One of if not the main reasons atheists lack belief in a GOD is because of that. We're saying if  you're gonna believe in something you should have some type of logical and reasonable support that directly points to what you believe in, instead of believing for the sake of believing. Atheism is not "there is no evidence for GOD therefore GOD does not exist."

A lot of these religious ppl don't even understand what faith is in the first place. One of the many reasons they can't articulate why they believe when asked. If they did they'd save their time from arguing nonsensically as well. Faith isn't a certainty. Faith does not exist without doubt.

If you and your friend don't want to have a discussion, fine. Don't discuss. I don't see atheists on here trying to force their common sense on others. These threads are made and ppl decide to come in here discuss/argue the topic. If atheists on NT were forcing their common sense on others how come they aren't in every thread randomly bringing it up? On the internet that would be force. I don't understand how you come in this thread and claim anybody is forcing anything.

Yall dudes seem mad or scared that ppl are voicing their opinions on here and others are actually discussing it. Ignore it. Why yall even reading through these threads if you don't like it? I mean really if you think atheists on NT are trying to force their opinions on you why not avoid them and their threads? Yall just want to chime in after a couple pages with a snide or degrading remark out of some problem yall are not willing to address.

Don't even know what being spiritual is now a days cuz each person that claims they are have a different definition for it. So for all I know you believe in ghosts or that nature is GOD.

 

[dame theory]

Pope's organs are too holy to donate to mortals, says Church

By Michael Day in Venice

Saturday, 5 February 2011

Benedict XVI has tried to scotch rumours that he carries an organ donor card after his secretary revealed that his ascension to the position of Holy Father means he is no longer able to bequeath his body parts to lesser mortals.

On the pontiff's instructions, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, Benedict's personal secretary, fired off a letter to quell the rumours that started in the Pope's native Germany.

"It's true that a simple cardinal can have an organ donor card but, despite public declarations to the contrary, it ceased to apply when he was elected head of the Catholic Church," Mgr Gaenswein said.

In 1999, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said he was on an organ-donor list. "I am available to offer my organs to whoever might need them. It is an act of love, of affection and generosity," he said at the time.

And as recently as 2008, three years after being elected pontiff, Benedict attended an international congress on donor transplantation where he repeated his support for organ donors. "It's a special way of showing charity," he said, though he added that donations had to be "free, voluntary [and] respectful of the health and dignity of the donor".

AFP

As a cardinal he carried a donor card and as Pontiff he showed his commitment to the cause by attending a congress on organ donation

Mgr Gaenswein did not specify why the Pope is not able to donate his organs. But Archbishop Zymunt Zimowski, a member of the Vatican health council, said it was because the body of the Pope effectively belonged to the entire Catholic Church. "It's understandable that the body of the Pontiff should rest intact because, in his role as successor to Saint Paul and universal pastor of the Catholic Church, he belongs entirely to the Church in spirit and body," he told La Repubblica.

But pontiffs' bodies have not always been kept intact. Until the end of the 19th century, it was traditional for a pontiff's organs to be preserved after his death and kept in an urn in the Church of Saints Vincenzo and Anastasio near Rome's Trevi Fountain. In 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, an Italian doctor devised a new method for conserving the body without extracting the organs. Unfortunately it was not a success; the body turned green and began to putrefy.

In other health matters, the Corriere della Sera newspaper reported that the Vatican is preparing guidance for health workers in relation to HIV/Aids. Last year, Pope Benedict said that condom use by male and female prostitutes could be a good thing because it indicated the user's intention to protect others from a deadly infection.

His comments appeared to back the use of condoms by sex workers to prevent the spread of the Aids virus.

 

[dame theory]

Pope's organs are too holy to donate to mortals, says Church

By Michael Day in Venice

Saturday, 5 February 2011

Benedict XVI has tried to scotch rumours that he carries an organ donor card after his secretary revealed that his ascension to the position of Holy Father means he is no longer able to bequeath his body parts to lesser mortals.

On the pontiff's instructions, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, Benedict's personal secretary, fired off a letter to quell the rumours that started in the Pope's native Germany.

"It's true that a simple cardinal can have an organ donor card but, despite public declarations to the contrary, it ceased to apply when he was elected head of the Catholic Church," Mgr Gaenswein said.

In 1999, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger said he was on an organ-donor list. "I am available to offer my organs to whoever might need them. It is an act of love, of affection and generosity," he said at the time.

And as recently as 2008, three years after being elected pontiff, Benedict attended an international congress on donor transplantation where he repeated his support for organ donors. "It's a special way of showing charity," he said, though he added that donations had to be "free, voluntary [and] respectful of the health and dignity of the donor".

AFP

As a cardinal he carried a donor card and as Pontiff he showed his commitment to the cause by attending a congress on organ donation

Mgr Gaenswein did not specify why the Pope is not able to donate his organs. But Archbishop Zymunt Zimowski, a member of the Vatican health council, said it was because the body of the Pope effectively belonged to the entire Catholic Church. "It's understandable that the body of the Pontiff should rest intact because, in his role as successor to Saint Paul and universal pastor of the Catholic Church, he belongs entirely to the Church in spirit and body," he told La Repubblica.

But pontiffs' bodies have not always been kept intact. Until the end of the 19th century, it was traditional for a pontiff's organs to be preserved after his death and kept in an urn in the Church of Saints Vincenzo and Anastasio near Rome's Trevi Fountain. In 1958, after the death of Pope Pius XII, an Italian doctor devised a new method for conserving the body without extracting the organs. Unfortunately it was not a success; the body turned green and began to putrefy.

In other health matters, the Corriere della Sera newspaper reported that the Vatican is preparing guidance for health workers in relation to HIV/Aids. Last year, Pope Benedict said that condom use by male and female prostitutes could be a good thing because it indicated the user's intention to protect others from a deadly infection.

His comments appeared to back the use of condoms by sex workers to prevent the spread of the Aids virus.