Quote from Arch-Angel

New Testament: Loving and forgiving God.

Many of the prophets in The New Testament revel in God's wrath.

And I guess Revelations just disappeared.

I was being a smart ass.
The contrast was made because in the first few books of the New Testament, Jesus goes around fulfilling miracles and helping people, where most of the Old Testament is filled with plague's and death.

Oh, well that's okay then. I do love smartass comments.

I'll disprove god with this video

Please explain how that even makes an argument against any god.

Quote from Fusion

I have a qualm with a supposition given by Mr. Salt Shaker in that video. He said, "How do you know you didn't just imagine that feeling?" If we assume this is a valid argument, then nothing can ever be proven except one's own existence. It's a useless argument.

Why should anything else ever be proven? It can be taken advantage sure, but our own existance is the only thing we know.

@Index

Basically, the argument is that if there was a creator, he wouldn't have let the Salt Shaker jump, because he is the protector and owner of the Shaker.

Quote from CNiper

Why should anything else ever be proven? It can be taken advantage sure, but our own existance is the only thing we know.

Because the alternative is fucking stupid.

Quote from Fusion

Because the alternative is fucking stupid.

Just because you think something is stupid - doesn't mean it isn't real.

Jesus doesn't want peace...
Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"

Quote from CNiper

Basically, the argument is that if there was a creator, he wouldn't have let the Salt Shaker jump, because he is the protector and owner of the Shaker.

But there WAS a creator of the salt shaker, and he DID let the salt shaker jump. It proves nothing other than the owner/creator/god doesn't give a fuck or didn't notice. Not that an owner/creator/god doesn't exist. And it's commonly known that God no longer intervenes like that, even though he does "notice". You cannot equate an owner with no omniscience to a god. The video proves nothing.

It reminded me of an argument FOR God that says something like "When I see a building, I know that there is a builder. The only proof I need is the fact that the building exists."

Since we know that salt shakers are made by someone, and they were being used as metaphors for us, doesn't that mean that we must've been created by someone too?

I'm an atheist, but that video was just dumb.

Quote from Index

But there WAS a creator of the salt shaker, and he DID let the salt shaker jump. It proves nothing other than the owner/creator/god doesn't give a fuck or didn't notice. Not that an owner/creator/god doesn't exist. And it's commonly known that God no longer intervenes like that, even though he does "notice". You cannot equate an owner with no omniscience to a god. The video proves nothing.

It reminded me of an argument FOR God that says something like "When I see a building, I know that there is a builder. The only proof I need is the fact that the building exists."

Since we know that salt shakers are made by someone, and they were being used as metaphors for us, doesn't that mean that we must've been created by someone too?

I'm an atheist, but that video was just dumb.

I guess I didn't explain myself properly. Its meant to disprove a Christian/Muslim like God, not a "creator" in a traditional sense.

Why are you arguing proving somethings existence?
That is ridiculous. You would be removing the faith from the religion, thus breaking it.

Like I said in the other thread. This video is garbage and is just proof of what people can do when they have too much time on their hands...

Quote from Exilement

I don't think you caught the part where I said Buddhism is a religion, so let me repeat that:

Buddhism is a religion.

Clear enough? Seriously, that's what it is. This isn't an argument, or a discussion, or a debate. This is fact and you are wrong. You can either keep repeating things which are blatantly incorrect, or you can admit your fault, learn something new and we can all carry on.

The definition of religion does not necessarily require belief in a deity. It can be accurately described as a philosophy, but that fails to include the spiritual aspects of the religion.

Yeah, I caught it. The monks themselves say it's not a religion. It says in the 'holy' (they're not actually holy) books that it isn't a religion. The Buddha himself said (putting it in simple terms) "Don't worship me, it's not a religion".
Buddhism is more about moral teachings and what and what isn't right. Oh yeah, and it's repercussions and so on. There's nothing saying "On Tuesdays, bow three times" or anything. It's like "respect your parents because they did a lot to bring you into this world".

Where did both of you get your sources from.