Why Do People Use Terms Like B.C/A.D If You Dont Believe In Jesus?

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That "thing" has a very different definition to different people.

None of which make any sense.
​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

None of which make any sense.
​

That's your opinion, and I agree with it. But that doesn't mean that a god shouldn't be discussed.

 

[Broke Wave]

it's funny to me that a Muslim is reaching inside Judaism to justify how old Islam is when they is no record of Islam or Muhammad till at least 500 years after Christ.

Without fictional Muhammad there is no Islam. Muhammad showed up hundreds of years after Christ.

I can't take the religion seriously sorry playboi

nikka too scared to quote me. Why does the age of something give it validity? You know that some Hindu Vedas are at least 4000 years old? Do you respect the ancient Egyptian Religion of the Pharoes, which is probably the oldest longest lasting religion ever?

Why are Jews allowed to claim that Moses Ibrahim Lot Noah etc are members of Judaism, when they excommunicate people from Judaism for doing things that those people NEVER did. They did not follow the obscene man made racist and perverse Talmud, what makes them Jews other than their racial make up? All it means to be a Muslim pre-revelation is to believe in the one TRUE god of monotheism.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's your opinion, and I agree with it. But that doesn't mean that a god shouldn't be discussed.

No one is stating that you shouldn't. The problem is when I ask 'What is 'G-d' ' I am not looking for secondary characteristics, but, specifically, what is this 'G-d' that it should even have secondary characteristics. To put it simply: Telling me that 'G-d' is omniscient/omnipotent/etc., or petty/cruel/sadistic/etc. doesn't tell me (or anyone else) what 'G-d' is and reduces all discussions on the subject to rhetorical, dogmatic nonsense.​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

No one is stating that you shouldn't. The problem is when I ask 'What is 'G-d' ' I am not looking for secondary characteristics, but, specifically, what is this 'G-d' that it should even have secondary characteristics. To put it simply: Telling me that 'G-d' is omniscient/omnipotent/etc., or petty/cruel/sadistic/etc. doesn't tell me (or anyone else) what 'G-d' is and reduces all discussions on the subject to rhetorical, dogmatic nonsense.​

So what if I tell you god is the spark that started the entire universe? Or God is all living things? Those aren't secondary characteristics, they are direct answered to the question.

Like I said god is a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Your answer doesn't have to fit in within anyone's else's standards. Your answer is how you feel about it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So what if I tell you god is the spark that started the entire universe?

A 'spark' of what?

Or God is all living things?

'All living things' are the result of the creation of the Universe, not the cause of its creation.​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

A 'spark' of what?​

The universe as we know it

'All living things' are the result of the creation of the Universe, not the cause of its creation.

Who said god had to be the "cause"

All I'm saying is there is no one set concept of god. Therefore the question of who/what god is can't be invalid. The answers can be invalid, but the question deserves an answer

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The universe as we know it

That makes no sense.

Who said god had to be the "cause"

Every theist on the planet.

All I'm saying is there is no one set concept of god.

What I'm saying is none of them make sense.

Therefore the question of who/what god is can't be invalid.

Right.

The answers can be invalid, but the question deserves an answer

An invalid answer is a waste of time.​

 

[MeachTheMonster]

That makes no sense.​

That's your opinion, but it is not an invalid question or answer.

Every theist on the planet.

The question of god is for everyone, not just theists

What I'm saying is none of them make sense.

Your stance makes no sense either

An invalid answer is a waste of time.

Is it a waste of time to talk about how things are a waste of time?

 

[kash10003]

societal convenience and standard

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Your stance makes no sense either

This might help you understand.....

The Argument From Non-Cognitivism​

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

One of the dumbest threads I've read on the-coli, big surprise it was started by Dirty Jerz. The exchange between daze and meach was truly fukking retarded as they were literally arguing about nothing. Daze merely said that the "jesus doesn't exist" theory is much more prevalent than the "muhammad doesn't exist" theory. No one wrote about Jesus while he was alive. However, we have letters that muhammad purportedly wrote to different leaders in his time. This discrepancy leads to a lot more "Jesus doesn't exist" theorizing.

 

[zerozero]

only read the first dozen or so posts and just came in here to say

 

[zerozero]

Why do you use UTC offsets if you don't believe London is "special"? Oh wait, you've spent your whole life in the same timezone