here's something to think about!

I don't think "most Christians" ignore the Old Testament. There are quite a few who don't, actually.

I never questioned why logic was being brought into the discussion...

:bangbang: I've already explained this to you, but you have chosen to ignore it.

No, most animals do not stick to one partner for mating. And yes, some do have sex for pleasure as well as reproduction. But as I've said before (you know what I'm talking about) the feelings of humans are much more complex than the feelings of a cat or a goldfish. Our feelings can be damaged by sex being used incorrectly much more so than a bird's feelings can.

Also, reality has shown that a child who grows up in a stable home with two parents who stick together is better off than a child without that.

I actually lol'd at that. That was stupid, and it was funny. I'm sorry, I really am, but there's absolutely no nice way to describe what you just said.

God did not make sex pleasurable so that we could get in more trouble. He made it pleasurable so that married couples who have sex grow closer and their love will grow stronger. He also made it pleasurable so that we would actually be willing to reproduce.

And as for being unable to resist temptation... that's total crap. "I just couldn't resist it!" is not an excuse. One chooses to have sex, one gives in to temptation. But one isn't "unable to resist temptation". All that does is show how weak you are for having no discipline and/or willpower.

It's not a question of whether they can do it properly. The point is that it's good idea to be married before having children. Do you want some reasons why?

Oh yes, I knew that all along. I was just testing you, and you passed. Congratulations :)

But you do have a bit of a point.

Oh, that's right. Stupid me. If something gives you pleasure, you should just do it, shouldn't you? Live for the moment and don't think about the future or what your decisions could bring. By golly, if you enjoy something, then you should do it. No exceptions! You just do whatever gives you pleasure at that exact moment with no thought as to what the consequences could be.

Is sex always pleasurable? Is it pleasurable for teenage girls who get pregnant and the father runs? Is it pleasurable for girls who give their babies up for adoption because they know they're unable to support the child? Is is pleasurable for a woman who gets an abortion and later on end up feeling as if she murdered her child? Is it pleasurable for a woman to raise a child by herself, with no outside help? Is it pleasurable for men who end up being fathers, but who aren't allowed very much input or to see their child, even though they're paying lots of money for child support? Is it pleasurable for someone who contracts an STD?

Now, ask yourself this: Do any of the problems I just listed exist in marriage?

No, the Bible does not say we're not supposed to have sex. You have obviously not read the Bible. "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it." Genesis 9:7. Now, does that look like it's saying you can't have sex?

So it's no longer traditional for people in love to get married? Gosh, times sure have changed.

How is it that the Bible is the only way to know God? Many people find God in other ways than the Bible. Heck, I know a former atheist who discovered God through her study of astrophysics.

 

I completely agree that we should try to become a more intelligent society but believing in God doesn't mean that you have to throw away all reason, or any reason for that matter. Also about the whole "stories now proved false" thing, have you ever heard of the Hittite civilization? For years people used this society as a reason to disprove the bible. The Old Testament made numerous references to the Hittite civilization but there was no archaeological evidence to verify that this was true. However in 1876 an archaeologist, Hugo Winckler, visited a city in Turkey named Boghaz-Köy. Upon excavating portions of the city, he found a breathtaking number of human artifacts—including five temples, many sculptures, and a fortified castle. But more important, he found a huge storeroom filled with over 10,000 clay tablets. After completing the difficult task of deciphering the tablets, it was announced to the world that the Hittites had been found. Now I would kindly and respectfully ask you to show me one of these "stories".

 

You unbelievable son of a bi*ch. You aren't even worth arguing to if you are going to try to sound like a smart ass by saying something so asinine as that. More than four people wrote the bible, tons of people wrote the bible, it's these kind of remarks that ignorant atheist make that make it sound so ironic that they are calling a whole group of people illogical for believing in something that can't be proved, but, at the same time, cannot be disproved, when they themselves are the ones who are trying to disprove God's existence, but are using disproved information to do so? I'm also referring to the ignorant atheist as the most common atheist you find spending all their time trying to disprove God with false information to back up their evil, yes evil, goal to try to get people to not believe in God, and don't even try to compare them with evangelists, because evangelists are trying to save a person from a miserable eternity, while the common atheist wants to get people to stop believing in something that they have believed their whole life, and for what? Just for the pleasure of knowing that you crushed someone's faith in something? You're not saving anybody, you're making them think that they can do whatever they want, you're taking their faith away from them, which is sometimes one of the only things that person has left, something that they work for, they believe in, and you're just going to take it all away for nothing? I'm not directing all of that on you, but I do think you should think about it. And the only kind of atheist that I respect are the ones like Repliku who have common sense about what they are talking about, and the ones who don't care what people believe in, they think, "Well if they want to believe in something that makes them strive to be a better person, then let them." And if somebody says, "Well if God exist, why does he let all the bad things in the world happen?" then that person just stated that some super-natural thing decides the world's fate, and it's not our fault that bad things happen due to our choices and maybe God doesn't want to help us out because we did the wrong thing and we need to suffer the consequences for it, but that's illogical.

Oh yeah, Jesus can heal people and have super-human abilities because well, oh yeah, he's God's son, and he's part of God, the being that creates life, Jesus is merely healing it.​

 

Aaaah...I would have approached that differently. Beating people over the head with the bible is like chasing them with a straight jacket yelling "try it, its fun". The church has been responsible for more people leaving Christianity than anything else combined. Now I have super temper problems too but please remember: Debating and arguing are two waaay different things. Not to scold you, just a suggestion. :noworries::china:

 

People say he is eternal, and use their faith, but people who are logical want a logical answer. I guess it depends on whether people want faith or logic. I personally think that nothing created us, and there might be a greater being out there, but whatever it is is made of light and dark.

 

So you're telling me that if you believe in God and you accept Jesus Christ as your savior, you are totally out of your mind. You're "illogical"? Yet you believe that nothing created us, but that there is a greater being out there, it's just that the being does nothing at all, and is made up of light and dark...yeah, us Christians sure are stupid for believing that if you do bad things you get punished, and if you do good things you get rewarded.

Oh, sorry for being pissed off about somebody mocking my beliefs, I'll try not to say anything, cause if I do I'll burn in hell, right? That's what people are posting here, that if I break one of the commandments I'll go to hell forever and ever, well guess what? I have a trick up my sleeve, it's called praying to God and asking for forgiveness, even though that's one of the main things Christianity is about, you guys are acting like it's not an important detail, so we'll just ignore the whole overrated forgiveness thing and keep bashing away at the religion while we tell the Christian kid to not swear at us for making fun of what he believes in and totally leaving out the whole forgiveness part.​

 

If God really is omnipotent then he'd be able to make sex pleasurable for married couples only. Just a thought on that, but I'd like to see your explanation nonetheless.

Yes please.

Actually, I made no mention that they shouldn't think of the consequences. You just made that up on the spot. :) Nice try though.

Yes. Yes, they do.
I don't see marriage providing immunity for STDs. I don't see how marriage is a safeguard against unwanted children (You do realize that a lot of married couples still come across that problem right?).
It's the couple's sense of responsibility that determines whether or not they'll have to cope with these problems, not the fact that they are married or not.

You seem to have a knack for twisting my words and hoping I don't see through it.
You also seem to have a knack for failing at that. :)
You said yourself that the Bible says that married couples are the ones God wants to have sex. Do you want me to quote your exact words?

I said people can live together without getting married when they are in love. Many people think that marriage is unnecessary protocol and think that they don't need such a charade to prove that their love is true.
And yeah, that is more common then a few decades ago.
Marriage is still a tradition nowhere near dying, but there are alternatives. And according to you, people who choose those alternatives have no right to have sex.

The Bible is, as you said yourself, the word of God. So information on him would be found there. How would your acquaintance know that it was God that she discovered if not for the description the Bible gave of him?

Awww. Struck a nerve, did I? How cute. :)

Very well. Allow me to rephrase with this new information (yes, I admit it was somewhat new to me).
Tons of people wrote the Bible, which is the word of God. And how do they understand God? How can they comprehend the creature that works in "mysterious ways"? Because he spoke to them? Some lines in the Bible are directly spoken by God. But a lot of them are spoken before those writers were even born. Before scripture even existed. Then how do you expect me to believe that those writers preach the true word of God as he would have wanted it?

Completely clueless, aren't you? :) I find it hilarious how you call me ignorant while you don't have the slightest idea how atheists think but pass judgement on their evil, yes evil goals nonetheless. :D
But I'll help you out.
Indeed, I do hope that more people will stop believing in time.
I don't hope to "crush" faith or take it away, I'd much rather replace it with a more pragmatic view on the future. The way I see it, faith and prayer is how to do nothing and still think you're helping. A realistic view on the future and the will to do whatever's in your power to avert its less pleasant facets is more helpful than just faith in something vague.
But thanks for cracking me up. My mood has improved dramatically because of your post. :)

 

That's ridiculous. Sex is pleasurable for humans. It's stupid to think that God would make it pleasurable only for married couples. We are all human. What is God going to do, change the structure of our bodies after we're married? Change them back if we get a divorce?

Okay.

1. People who have sex before marriage with multiple people are very likely to contract an STD. I don't know about you, but spending the rest of my life with AIDS doesn't sound very fun to me.

2. If two people decide to have sex because they feel really "in love", and they find that they're not in love, what happens to both partners? You think they come out of that situation thinking "Eh, it was a mistake, but no biggie!"? They are emotionally scarred for the rest of their lives.

3. If a girl gets pregnant, then more often than not the guy will run for it as soon as he finds out he got his girlfriend pregnant. And don't try and tell me that sometimes guys stay, I know they do, but more of them leave than stay. The girl will have to raise a child by herself with no support from anyone else. Either that, or get the baby aborted, after which many women feel as if they murdered their child (some get nightmares from it). The women could also give the child up for adoption when she knows she can't support it, but that is a heartbreaking and terribly difficult thing for the mother to do, something I don't think you'd be able to grasp simply because you're so unbelievably insensitive.

Does that help you a little? Don't worry if you can't understand it, many people don't :\

Oh, really? That's interesting. Because anyone with half a brain could realize that sex before marriage is a bad idea, because of the reasons I listed above. So either, people don't think before having sex, or they do think but don't see any problems (in other words, they're unbelievably stupid).

Marriage doesn't provide immunity. However, if neither partner ever has sex before marriage, then there is almost a 0% chance of either contracting an STD from the other.

And yes, I do realize that. But more often than not, a married couple will be able to raise a child (whether they had that child on purpose or not) better than an unmarried couple. Why? Because marriage keeps the couple strong, and when living together gets rough (it ALWAYS does) the married couple will be able to keep it together better than the unmarried couple, because an unmarried couple usually isn't committed, or at least not as much as they need to be for their idea to work.

Sure, you can quote. You know why? Because what I said about God wanting married couples to have sex does not even slightly contradict what I quoted from the Bible. Here's what I said, combined into one sentence: God wants us to have sex, but only when we're married. Is that self-contradictory? No? That's funny, because that's exactly what I said, just in two different sentences.

How am I twisting your words, exactly?

Marriage is not a charade. At least, I hope not. If it's a charade to you, then you shouldn't be there. Marriage is a way to celebrate a couple's decision to commit to one another, and involve the family. It's a way to bond the couple together and keep them committed to one another.

There are some experiences that one cannot explain. I cannot help you since you are so far beyond understanding. You will not understand. You cannot possibly understand.

How do you know that he doesn't have any idea how atheists think? I was once an atheist myself and know others who were, I know very well how they think. And sadly, quite a few are bent on making people stop believing in their current faith, whatever it may be. You seem to be one of them, simply because of the way you approach the entire subject.

So you're not going to "crush" their faith. You're just going to try and explain to them why their faith is silly and useless? Is there a difference? And it's not faith in something vague. That is the last time I am going to say that to you, because it's clear you are so determined to mock other beliefs that you will not even consider what I or anyone else says to you. I wasn't sure before, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but now I'm certain. You have no respect for other beliefs and you do get pleasure from tearing them down.

Seriously? You just laughed off everything he said? I pity you. I really do. I feel sorry that you have to be in the position that you're in, and am very thankful that I am not in such a position. I really, truly have pity for you.

EDIT:

...I had to reread that several times to make sure I was actually reading it correctly. I cannot believe you would really say that to someone when they are offended and upset by your insensitivity. The only words I can think of to describe what you said are mean and uncaring. I am sorry that you are unable to see things from another person's point of view and show some kindness and compassion.

 

[note]
Author is drunk. Be careful what you read!

That's just it. He can do it but he doesn't. Why not? I as an atheist am really interested in that.

Not if they are responsible. And I do hope that they are responsible.
As a matter of fact I never said that they shouldn't. But being responsible doesn't necessarily involve marriage, as you probably already know.

Same with marriage. Married couples still find out that their husband/wife "wasn't the right one" after they have sex (or worse, after they have a child). Marriage is by no means a guarantee for true love.
Marriage leaves its own set of problems on top of the ones relationships have at all.

Indeed they do. But what good is marriage in this situation? You don't necessarily reduce the chances of an unwanted child. You just make it harder for the guy to leave. Which makes marriage a contract.
View further paragraphs for more information.

I'll try to explain this one more time...
A guy is looking to score. He starts talking to a girl and the both of them get along. They want to have sex. Either of them says: "I'm not in love with you. I'm just looking for some fun." The other one shrugs or says "Works for me." or "Me neither. Let's go for it". They use triple protection (condom + pill + morning-after pill the next morning). The guy had fun. The girl had fun. No harm was done whatsoever. But they were clearly not married. How is that wrong?

Which brings me to the point I've been trying to defend all along. Forbidding premarial sex would be "punishing the good ones along with the bad ones"
Which isn't a solution. Removing the consequences instead of the cause is a half-assed solution if anything. Teaching the youngsters about responsibility by showing them a realistic vision of the future is another.

False. If any of the parties have an STD the partner has a chance of getting it, and the child has a chance of inheriting it.
There is no difference between a married couple and a responsible couple who have lived together for several years in this case.

In other words; they stick together because of a contract.
Truth be told, I don't know much about love. But what I do know is that it should never be a contract. Which is exactly what marriage offers over any alternatives.

Your quote from the Bible did not mention anything about marriage.
Game, set and match. ;)

You implied I stated that God doesn't want us to have sex, which I never did.
I think you'd understand by now. Maybe I should use easier words? :)

Oh right. Because you can't be committed to one another without being married. Living together for several years and loving eachother for several years simply doesn't cut it. :D

Granting yourself an easy ride: achieved.

I've never denied that my dear wish is for people to stop believing in faith and start believing in science/maths/logic.

There is indeed a difference between offering a replacement and not doing so.

Yadda yadda yadda yadda.

From my very first reply I had hoped that someone would explain to me the difference between a married couple (read: those who have signed a piece of paper) and an unmarried responsible couple who has lived together for years (read: those who have not signed the same piece of paper).
Sadly, no explanation has been given as of yet. *dancewaterdance* has continuously avoided the point I have hinted at, but has never answered. I shall be forced to conclude that there is no difference and that I have been right all along. :)

 

Hey Styx, ok let me get this straight: Your question is why does God's rule say that you can only have sex when you are married as opposed to a responsible couple who isn't? If I'm wrong please correct me because I want to do my best to explain whatever I can.

 

That's indeed my question.

 

God doesn't do a lot of things he could do. Why not? I as a Christian am really interested in that. We question God too.

There could be consequences for those actions that we do not understand. We think they would be fine, but there could be side effects no one could think of.

If you have sex before marriage, you are already quite irresponsible. But I will pretend otherwise in order to answer your point. If "responsible" means using condoms, you can still get STDs with condoms. Hate to rock your uninformed little world, but it happens quite often. Condoms do not work 100% of the time.

No, but it helps. Some people do get divorces, yes. But there are many, many who don't. And yes, marriage has its own set of problems. Are you saying that living together without being married doesn't?

And for the record, marriage works much better in general than living together unmarried.

No, you don't. But if the couple is committed to helping each other, don't you think that they'll have an easier time raising a child with each other's help?
As for making it harder for the guy to leave, that's ridiculous. The guy can leave anytime he wants to, married or unmarried. But chances are, if he's married, he's going to have less trouble resisting the urge to leave when things get rough. That's what marriage is all about; sticking together in times of difficulty and being there for one another. Unmarried couples can do that too. But it is much less likely, since they're not even willing to get married. Marriage also is harder to walk out on, and the consequences are more dire than when you leave someone you're not married to.

It's wrong because it diminishes the meaning of the action. And what if the girl gets pregnant? For the couple, having sex is on their shoulders. It's their problem. But that baby is going to pay for their irresponsibility. That's why it's wrong.

Who's talking about banning it?

How could either of the "parties" (if that's what we'll use instead of partner) get an STD without having sex with multiple people in the first place? If the guy doesn't have sex with anyone, and the girl doesn't have sex with anyone, then how could they get an STD?

No. They stick together because they love each other and are committed to one another. Marriage just makes a big deal and a celebration out of it to help the couple understand the importance of their decision.

Really? You don't? Gosh, you could've fooled me! And marriage is a contract, but it is so much more than that. I have already explained what marriage is, and I will not do it again. And you're right, love shouldn't be a contract in the sense of the word you're using. But marriage isn't a contract in that sense.

No, it did not. Would you like me to quote the Bible where it says that God wants us to be married?

No, you did not. I assumed that's what you thought. My mistake.

I never said you couldn't be committed. I said that marriage was a way to show your love and commitment for someone. If a couple isn't even willing to get married, how committed can they truly be?

Again, marriage just works better than living together without getting married.

Again, I will not attempt to explain to you. You won't get it and you will laugh it off. Perhaps I would be willing to try if I knew you would actually consider anything I might say.

Stop believing in faith? Uh... right. I'll file that to the Department of Redundancies Department. Maybe they can fix it.

Why on earth can you not be religious and still agree with science/maths/logic at the same time? I believe in evolution, but I am no less Christian than another who thinks evolution is crap.

And for that to be your "dear wish" just shows what kind of person you are.

Okay, so you're going to tear someone's faith up one side and down the other, and then you're going to explain why your belief is so much better? I'm sure that will make the person feel much better.

You don't understand the religion you're mocking. You don't even understand the the half of it it. You are in no place to be destroying it.

...alright. If that's what you want to think, then do so. I cannot stop you. But remember that I did not immediately judge you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and some time to express yourself in a way that was not mocking and offensive. I gave you a chance. It was a hell of a lot more than what you gave me.

Then why didn't you say that was your question, instead of just hinting at it? Jeez Louise...

The difference is that married couples have formally stated that they are committed. Unmarried couples have not. Married couples are more likely to stick together than unmarried couples are. Marriages work better in general, for reasons I have already stated.

 

Cool, ok let see. Well unmarried couples, however great they are together, are still unmarried for a reason, which most of the time(not all of the time) is because they don't want to commit to each other forever. If a married woman was in a car wreck and became a paraplegic then the husband, having committed himself, would stay with her(if they married for the rights reasons) as opposed to an unmarried couple where the boyfriend would probably just dump her. Or the couple is not ready for marriage yet, in which case then they are most likely not ready for sex either. I mean if two people are perfect for each other in every way and have been together for a while, there is no logical reason not to get married. None that I see anyway. Hope this helps, the subject is vague as we cannot ask God himself.(but that would make everything SOOOOO much easier if we could) As far as the pleasurable for everyone sex thing, that is what God values most: Free Will. The power to defy him or draw him close because he wanted us to love him not just obey him.

Did that help at all?even just a weeeeee bit?

 

Styx...all I have to say is read "The Book of Revelation". Maybe then you could understand why God doesn't fix our problems. And you keep asking why God can do something but you want to know why he won't? "The Book of Revelation" should explain some of that to you, but I'll see if I can give you some examples and maybe you would understand then: (Note that I am giving these examples from my point of view that God is our father) Your mom loans you money to pay rent, but instead of paying rent with that money you use it to buy a hooker that you get STDs from, your mom finds out that you used the money that she gave you to spend it on something that will eventually end her son's life, and her divorced husband (your dad) gives you money to pay rent every month also, but you use the money he gives you to pay rent, and you use the money she gives you to go to bars and buy hookers. Now which sounds more reasonable? A) Your mom continues to give you money knowing that you will continue to spend it on hookers and bars. Or B) Your mom cuts you off and tells your dad about what you spend the money they give you on and he cuts you off too. She continues to cut you off until she knows you've suffered enough and that you won't spend her money on the wrong things and then she finally starts to give you money again.
Which choice sounds more like love?
I made that off the top of my head, and I know it's not that great, and that you'll totally make up some bull to try to make me look stupid for trying to help you, even though I don't want to reason with you, it's the right thing to attempt to.

I'd also like to point out that just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you are illogical, do you know how many amazingly intelligent people there are that are Christian?​

 

Oh, but don't you know? Religion is based on stupidity and lack of thought. Christians follow the belief blindly and never question it. They are, as Styx implied in an earlier post, idiots.

Seriously, it's not like we just absorb everything we're told without any thought. A lot of Christians consider what they're told carefully and give it a lot of thought. And yes, there are quite a few incredibly intelligent Christians out there. And there are quite a few intelligent atheists. There are intelligent people and stupid people in every belief system. I just don't appreciate it when someone labels an entire religious group as idiotic, whether that person is targeting Christianity, atheism, or any other belief.

 

You can get herpes just by sharing a drink. You can get HIV by sharing infected needles. Pretty sure there are other examples.

Just because they can be transmitted by sexual activity does not mean it's the only way you can get them.

 

Married couples can get STDs too. If you want actual responsibility, both the man and the woman should have themselves tested for STDs before even considering having sex. If they do no such thing, then they are still irresponsible. Are you going to judge all married couples who didn't do such a test? I'm dying to hear your answer. :)

No, I don't. That's just it. They're very alike. So why bother?

Says who? You never gave any valid reasons as to why it should have superiority over living together. None that I haven't countered yet (or that I will counter in this post).

Your line in bold means exactly "making it harder for the guy (or the girl, whatever) to leave". I think you overestimate marriage, and I've seen the "commitment" it promises water down a great deal when difficulties arise.

The consequences are indeed more dire. Both of them can break up and get a divorce and there may be harm done to both of the partners, even though none of them may be to blame. You never know what may happen. Maybe the both of them are indeed not all that commited to eachother and they break up. With "more dire consequences" to go through, married couples will have a harder time carrying on with their individual lives than unmarried ones.
The unmarried couple has considered such a situation, so they're responsible like that. See that word "responsible" pop up? Bet you didn't see that coming. :D It's the truth though; you said yourself that there are couples that don't want to be together for their whole lives and therefore choose not to marry. And they have a right to shape up and look for new love.
Note that this is a sketch of a situation without children involved.

So in any case, marriage is a contract. In this case an emotional one.
"You must love me till death do us part."
Well no, you don't. A loveless marriage doesn't help anyone. Spread out and find a new spouse.

Diminishes the meaning of the action? It is only the meaning you give to it. What right do you have to call your meaning is the meaning? What happened to all potential other meanings? Are they of no value to you then? How is that any different from tearing down another's opinion?
How unbelievably insensitive.

The COCP's triple barrier formula reduces pregancy risks to 0,3% if taken correctly and consistently. Add the effectiveness of a well-applied condom (failure rate 2%) and you should know that chances of pregnancy are quite small.
Besides, it may not even as far as a baby. But I'll share my opinion on abortion some other time. ;)

I meant individual banning. Like you do. My bad, that wasn't very clear.

Hate to rock your uninformed little world, but retroviruses like AIDS can easily sneak into a host's body through blood. One contaminated needle is enough.
Furthermore, some STDs can be transmitted through saliva.
And last but not least, you could have inherited it from your mom at child birth or through breastfeeding.

I'll admit; the fewer people you sleep with, the smaller the risks. But there's always a risk. It's just a matter of how certain you want to be.
I'll take more risks than you will. And I find your level of security to be ridiculously high. Which brings us to the catch: calling everyone who doesn't share your opinion on safe sex irresponsible makes you hardly any better than me. Unfortunately, you have never even considered that. You're heartless. :(

If they don't understand the importance of their decision before the wedding, then they could be categorised as irresponsible (here's that magic word again, we certainly have a theme running here, don't we?).
In other words, a wedding is quite a waste of time, as much as premaritial sex is. But I have nothing against it because it's "harmless" fun, as much as premaritial sex is.

Nothing that's fun comes without a risk. Your low risk sex life works out for you I guess but I prefer the middle course: I'm having fun yet I never impregnated a girl and no one ever called screaming in horror that I gave her an STD. So I like my way better than yours and I'm rubbing it in because I'm a filthy sadistic *******. :D And because I like testing my way against someone else's.

Guess again.

Why didn't you do so from the very beginning since it's been relevant all along? Jeez Louise...

Because it's unnecessary. It's a waste of time and money.
Questioning their commitment to one another just because they don't feel the need to get married is kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinda disrespectul, don't you think? :)
Now go apologize to all unmarried couples who love eachother just as much as your average married couple.

But you know I won't. ;)

Wrong choice of words indeed. Oh well. Gave you a chance to be funny. :)

I don't believe in the God concept because of the sheer number of Bible stories refuted and deemed unlikely (props to science).
Knowing this I started putting my grey mass to work and came to the conclusion that God is quite possibly a metaphor, a symbol for a way of living.
One which I'd rather not follow because of my alternate views on right and wrong :)
Sadly, many Christians don't consider that possibility and believe in his existence despite that they never sensed him and despite all those prayers that have remained unanswered. Yup, it's gonna take a lot more science to debunk that idea. :D

Thinking you have me figured out without even meeting me? You say you've given me a chance but when push comes to shove apparently you'll judge someone you never met all the same. :D
I don't mind in the least though. I never wanted a chance to begin with. ;)

If their resolve is strong enough they'll survive it unscathed. Opinions need to be torn down every once in a while. I was doing you a favor actually.
Tsk, ingrate!

Bring it, punk! :D

I give thee this invisible medal for kindness and generosity.

I used it as a valid argument several times. And you've always ignored it. Perhaps you should have asked someone to push you closer to the screen?

I gave you one. The most logical explanation of all actually. They don't have to. It's unnecessary. A waste of time.
If the couple truly loves eachother, then they will make an unofficial yet no less truthful commitment to one another anyway. And if they don't love eachother then they will simply ignore said commitment regardless of marriage. Want me to Google divorce statistics?

Hmmmm...I'll go with B.
That was a fun little game, but the example was terrible. :(
For you see, if love is doing everything in your power to keep your loved one from suffering (in the long run), then the mother has indeed done everything she could and she has expressed love.
God however, who is said to be slightly more powerul than my mom, does not. On top of that, God is supposed to be the origin of everything, including suffering. What could our dear friend the G-Man possibly hope to accomplish by bringing suffering into this world and then supposedly guide us towards maximum prevention of that same suffering? That is questioning God. That is logic.

But then free will has also given us the power to hate him and not to believe in him. Let's talk about the non-believers. How is God gonna make them love him?

 

Religion is, by its very nature, unfalsifiable. People that want to believe will always find loopholes around any discoveries science might make. If you really, REALLY want to believe in something, no amount of proof means anything.

 

-coughDefNoatcough-

I agree with most of this, however, it does seem to be taken out out Kingdom Hearts x3.

I am not religious in any way, however, I have my own beliefs.

I have heard from several of my Christian friends and family, "God created himself". I find this statement to make no sense whatsoever, I don't see how someone can make themself, but...
Also, I agree with others' statements; if someone really wants to believe something, they'll find ways to believe it.

For me, I don't believe in God because I feel that it goes against the vast majority of scientific discoveries, and it's hard for me to believe that some kind of all-powerful being exists that would let the world go in the direction it's going.

 

And they have the right to believe whatever they want to believe no matter how much proof there is to disregard it. Too bad atheist like Styx feel obliged to try to fu*k it up for that person. Then again, the world of religion needs people like Styx because they attempt to do the work of God and prove them wrong. Which is why Styx is wrong about praying, because if you pray, most of the time you are asking God for you help to accomplish your goal. With knowing that another person is helping you accomplish your goal, it gives you hope that you will fulfill your goal, thus you strive harder to make the dream become reality.​