Fungi Forums
Miscellaneous => General Chat => Not at the Dinner Table => Topic started by: Nintendoobsessed on September 22, 2008, 03:39:58 PM
-
So...What's your religon?
-
atheist
-
Christianity (Reformed)
-
Christian of no particular denomination.
-
Roman Catholic.
-
"Other". Technically, I'm an atheist, as I do not believe in any religion. However, I do not completely dismiss the existence of a "higher power".
-
Wouldn't that make you an agnostic? Agnosticism isn't a religion in the traditional/cultural sense, but they don't dismiss the existence of a higher power either. I'm just curious.
-
I guess I don't call myself that because I get sick and tired of labels, especially for things that are neither here nor there.
-
I getcha. I get tired of people labeling me as an evangelical, to be honest.
-
Satanist. ;(
-
Nitpicking suggestions! Edit the poll choices so that:
Christian -> Christianity
Muslim -> Islam
Atheist -> Atheism, or perhaps Atheist/Agnosticism
And add Hinduism, there are far more Hindus than Buddhists.
-
Hmm, for some reason I read that as "There are four more Hindus than Buddhists."
-
Precisely four?
I'm an atheist, just not a crazy, in-your-face type one. I don't go around yelling at people that there's no god(s) or anything, I just politely disagree. If you make a choice to join/stay with a religion, well, then that's your choice. That's why I disapprove of trying to convert people from one religion to another.
-
When asked this question I've just taken to staring blankly and changing the subject.
-
I'm more of an agnostic, thought I'm almost considering believing in Primus. Machinery had to come from somewhere, right? Optimus Prime did die for our sins, right?
-
But I thought Optimus Prime was Jewish. ;)
-
This (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/) kind of Christian, mostly. No real denomination... I went to a Methodist church most of my life, but only when the pastor didn't really care for official Methodist doctrine. E.Free churches seem to suit me best, but I don't know if that counts as a denomination. Maybe Presbyterian, although the Westminster Confession sometimes gets a little too hardcore even for me. But I don't like pledging loyalty to denominations anyway.
-
Oh, wait... I totally forgot. I'm a Pastafarian.
-
But I thought Optimus Prime was Jewish. ;)
That's why the Jews don't follow Jesus. They follow Optimus Prime. :D
-
Custom Catholic.
-
Cadillac.
-
I'm one God away from being Atheist/Agnosticism.
http://lukeprog.com/religion/gods.html
-
That's... awesome? I think?
-
Wait, so you're a theist Luigison? Or are you just stating the point of the list?
I thought I read somewhere that you were an agnostic. Am I right, or have I slept since then? :\
-
I've heard Religon was a great game when it was still around.
I practice Christianity.
-
"First they told me 'practice makes perfect', then they told me 'nobody's perfect' so then I stopped practicing."
-
Wow, I'm suprised most of the people here are athiests......
Don't be fooled, evolution is a religion, your not just believeing in "science". Evolution attempts to answer: Why are we here, where did we come from, what will happen to us when we die. This is the fundamentals of religion and has nothing to do with science.
-
Duh?
-
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religion.
A scientific theory is a model attempting to explain what we see based on controlled observation and study of the actual world.
A religion is something you believe for no sensical reason, only because your parents told you or it makes you feel better about dying because you're scared.
-
:: iceburn ::
-
A religion is something you believe for no sensical reason, only because your parents told you or it makes you feel better about dying because you're scared.
Yup, that sounds about right.
-
You tell me any reason why evolution doesn't make sense, and I'll tell you why it does. For reals.
-
Evolution doesn't make sense. ;)
-
Well, specific reasons, of course (but I'll give you that one).
-
I can't recall ever seeing any evidence of evolution. I don't mean proof (obviously there can't be proof, since no one was around back then, at least not if evolution is true), just evidence. I've heard plenty of people say they've got evidence, but the few who have ever followed through on their claim either gave something that's been discredited a thousand times over (Peppered moths, archeopteryx, evolution of the horse, etc.), something that only substantiated natural selection (Yeah, I get it. Things that are more likely to survive are more likely to survive. Now show me how that translates to "from the goo through the zoo to you."), something completely irrelevant (There was something once about some scientists that bred a butterfly with another butterfly and made a butterfly. Apparently it was supposed to be important because they arbitrarily decided that it constituted a new species), or just told me to look at "the fossil record" (which Darwin readily admitted was the theory's greatest flaw, and which fits the theory of a global flood about at least as well if not better). As far as I can tell, most people believe it because it's the only naturalistic theory that makes any amount of sense (or at least that they've been told makes sense).
I'm at least somewhat open to the possibility of God creating the world through evolution (although it seems a rather pointless and convoluted way for an omnipotent being to make a world, not to mention the theological difficulties of death existing before Adam), but I've honestly never seen anything that made me seriously consider it.
-
See, just saying there's no proof does not an absense of proof make. Basically, a bunch of monkeys decided to get together in Africa and study up, growing harder, better, faster and stronger than the rest of the monkeys everywhere else. That's where a lot of people get it wrong. Evolution does not mean every single member of the species grows better at once; isolated groups of smarter/stronger animals can mate and mate and mate, producing smarter/stronger offspring in that little area, I'm not sure why Darwin thought the fossil record was "a flaw", but I personally don't consider evolution to even be a "theory".
Take the X-Files. I recall an episode wherein Mulder and Scully find like Mole people or whatever, and they're all essentially superhuman. One of them remarks that if they continue growing at this rate, then they could take over the world and replace current humans as the dominant species, just like Cro-Magnon replaced the Neanderthal replaced early hominids. That's an example of evolution (maybe I remembered the episode wrong, but you get the idea).
-
So, uh, worrying about evidence of evolution aside for the moment, what's the sum of evidence found showing that the
Earth Universe was created in a six day span a half dozen millennia back?
-
A really old book with half a million authors.
-
Well, specific reasons, of course (but I'll give you that one).
I was just being a dork, actually. It was kind of a rhetorical response (if there is such a thing).
-
So, uh, worrying about evidence of evolution aside for the moment, what's the sum of evidence found showing that the Earth Universe was created in a six day span a half dozen millennia back?
Why put it aside? I never claimed that my origin theory fit into the boundaries of naturalistic science. You, on the other hand, are. Your theory is the one being pushed by scientists, so examine it with science. I didn't even mention creationism in my post. I didn't advocate anything.
Also, that's a false dichotomy (and/or strawman). Not everyone who doubts evolution believes in the Ussher chronology.
-
the Ussher chronology.
I'm not fond of his music, really.
I was just being a dork, actually. It was kind of a rhetorical response (if there is such a thing).
Yeah, I could tell by the ";)"
-
You tell me any reason why evolution doesn't make sense, and I'll tell you why it does. For reals.
1. First Law of thermodynamics: Matter can't be created or destroyed, only transformed.
So if there is a God who created the earth, then that means he has will outside of that law.
2. All matter bends towards decay. Is it possible for a house to evolve? Once you build a house will it get
stronger or weaker as time goes on? Does a peach get riper and riper or does it eventually rot? Do humans die or
do they just get stronger and stronger over many years.
3. It is a fact that life cannot be created in water because of hydrolysis. Water cannot build up, it can only
break down. So it is redundant to say that life started in water.
These are just a few over the many facts of why evolution is wrong.
-
lol @ stronger better cave-eat.
Evolution does not by any means mean better, just better suited to an environment. Let's look at stronger; not only are humans weak by great ape standards, we're pound-for-pound one of the physically weakest vertebrates around. What makes us so prolific? Well, it's not raw intelligence or tool manipulation--those help, but many other animals show to be just as capable at these things (Orangutans memorizing symbols better than some human subjects (one of which was a brain surgeon)). What gives us our edge is communication, of which we are second to none. When looking at neanderthals, our burly cousins, the most stand out feature is their laughably simple vocal structure. So it's logical to summarize that vocalization was their downfall to humans. It's through vocalization that we get literature, music, et al. But everything else about us (aside from trichromatic vision, which has as many downsides as advantages, I believe) we are not in any sense stronger or better.
-
I'm talking about the evolving part. If everything bends towards decay how can life evolve? If we evolved then why do we die? Why don't we just keep evolving? An 80 year old man shouldn't be weak he should be ten times stronger, smarter, flexible, and faster as a guy that 30 years old.
-
They found a skeleton from Africa in England, or something, and that proved it.
I'm talking about the evolving part. If everything bends towards decay how can life evolve? If we evolved then why do we die? Why don't we just keep evolving? An 80 year old man shouldn't be weak he should be ten times stronger, smarter, flexible, and faster as a guy that 30 years old.
Death is the main thing. The stupid die faster therefore there are less stupid people therefore the race is smarter. Of course it's way more complicated then that but you get the picture.
-
Death is the main thing. The stupid die faster therefore there are less stupid people therefore the race is smarter. Of course it's way more complicated then that but you get the picture. They found a skeleton from Africa in England, or something, and that proved it.
I still see retarded, autistic, and disabled people everywhere I go. If evolution was true then we would be rid of all dumb and disabled people millions of years ago.
If your talking about that monkey skeleton Lucy, then it's just a fraud. They said the same thing back in 1908 about piltdown man. Piltdown man was supposed to be a very old monkey/human, in the development process. All they found was a skull and part of a jawbone and said "THIS IS PROOF FOR EVOLUTION!!!". They made an entire body out of just a jawbone and then they make piltdownman's wife!!!!!! It turns out that the bone a pigs jaw, not a ape man. This happened two other times with two other bones (I'm not going to go into them now) and all of them were proved frauds. This is just another hoax to prove this far-fetched theory.
-
I still see retarded, autistic, and disabled people everywhere I go. If evolution was true then we would be rid of all dumb and disabled people millions of years ago.
You apparently know how evolution works like a kitten knows how a can-opener works. Evolution is not some [darn] magical wand you're making it out to be. Do "retarded, autistic, and disabled(we'll revisit this one)" die because they are just that? No. No they don't. Evolution is natural selection. Why don't these people die? Because we as a society keep them alive via charity, medicine and good old fashioned caring. There is no penalty for being such things, thus they are not filtered out through natural selection.
And "disabled" which encompasses all the above. It's not always genetic. Many things can go wrong in the womb (The mother smokes, drinks, or plays full contact sports against better judgment). Many things go wrong during child-birth. Many things go wrong period. The world is a dangerous place, boyo. And again as a society, we treat these people as just that--people.
"Defective" people breed. What, are you gonna stop 'em? good luck.
And evolution sometimes favors the bizarre, but it's a gambit; not all mutations are beneficial.
If your talking about that monkey skeleton Lucy, then it's just a fraud. They said the same thing back in 1908 about piltdown man. Piltdown man was supposed to be a very old monkey/human, in the development process. All they found was a skull and part of a jawbone and said "THIS IS PROOF FOR EVOLUTION!!!". They made an entire body out of just a jawbone and then they make piltdownman's wife!!!!!! It turns out that the bone a pigs jaw, not a ape man. This happened two other times with two other bones (I'm not going to go into them now) and all of them were proved frauds. This is just another hoax to prove this far-fetched theory.
One bitten twice shy? Science is more refined now.
Sadly, some scientist do jump to conclusions for fame. Are you blaming the whole for the acts of a few? And some are staged by people of your ilk just sour the trough.
-
I thought Piltdown man was a giant phony skeleton made of wood to prove the existance of giants. I may be wrong though.
-
That wasn't jumping to conclusions, though. Piltdown man was planted fake evidence.
-
I'm talking about the evolving part. If everything bends towards decay how can life evolve? If we evolved then why do we die? Why don't we just keep evolving? An 80 year old man shouldn't be weak he should be ten times stronger, smarter, flexible, and faster as a guy that 30 years old.
Why doesn't my laptop's screen resolution and battery life get better the longer I run it? Crap, man, we're not all Pokemon, or something.
Evolving happens over thousands and thousands of years, people. We're not evolving anymore because we don't need to. Humans are intelligent enough to create things to make the world adapt to them.
-
I don't think that we're talking about the same thing. There's loads of evidence jfgi
jumping to conclusions
^^^^^^^^^^
That's what religion is about
-
You apparently know how evolution works like a kitten knows how a can-opener works.
No, I study the topic I'm not ignorant in the least bit. And I never said I wanted to "stop" disabled people. Evolution is the religion that encourages killing off the weak, Christianity is the religion that trys to help them. Back in the 1800's evolutionists in Vermont were sterilizing the disabled because they were disabled. You, "boyo" are the one that believes the sickly and disabled should stop breeding or kill themselves. I don't. You still haven't told me why evolution is exused from these basic laws of matter and physics. Here, I'll re-post them so you can look at 'em again:
1. First Law of thermodynamics: Matter can't be created or destroyed, only transformed.
So if there is a God who created the earth, then that means he has will outside of that law.
2. All matter bends towards decay. Is it possible for a house to evolve? Once you build a house will it get
stronger or weaker as time goes on? Does a peach get riper and riper or does it eventually rot? Do humans die or
do they just get stronger and stronger over many years.
3. It is a fact that life cannot be created in water because of hydrolysis. Water cannot build up, it can only
break down. So it is redundant to say that life started in water.
-
You're still trying to apply the concept in a Pokemon kind of way, which is not what the theory means at all in the first place. It's applied to generation after generation over millions of years, not one lifespan.
That said, I'm not really a supporter of the theory as it is.
-
Alright, I'll take out the example of a human getting stronger and stronger in his life span. But I'm still not taking out the fact that everything bends toward decay. This is a law of physics, it's not just something that popped into my head while I was writing the reply.
-
Since when is this a deabte on evolution? Last time I checked, the thread's title was "What's Your Religion?", which is a completely different topic.
-
A species making small adaptations over millions of years wouldn't have anything to do with physics. You're still trying to apply it to some static, eternal object, which is not the idea.
Also, the first law of thermodynamics is that energy, not matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. That's a whole lot less specific.
-
No, I study the topic I'm not ignorant in the least bit. And I never said I wanted to "stop" disabled people. Evolution is the religion that encourages killing off the weak, Christianity is the religion that trys to help them. Back in the 1800's evolutionists in Vermont were sterilizing the disabled because they were disabled. You, "boyo" are the one that believes the sickly and disabled should stop breeding or kill themselves. I don't. You still haven't told me why evolution is exused from these basic laws of matter and physics. Here, I'll re-post them so you can look at 'em again:
1. First Law of thermodynamics: Matter can't be created or destroyed, only transformed.
So if there is a God who created the earth, then that means he has will outside of that law.
2. All matter bends towards decay. Is it possible for a house to evolve? Once you build a house will it get
stronger or weaker as time goes on? Does a peach get riper and riper or does it eventually rot? Do humans die or
do they just get stronger and stronger over many years.
3. It is a fact that life cannot be created in water because of hydrolysis. Water cannot build up, it can only
break down. So it is redundant to say that life started in water.
Ah ha ha ha ha
You are some kind of stupid.
Where in blue hell did I every encourage killing off the disabled? You asked why they are still around and I gave you an answer. Now you're accusing me of wanting to kill them off. Did your mother drop you on the pavement as a child?
And this "physics" you present. One organism doesn't not evolve. Decay is inevitable, hence breeding. Where does this energy come from? Look at the Sun. No really, look at it. It can't possibly scramble what semblance of a brain you have left. But I digress. The Sun provides the energy, and until it's out, life will go on. (Their are thermal vent that can power ecosystems, but that's a lesson for a different day.)
Accuse me again of trying to kill off the disabled, and I'll brain you. No joke.
-
A species making small adaptations over millions of years wouldn't have anything to do with physics. You're still trying to apply it to some static, eternal object, which is not the idea.
Also, the first law of thermodynamics is that energy, not matter, can neither be created nor destroyed. That's a whole lot less specific.
It takes matter to transform into energy and vise versa. For example wood, turns into heat when used with fire. So I guess I kinda use them interchageably. But your right it is energy.
"Defective" people breed. What, are you gonna stop 'em? good luck.
I took this as you telling me that I wanted to get rid of disabled people by stopping them from breeding. If you don't want me to acuse you of something then you'd better word your sentences a little better. And you may not want to cure these kind of people out of the population but your religion whole heartedly supports it.
Ah ha ha ha ha
You are some kind of stupid.
Did your mother drop you on the pavement as a child?
Look at the Sun. No really, look at it. It can't possibly scramble what semblance of a brain you have left. But I digress.
Accuse me again of trying to kill off the disabled, and I'll brain you. No joke.
Wow. Kinda funny.
-
How much is the Boo Dudley/MushroomJunkie cagematch on Pay Per View?
But seriously, keep it civil, or we'll have our political discussion priveleges taken away again and I'll leave again and no one wants that. So play nice, please?
Or I'll stab both of you.
-
MushroomJunkie:
Smoke isn't energy. Also, smoke is a byproduct of wood burning. It isn't transformed wood.
Whether it happens or not, evolution doesn't apply to humans anymore. "Survival of the fittest" I believe is meant to apply to wild animals, and doesn't mean we're going to kill off weaker people, since obviously we go to great lengths to keep people alive these days. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Smoke isn't energy. Also, smoke is a byproduct of wood burning. It isn't transformed wood.
Did I say smoke???? I meant heat!!!!!!! Sorry, I'm gonna edit that.
and doesn't mean we're going to kill off weaker people, since obviously we go to great lengths to keep people alive these days. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, good hearted people that believe evolution don't want to kill off the weak. But remember this guy?:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.slate.com%2Fmedia%2F1%2F123125%2F2158911%2F2159086%2F2159087%2F070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg&hash=ff2484fb1b0030890a6b9c05974bbd0d)
Hitler was a big time evolutionist and this is how he believed:
Virtually flawless/perfect race: Blue eyed, blonde haired arians.
Second rate race: Brown eyed, brown hair, olive skin people around Italy.
half human, half ape: Black people.
pure animal: Jews.
He killed many Jews and blacks because he wanted to "help" the process of natural selection. The good hearted people aren't and will never be the people in power.
And yes Glorb I will keep my end of the argument nice and calm (which I have been doing considering of how I was bashed earlier) I'm not gonna be the one to get political disscussion closed again by not being able to control my temper.
-
This is, like, my third post in a debate thread (on other forums as well) that went completely ignored. Is it because it wasn't actually part of the debate, and thus wasn't worth noting? I don't think it was right to just ignore.
-
Just because I know this old urban legend is going to come up...
Hitler was not a Christian. He was, at most, what Richard Dawkins would call (and describe himself as) a "cultural Christian," which would have been a bit more pronounced in those days, but still nothing like actual Christianity. He went along with it because it was a fixture of the culture. One of his most telling quotes was "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness..." He apparently felt that, living in Western civilization, he was required to be described as a Christian. (To avoid a rabbit trail off of what is already a rabbit trail, don't construe my use of that quote as an accusation against Islam.) Anyway, more details on the whole thing over here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs).
Now, I suggest this be continued in a separate thread, so we can get back on topic over here.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
-
And yes Glorb I will keep my end of the argument nice and calm
"I will only accuse my opponents of supporting Hitler. See? Just nice and calm stuff like that."
MushroomJunkie's continued application of entropy to evolution really shows he knows nothing about entropy or evolution.
-
"I will only accuse my opponents of supporting Hitler. See? Just nice and calm stuff like that."
MushroomJunkie's continued application of entropy to evolution really shows he knows nothing about entropy or evolution.
I never said that I acussed my opponents of supporting Hitler. I said HITLER was a EVOLUTIONIST and in POWER and used his BELIF to KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to support NAUTRAL SELECTION. I never said "All you evolutionists are just a bunch of Hitler supporters." If you read my post I said that even though someone is a evolutionist they still could have a good heart and want to help people. Anything else you want throw at me?
-
Anything else you want throw at me?
Plenty.
-
I said HITLER was a EVOLUTIONIST and in POWER and used his BELIF to KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE to support NAUTRAL SELECTION.
What was the Spanish Inquisition about again?
-
What was the Spanish Inquisition about again?
The thing about Christianity is that to be a Christian, you have to act like a Christian. I can be a serial killer and say when they catch me "But I'm a born-again Christian!", but it doesn't make me a Christian. I'm not saying you have to be perfect to be a Christian, they will have problems (I know I have some) but we try and fix our problems. So when you look at people back at the Spanish Inquisition that call themselves "Christians" and then murder, you know their not. Christians try to win people over to God with witnessing and scripture.
-
So, Hitler uses his tenuous grasp of evolution (not unlike your own) and spoils evolution. But the Spanish Inquisition--along with the Witch Trials and the Crusades (just to name a few)--don't because they aren't Christian enough?
-
So, Hitler uses his tenuous grasp of evolution (not unlike your own) and spoils evolution. But the Spanish Inquisition--along with the Witch Trials and the Crusades (just to name a few)--don't because they aren't Christian enough?
They aren't Christian. Period. The religion of evolution is very dangerous to people in power because of what evolution states. Evolution says that only the strong should survive. People in power will want to kill the weak. That is why it is dangerous. But tell me this, if there is no God then who decides right and wrong? You may think (and I'm not saying you do) that abortion is humane and ok but I don't. I may think that spanking my dog with a newspaper is a good tool to teach it obedience but you may think it's cruel. How are we supposed to function together if we all have different opinions of morality? If we have set rules on what is right and wrong ordained by a God then we would be alot happier and better off.
-
Why are you taking this guy seriously?
With all due respect, I think your a total idiot, MJ.
-
They fought, conquered and tortured in the name of the Christian god. They are Christians.
I don't need a Bible to tell me right from wrong, it's called common sense. And this fixation that any one who acknowledges evolution will kill off the weak is wearing thin fast.
If you need the Bible to find compassion for your fellow man, then that's your problem, not mine.
Why are you taking this guy seriously?
Who's this directed towards?
-
With all due respect, I think your a total idiot, MJ.
"With all due respect", yeah right. Ok I'm bailing from this thread before things get any worse. BD I understand that we have different opinions on religion and I'm not changing yours and your not changing mine so theres no point in argueing about it. I don't want to be your or anyone elses enemy here. I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway (like with the disabled people thing) I believe you that you don't want to get rid of them. :)
-
They fought, conquered and tortured in the name of the Christian god. They are Christians.
So if I hack into your account and post something you would never post, that makes me Boo Dudley because that's what I call myself?
-
Evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory. It is also known was "Darwinism" and only applies to the natural cycle of nature.
Hitler was not an "evolutionist", he was a Social Darwinist. A person who believes that the theory of evolution applies to human society. This is generally accepted as immoral.
Now do you understand, Mushroom Jerky?
-
So if I hack into your account and post something you would never post, that makes me Boo Dudley because that's what I call myself?
I'm not a religion.... but I should be.
-
"With all due respect", yeah right. Ok I'm bailing from this thread before things get any worse. BD I understand that we have different opinions on religion and I'm not changing yours and your not changing mine so theres no point in argueing about it. I don't want to be your or anyone elses enemy here. I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway (like with the disabled people thing) I believe you that you don't want to get rid of them. :)
Actually I don't think your an idiot. Sorry about that. You are very delusional, mislead, and...wrong in this subject though.
-
Evolution is not a religion. It's a scientific theory. It is also known was "Darwinism" and only applies to the natural cycle of nature.
Define "scientific theory". It has no more solid evidence than any other religion.
-
Except for, you know, skeletons and DNA.
-
Turtlekid, just saying something has no proof doesn't mean it doesn't.
-
Dinosaurs are a trick from the devil. *nod*
-
Define "scientific theory". It has no more solid evidence than any other religion.
A scientific theory is an idea that may or may not be true based on partial scientific evidence. Religion is based on people telling you something is true and forcing you to believe it.
-
'Looks at Turtlekid'
I see you have a LOT to learn, young, and easily fooled convinced Turtlekid
-
True, but you definitely don't have to be young to be easily fooled... especially when it comes to this kind of stuff.
-
Except for, you know, skeletons and DNA.
I love how we completely skipped over the question of specific evidence for evolution, and now it's just for granted.
Also, can this please go in a new thread? Reading is right, we should get back on topic here.
-
If you wish to continue the fight over Science and Religon, "The Afterlife" is now hosting this violent brawl.
-
Also, can this please go in a new thread? Reading is right, we should get back on topic here.
Wait, did I just see that? SCORE ONE!
If you wish to continue the fight over Science and Religon, "The Afterlife" is now hosting this violent brawl.
You know, I think they started this forum with the intention of it being civil, given the description and all...but so far it hasn't been civil. Not the way I see it, at least.
...I suppose I may as well contribute something on the topic, so I will say that I'm a Christian.
-
1) If God is all-knowing, why is prayer ever needed?
2) If God's love is unconditional, then why did he make hell?
3) If Adam and Eve only had sons, from where did their wives come?
4) If man is fallible, is it also possible his interpretations of religion are as well?
-
1) If God is all-knowing, why is prayer ever needed?
2) If God's love is unconditional, then why did he make hell?
3) If Adam and Eve only had sons, from where did their wives come?
4) If man is fallible, is it also possible his interpretations of religion are as well?
1) Prayer is not needed for God, but rather for ourselves. Think of it like this: if you have a friend and he knows everything about you, does that mean that you shouldn't still want to spend time with him? Trust me, I don't pray for God's sake, but rather for my own sake to come to know God.
2) God loves all of his children, however some chose with their own free will to not accept it. God would never force anyone to do anything that he or she does not want to do. If a person truly hates God and does not want to spend eternity with him, then God (who is all loving) does the loving thing by respecting his free will and not forcing him to spend eternity with him.
3) The story of Adam and Eve is not and was never intended to be interpreted literally. As I have said before, that account of the creation of the world was most likely written in Judah about 1020-930 BC. The author had no idea how the world was created, nor did he much care. Rather, he used the story as an allegory to show life as it should be and the origins of human weakness.
4) Yes. However, this is the doctrine of faith that is integral to religion. Of course the debate will go on and on about a "proof" or "disproof" of God. Pascal's wager is also not satisfying for many (although I cannot see why). This is a real consideration, even for the most religious of people. It was just discovered, for instance, that Mother Theresa struggled with this exact question much of her life in her own faith. This, however, did not stop her from living in a Christian lifestyle and placing trust in God.
Obviously, these answers are slight, but I thought I'd offer some answers.
Of course, these responses are not meant to generate hateful replies.
-
1) Prayer is not needed for God, but rather for ourselves. Think of it like this: if you have a friend and he knows everything about you, does that mean that you shouldn't still want to spend time with him? Trust me, I don't pray for God's sake, but rather for my own sake to come to know God.
2) God loves all of his children, however some chose with their own free will to not accept it. God would never force anyone to do anything that he or she does not want to do. If a person truly hates God and does not want to spend eternity with him, then God (who is all loving) does the loving thing by respecting his free will and not forcing him to spend eternity with him.
3) The story of Adam and Eve is not and was never intended to be interpreted literally. As I have said before, that account of the creation of the world was most likely written in Judah about 1020-930 BC. The author had no idea how the world was created, nor did he much care. Rather, he used the story as an allegory to show life as it should be and the origins of human weakness.
4) Yes. However, this is the doctrine of faith that is integral to religion. Of course the debate will go on and on about a "proof" or "disproof" of God. Pascal's wager is also not satisfying for many (although I cannot see why). This is a real consideration, even for the most religious of people. It was just discovered, for instance, that Mother Theresa struggled with this exact question much of her life in her own faith. This, however, did not stop her from living in a Christian lifestyle and placing trust in God.
Obviously, these answers are slight, but I thought I'd offer some answers.
Of course, these responses are not meant to generate hateful replies.
I believe in a God and did not intend these questions to be slight, but I guess they are in a way. They are, among other questions, things I've tried hard to answer myself. I'll give my answers and comments on your answers later. Thanks. By the way, I've never purposely tried to be hateful, but I'm a skeptical thinker so I come off that way sometimes. It also may be that the more I research and think about religious and spiritual things the less I believe in them.
Edit: I think you missed the most important question in number two.
-
I suppose Hell was created when the first demons (fallen angels) came about. As far as my understanding of this Theology goes, these angels thought that they could be God themselves. They openly chose to rebel against God, hate him, and oppose good. In accord with their choice, God created hell to send these evil angels where they wanted to go.
-
I'd like to see what would happen if you tried to explain your answer to No. 3 to Turtlekid and CrossEyed.
-
Show of hands: Who saw Life of Brian?
-
'Raises hand' Oooh, me! Me!
How to make a powerful storm:
1. Start the movie Life of Brian
2. Invite Turtlekid to watch a "beautiful, religious movie"
3. Run for your life
-
/me raises his hand.
"Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?"
Also, let's not be mean to members or make fun of them or call them out on their beliefs because they are different than yours. *Cough -- Nintendoobsessed*
-
A scientific theory is an idea that may or may not be true based on partial scientific evidence. Religion is based on people telling you something is true and forcing you to believe it.
Yes people are conditioned to believe something. Religion is passed on the same way customs are; being condoned not to think differently or question them.
-
I am a christian. The book of genesis isn't completely accurate. Moses wrote it, and he wasn't around at the time, so he explained it from what he knew, and said that God made things one day at a time, not in a literal sense. Though people nowadays take everything in the bible literally, even the book of revelations, which was written at a time when christianity was being outlawed, so it was written in a code which nobody nowadays can decipher.
-
You know, this has been bugging me for a while, so I'll just get it off my chest... "Religon"? Sounds like a Pokemon.
-
I think that got mentioned a few pages back.
-
"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." ~ 2 Timothy 3:16
"But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"" ~ Matthew 4:4 (quoting Deuteronomy 8:3)
"But, as it is written, "What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"-- these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. " ~ 1 Corinthians 2:9-14
-
3) The story of Adam and Eve is not and was never intended to be interpreted literally. As I have said before, that account of the creation of the world was most likely written in Judah about 1020-930 BC. The author had no idea how the world was created, nor did he much care. Rather, he used the story as an allegory to show life as it should be and the origins of human weakness.
You know, that's just a theory/opinion. Not saying I don't think it's true to some extent, but to make a blanket statement like that is an awfully dismissive view of the text.
3) If Adam and Eve only had sons, from where did their wives come?
First of all, let me clarify that they didn't only have sons. Gen 5:4: "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters."
As for where their wives came from, I've wondered about that, too. This is my interpretation:
Aside from the Adam and Eve story, in the creation story, Gen 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Since it's not referring specifically to Adam and Eve (other than possibly "man" in the first part), "male" and "female" might be used in the plural sense. In other words, God may have created many men and women around the same time, possibly after the Garden of Eden story.
(Heh, can you tell I'm taking an Old Testament class?)
-
You know, that's just a theory/opinion. Not saying I don't think it's true to some extent, but to make a blanket statement like that is an awfully dismissive view of the text.
Just a quick question about that. How do you think that it is true to some extent? I'm just curious about your interpretation of that theory.
-
Well, for example, God creating the universe in literally six days. Not that God's not capable of that, but for one, He's not bound by time like we are, and 2 Peter 3:8 provides the analogy, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." My interpretation is that "day" means "era." People at the time probably would've had a hard time grasping that, though, so each "chunk" was put into day format to make it simpler, and to explain where the Sabbath day (resting on Day 7) came from. Again, this is just my personal opinion. Doesn't mean I'm right or wrong. No one can really know for sure.
Also, the Genesis account wasn't written down for at least a few thousand years after the events took place. I don't think the author(s) created the stories out of thin air, but rather were writing down stories that were handed down orally. So it's likely not 100% accurate; some things were probably embellished, exaggerated, or downplayed. But I still think the general gist--and the lessons--of the stories are true. And unless I have a reason to believe something might not be accurate, or the text implies (well, I infer) something figuratively (such as through simile and metaphor), I don't have a reason to not take it literally.
-
Also, the word they translate as "day" is "yom", which is often used to refer to a day, but literally means "time period" if I recall correctly. Just throwing a bit of info out there...and no, I don't know Hebrew. I found that information in a book.
I don't see the point of debates about how literal the creation story is, because I believe it's irrelevant. I have purposely decided not to make up my mind on the issue. If you're a Christian, you believe God created the world, right? What does it matter whether He created it in 6 days or ~13,700,000,000 years? In situations when it would come up, however, such as continental drift (a topic I've been interested in since childhood), I will defend the billion-years viewpoint.
-
Sapphira, what about the stories in other cultures that were written down and/or passed down from previous generations?
-
They weren't true or important to the spiritual survival of humanity, so no one bothered to write them down.
-
So Greek mythology is true because they wrote them down?
The main reason people who believe in gods are dumb retarded idiots is the act of looking at the hundreds of religions of humanity and thinking one is true and the rest false. Newsflash: yours is just as retarded as all those others. You're just too blind to see it.
-
The thing that separates Christianity from the rest is that it was the only one that wasn't founded by a man.
-
Who was it founded by then? God? (Since He isn't physically on Earth I don't think he can "found" religions.) I'm pretty sure other religions believe that theirs was divinely inspired too, just so you know.
The more accurate thing that separates Christianity from the "rest" is that Constantine I converted to Christianity and caused the Roman Empire to become Christian, which was a huge boost for its membership numbers.
I'm not as caustic as Lizard Dude on these matters because I do believe in God, but I think Religion in general takes itself way too seriously.
-
They weren't true or important to the spiritual survival of humanity, so no one bothered to write them down.
And who, exactly, decided they weren't important? The Federal Bureau of Spiritual Survival?
-
Christian, but I don't go to church or follow some Christian virtues (and since I don't go to church, I don't know what rules I'm breaking). So maybe I'm agnostic. I believe there's a God, I just don't believe in living a poodle perfect life and thinking God will solve every single problem for me. But then, I'm saying all that without knowing what Christian churches actually preach.
It's more that I hate evangelists who use religion as a 10-ton hammer. That God says this or that, and anyone who disagrees is going to hell, no matter how nice and generous the person may be. I remember that one crazy guy who said that Oprah was leading people to hell. Oprah, of all people, just because the books she talked about in her book club mentioned some religion other than Christianity.
My usual stance on religion is, there should be no reason to bring it up. Equality and all that. Mention it in casual if you want, I'll just let it pass by. Whether someone's Christian or Catholic or Lutheran or whatever, doesn't matter to me. It's when someone shoves that religion into my face that I take offense, because there's nothing I could say to change their beliefs when religion appears to be one of the most firmly-held beliefs of all. So an argument could be shot down by saying "Well, I know I'm right because my God or gods is right."
I admire the idea of whatever religion it is that says material possessions are unnecessary and that you should ascend to a higher plane of being. Has that romantic idea of purity and hopefully being distant from the corruption of society. I've referred to it as Zen since "Ozy and Millie" constantly mentions something along those lines. It's a great idea, but I personally wouldn't want to live out a life of Zen.
-
They weren't true or important to the spiritual survival of humanity, so no one bothered to write them down.
I am SURE someone is going to find this incredibly offensive.
The thing that separates Christianity from the rest is that it was the only one that wasn't founded by a man.
???
Um, yeah, it was. A Jewish man that wandered around the middle east, preaching his own special religion.
-
Um, that Jewish man also happened to be God incarnate, so...
-
I am SURE someone is going to find this incredibly offensive.
Are you more concerned with the truth or with hurting people's feelings?
???
Um, yeah, it was. A Jewish man that wandered around the middle east, preaching his own special religion.
I'm hoping that was just ignorance of Christian doctrine, rather than the blatant circular reasoning it seems to be.
Christians believe that Jesus was God in a human body. If that's true, then the statement in question makes sense. Your confusion seems to be due to that fact that you are presuming that Jesus was not God and trying to make it work. It doesn't. If Jesus wasn't God, then the statement does not make sense.
-
Don't even some branches of the church disagree on that? And like, why was Jesus known to talk to God if he was him? And I'd consider the religion to be founded by his followers rather than by him.
Are you more concerned with the truth or with hurting people's feelings?
Since it isn't true I don't know where this is coming from in the first place. Why are there written records of other religions' mythology if "no one bothered to write them down"?
-
The ones that don't acknowledge Jesus aren't Christians according to the Bible, so I guess you would have to define "the church."
Jesus was God, but he was also man. What's more, God consists of three people in one (ever heard of the trinity?).
As for his followers founding the religion, I guess they did if you mean that they founded it by being the first members, but Jesus caused it to happen, thus, in my sense of the word, founding it.
-
Okay....
But Buddhists think that Buddha (I know I spelled it wrong!) was a prophet.
Which means...with your old statement:
The thing that separates Christianity from the rest is that it was the only one that wasn't founded by a man.
Okay, let's say I'm Buddhist:
The thing that seperates Buddhism from the rest is that it was the only one that wasn't founded by a ordinary man.
Now we're equal, in this weird, proofless way.
-
There has been talk of circular reasoning. You want circular reasoning? Here's circular reasoning: saying Christianity is true while all other religions are false because only Christianity was founded by a god, which assumes Christianity is true.
"Christianity is true because Christianity is true."
Great argument!
-
Everbody thinks their religion is the right one. So someone's got to be wrong.
-
That's western thinking. Before western thought reached the middle east, people were tolerant of different religions. A buddhist could go into a Hindu temple to pray because ultimately it was just a different practice of worship towards the same God. Different, but not separate.
-
Buddhists don't worship the Christian god.
-
Can't we all just get a go cart?
-
Everbody thinks their religion is the right one. So someone's got to be wrong.
They all are. They're based on the same thing.
-
Or conversely, everybody can be right, assuming you're willing to let them.
-
That too. But to be fair, that makes each of them wrong in trying to claim that they're right and the others are wrong.
-
Or rather, the people who claim their religion is right and the others are wrong.
-
Agreed.
-
They all are. They're based on the same thing.
...Like I said before. I was trying to make my point by explaining how nonsensical the alternative is.
-
Seriously, what a mess. This topic seems to be jumping around from "interesting and thoughtful" to "downright hateful and arogant." For every page I see that seems to be engaging in a friendly discussion, there's at least one wonderful comment. Like this one:
So Greek mythology is true because they wrote them down?
The main reason people who believe in gods are dumb retarded idiots is the act of looking at the hundreds of religions of humanity and thinking one is true and the rest false. Newsflash: yours is just as retarded as all those others. You're just too blind to see it.
Seriously, this is really rude. I don't go around calling atheists and agnostics ignorant idiots - I have an uncle who's an agnostic, and I'm friends with him. If a Christian friend told me that they had become atheistic, I wouldn't yell in his face "YOU'RE A DUMB RETARTED IDIOT!" The main thing I get so ticked off with is that some atheists pass all religions and all their followers off as simpleminded, without any actual reason for it except "religion is stupid." If you want to personally view the idea of God as stupid, fine, but going around and dismissing all people who disagree with you as "idiots" only makes you sound like a jerk. Ever heard of Pascal? Newton? They were devout Christians, and yet without them, we wouldn't have some of the most defining mathematical and scientific principals of our time. Even Einstein, who is often called the greatest scientist ever, believed in an inteligent creator. Are you willing to call them "stupid ignorant idiots" as well?
As you can probably tell, I'm a Christian - but it seems that I differ from a lot of the other Christians on this board. I believe in a Bible that is 100% acurate, and that belief includes a literal interpretation of Genesis. Honestly, I feel that if a Christians starts to deny any part of the Bible, then they are opening a can of worms that could only lead to denying other parts - and so on, until they refuese to believe any of it. I'm not applying this to everyone - all I know is that if I did that, that would probably be the result. Still, I know that interpreting Genesis as a proverbial book doesn't even slighly deny someone's status as a Believer - what matters is whether you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as your only savior. I'm perfectly willing to disagree on issues like the creation account - it's really not a whole different than disagreeing whether the "Sons of God" and "Daughters of Men" were only humans or a mixture of humans and angels. It doesn't affect whether we are saved or not.
On the issue of other religions, Christianity is very different from any other belief system. Basically all other belief systems were either made by people trying to explain the world around them, or started by people who wanted to be worshiped for some reason or another. There are exceptions - Bhudda was just a spiritual teacher who ended up being worshiped without his directive, for example - but generally all false religions fall into one of those two catergories. Christianity... not so much. The big thing to understand is that there WAS a man named Jesus who was a carpenter and taught people about God. You can not deny that he existed without also denying historical records that were made by the goverment and other sources at the time. Thus, it comes down to either that he was a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. If he was a liar, like most other religion starters are, then he would just have denied he was God during his trial. I suppose you could argue that he was a lunatic, but Jesus's general description is not one of lunacy. He is recorded as being gentle, thoughtful, inteligent, and one who is excellent with language and parables. If he was a lunatic, then how was he able to continually outwit the religious leaders, who were considered to be the smartest people at the time? Insanity and inteligence just doesn't go hand to hand - they're basically oxymorons. A lot of people come to the conclusion that the Bible and Christianity was made up by people - but those people were recorded to have died refusing to renounce their beliefs. If it was a lie concoted by some power-seeking "teachers," then they would have not willingly have gone to the grave.
My conclusion has basically been that Christianity makes far more sense than any other belief. It's not mindlessly believing what my parents have told me - I've struggled a lot with this issue myself. But I feel that I just don't have any other choice - because in my opinion, Christianity is the most logical belief system. And seriously, logic is my life - I don't really have faith as much as logic. I actually often don't trust that God is going to provide everything that I need - which is mainly because after reading about other Christian experiences, it sometimes just doesn't seem logical for me to assume that. It's a problem, but I just have to work through it. At least it's better than not having any solid sense of morality and truth.
-
My personal opinion is that, while I disagree (sometimes strongly) with what many religions say, I don't believe in insulting someone because of their religion. I'm an atheist, but I believe in morals. As such, I think that, as long as you do good and are a good person, it doesn't matter what your religion/lack thereof is. If peace in the afterlife is an incentive to be nice, then I'm totally cool with it. On the other hand, if someone uses it as an excuse for homophobia or racism or murder or genocide, well, that Ps me O.
-
I'm not sure how many times I've said this, but since we've got a resurgence going on here I'll reiterate: I do not believe in any God, period, though I do not discount the possibility, however small it may be, that there is one(s).
That being said, it is my life mission to hunt down and view Religulous.
-
Even Einstein, who is often called the greatest scientist ever, believed in an inteligent creator. Are you willing to call them "stupid ignorant idiots" as well?
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
Smart guy.
(If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.)
I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.
-
What fun: I'm the only Muslim here.
-
At least you are not the zeroth Buddhist.
-
Zarkan's post seems to invoke way too many ideas for the sole purpose of discounting them, i.e. "this is the only possible solution you can come to", which only works when that's actually true.
For my part, I think Jesus must have been a pretty hip and cool guy, but I have major problems with the church.
-
I claim to be a Christian, although I don't practice very often in terms of going to church. I actually liked reading along in the missalettes, as well as recognizing my shortcomings and proactively thinking of how to act in the future.
I'm Christian because I was raised that way. I believe there is a God and Jesus was probably a sort of "avatar"(see Hinduism), and I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to understand the truth through most or all religions. I don't believe Christianity is the right religion and the others are wrong; rather, I think of religions as variously forged paths through the forest that we call this life: paths are created and taken by many different people, but aren't we all trying to get to the same destination?
Religion is hard to talk about, because it ought to be lived rather than just discussed. Like love, you shouldn't just say, "I'm Christian" or "I love you" without following through and acting out such statements. That's why I feel guilty about claiming to be a Christian when I haven't gone to Church for quite a few months.
-
Smart guy.
(If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.)
Firstly, did I say that Einstein was a Christian, or that he believed the bible? No - all I said was that he believed in the idea of an inteligent creator, which you just proved through your second quote. He was fine with the idea of some powerful being or force starting the universe - just not the God of the Bible.
Secondly, you skipped over the other two examples I gave. If Newton was an idiot for believing in God, than you're saying that the guy who came up with the Law of Gravity is a fool. If Pascal was an idiot, than you're discounting the guy that did amazing things for modern math. So, are you saying that?
Zarkan's post seems to invoke way too many ideas for the sole purpose of discounting them, i.e. "this is the only possible solution you can come to", which only works when that's actually true.
For my part, I think Jesus must have been a pretty hip and cool guy, but I have major problems with the church.
Yes, very nice - discard my entire post without actually taking time to even make counter arguments. If you want to try to pick my argument apart piece by piece, fine - but ignoring it like this only seems to show that you don't care about actually coming up with a defense.
-
If you look into it, Einstein was not an actual atheist. He had a "dim suspicion" of the universe's order. But he saw the Bible as the ridiculous sham it obviously is.
Prove Darwinism/Atheism isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt to not be held accountable by a higher power).
-
They guys who thought up Darwinism actually spent plenty of years studying animals and the fossils of the animals that existed before them in order to justify the idea that perhaps some animals change over several hundreds of years to adapt to specfic environments.
You on the other hand say man was put on the Earth just because of an old book that's been adapted six ways from Sunday without any discernible reason.
-
They guys who thought up Darwinism actually spent plenty of years studying animals and the fossils of the animals that existed before them in order to justify the idea that perhaps some animals change over several hundreds of years to adapt to specfic environments.
And here we come to one of the biggest misconceptions in modern science. The process you are describing is called "natural selection," where animals change in minor ways (ie. the length of their fur, or the size of their paws) to adapt to their current environment. This process, also known as micro evolution, is NOT the same as Darwinism, or Macro Evolution. You can't say that just because a cat can change into a different breed of cat, that it could also change into a fish or monkey - even given supposed millions of years of time. Genetical variation that causes natural selection is already contained in every animal - but in order for an animal to change into a completely different species, the animal's systems would have to create new genetic code. This confusion and interchanging of two completely different processes really gets on my nerves.
Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity. The reality is that there are other written accounts, specifically historical ones, that line up with the bible - despite being from foreign nations. There is archeological evidence, including cities and locations that match the location of events mentioned in the Bible. And there is apolegetics - countless books have been written explaining Christianity through the same logic system that people try to debunk it with. In summary: don't assume that Christians blindly follow the lead of other Christians without even thinking it over and researching it.
-
If Newton was an idiot for believing in God, than you're saying that the guy who came up with the Law of Gravity is a fool. If Pascal was an idiot, than you're discounting the guy that did amazing things for modern math. So, are you saying that?
No, people aren't binary. They can do both dumb and smart things.
Prove Darwinism/Atheism isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt to not be held accountable by a higher power).
Prove the Bible isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt by ancient man to understand a world they didn't have the tools to yet as well as an excuse to support their behavior and wars).
-
don't assume that Christians blindly follow the lead of other Christians without even thinking it over and researching it.
I can already tell you that Turtlekid is not one of those Christians. If he is, he certainly doesn't show
-
And don't get me started on the lack of Pastafarians here.
-
Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity.
I'm totally confounded by this statement.
Secondly, I don't think you'll get any argument that the Bible does contain records of historical events. It also contains things that were made up to illustrate a point.
-
Another misconception is thinking that the bible is the only proof of Christianity.
True, this is a common misconception. In fact, there is no proof of Christianity.
-
And don't get me started on the lack of Pastafarians here.
RAmen, my friend. Alas, I never dress as a pirate... though I do enjoy spaghetti and Maruchan noodles.
-
No, people aren't binary. They can do both dumb and smart things.
Prove the Bible isn't a ridiculous sham (and an attempt by ancient man to understand a world they didn't have the tools to yet as well as an excuse to support their behavior and wars).
Every country/society founded on Biblical principles has been successful and wealthy with a stable economy and social system, until they've been ruined by communism or liberalism. And you didn't answer my original question.
I can already tell you that Turtlekid is not one of those Christians. If he is, he certainly doesn't show
How can you tell? Please enlighten me.
-
Every country/society founded on Biblical principles has been successful and wealthy with a stable economy and social system, until they've been ruined by communism or liberalism.
People are unified by the idea of a "Great One", something they all have in common.
BTW, was there any country EVER to be completely established by Atheists
-
Sadly, no.
-
How can you tell? Please enlighten me.
You never back up anything you say with anything. All you do is claim one thing is wrong and other things or right and that's the way it should be. Since you put your ends of the arguments that way, the rest of us shouldn't be obligated to listen to you, even though you act like we should.
-
Okay, let me rephrase what I said above. A lot of people seem to think that Christians believe what they believe just because "the Bible said it." Well, that's false. Some may be like that, but many Christians research and think about things using sources OTHER than the bible. Ever heard of Lee Strobel? He was a hardcore athiest, and he set out to prove Christianty wrong by researching every aspect of it. He came to the conclusion that it was all true. I know that won't sway anyone - the only point I'm making is that converting to Christianity is not always a split second, impulse decision made on feelings.
True, this is a common misconception. In fact, there is no proof of Christianity.
Well, is there any evidence for athiesm? It seems that all athiests ever do to "prove" athiesm is to attack Christianity and religion. I never actually see athiests defending their beliefs - they are always on the attack.
-
It annoys the fudge out of me that all arguments related to religion here go like so:
A: That's not true.
B: Prove it.
A: I'll prove it if you prove that.
B: I'll only prove that if you prove this.
A: You prove that first.
B: No, you first.
A: No, you, I asked you first.
Lizard Dude: You're dumb and stupid and fat and you suck at life.
And so on. It's really annoying to have everyone on both sides go out and say there's no evidence for X just because they say so.
-
^Pure sweet truth.^
I've said this before, but the topic title is "What's Your Religion"? If you want to kill each other beat each other with sticks yell at each other disrespect each other debate about religion, make a new thread.
There IS a way to make these sort of debates not fail, and that is to not degrade anyone else's viewpoint. I'm honestly surprised most forums don't place restrictions on that sort of thing. Just closing the thread isn't the answer. People must change their attitudes.
-
I'm still going with the "What is 'proof of Christianity'?" question, since that isn't the same as "proof that Christian beliefs are true".
-
Well, is there any evidence for athiesm? It seems that all athiests ever do to "prove" athiesm is to attack Christianity and religion.
Maybe it seems that way to you because you are taking a defensive Christian point of view. Besides, it's almost impossible to prove a negative. The burden here does not lie with atheists. The burden is on the outrageous claims of religion.
I never actually see athiests defending their beliefs - they are always on the attack.
I've often seen, heard, and read atheists defending there lack of belief and giving evidence for their views. I don't like it when any side resorts to attacks. It's counter productive and furthers the divide. No matter which side you are on I think it's important to be skeptical and look at all the evidence.
Lizard Dude: You're dumb and stupid and fat and you suck at life.
New signature anyone?
-
It's silly to prove anything about religion, because religion is inherently irrational. Religious practices are usually based on faith, not logic.
Next post: "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
-
You're dumb and stupid and fat and you suck at life.
-
Well, is there any evidence for athiesm? It seems that all athiests ever do to "prove" athiesm is to attack Christianity and religion. I never actually see athiests defending their beliefs - they are always on the attack.
SIGH.
Top Reasons:
1. This rock is 4 million years old. The Bible says the world is some 10000 years old.
2. Many of the things in the bible are scientifically impossible
3. There is no proof of a god except a old book.
4. Ancient People were always trying to explain things with Religion, and we are now proving them wrong.
5. Christianity has constantly changed. It used to be popular that if you were a good christian, you would burn innocent woman at a stake, because they were WITCHEZ!
If anyone says (Seriously) that the Athiests have no reasons, I will simply post this again.
-
To play Devil's Advocate here (yes, intentional-ish irony):
1. This rock is 4 million years old. The Bible says the world is some 10000 years old.
We're at the point where all rational people know the real age the Earth, even many Christians, although this point's validity remains. However, the bible does not actually say the Earth is 10,000 years old; if I recall, it gives no year-specific age.
2. Many of the things in the bible are scientifically impossible
3. There is no proof of a god except a old book.
True, but if you or I or anyone expects anyone else to take that point seriously, don't just SAY it. I could say there's no proof the sky is blue; that doesn't make it true, because, well, there is proof. In other words, point out that, say, there's no fossil records of giants, and there is no scientifically verifiable way of proving the existance of any afterlife.
4. Ancient People were always trying to explain things with Religion, and we are now proving them wrong.
Actually, a pretty valid point. Specificism (not a word, is it?) would help, though.
5. Christianity has constantly changed. It used to be popular that if you were a good christian, you would burn innocent woman at a stake, because they were WITCHEZ!
Again, true, but presented in a pretty tactless way.
I'm sorry if I sound like an English teacher here, but the point I'm trying to make is that if anyone's to try making any point here, please do so in a well thought-out manner. Screaming your beliefs in list form does not a good argument make. Zarkanthesmasher's right; almost all Atheists I see act in a condescending and insulting manner when presenting their views, and it disappoints me.
-
2. Many of the things in the bible are scientifically impossible
If there were an omnipotent being who created the universe, is it conceivable that he could do things that seem to contradict our understandings of the rules he created?
If so, this point is meaningless.
What is your basis for believing that science is the only guarantor of truth? How could that belief be falsified? It can't be, because any report of supernatural occurrences would be immediately written off as unscientific, and therefore false. Even if you personally witnessed a supernatural event, it would not be testable by scientific means, and therefore it wouldn't be real. But if your belief can't be falsified, it's not science, it's faith. In order to hold up your naturalistic worldview, everything must come down to your original assumption of naturalism.
When you say the Bible is unscientific, all you're saying is "Christians and non-Christians believe different things." You can't prove that the non-Christian way is superior.
-
Okay, now take a shot at the other 4 points, if you feel like your on a roll.
-
Uh, the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, not 4 million. Also, I think the number crazy people throw around is more like 6000.
-
1. This rock is 4 million years old. The Bible says the world is some 10000 years old.
Some people's interpretation of scientific data conflicts with some people's extrapolations of Biblical data. That doesn't mean the Bible itself, which does not put a date on creation, is wrong.
3. There is no proof of a god except a old book.
- Old books are used in a surprising number of academic disciplines.
- Take Philosophy 101. There are arguments, even if you don't find them convincing. If you don't have that time, watch these (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9AE6240CB7EB22F9).
4. Ancient People were always trying to explain things with Religion, and we are now proving them wrong.
Scientists used to believe the sun rotated around the earth. Now we know it doesn't. Therefore, science is wrong.
5. Christianity has constantly changed. It used to be popular that if you were a good christian, you would burn innocent woman at a stake, because they were WITCHEZ!
Atheists have killed lots of people, but that doesn't mean atheism isn't true.
-
Scientists used to believe the sun rotated around the earth. Now we know it doesn't. Therefore, science is wrong.
The primary reason they believed that is because that's what it said in the Bible. Science would be so far ahead right now without religion.
-
Uh, the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, not 4 million. Also, I think the number crazy people throw around is more like 6000.
Uh, I said a rock, not the earth itself.
-
Ehh wot?
-
You never back up anything you say with anything. All you do is claim one thing is wrong and other things or right and that's the way it should be. Since you put your ends of the arguments that way, the rest of us shouldn't be obligated to listen to you, even though you act like we should.
You're wrong.
The primary reason they believed that is because that's what it said in the Bible. Science would be so far ahead right now without religion.
And the man who disproved the geocentric theory was a Christian.
-
No, you're wrong.
Maybe that second point is a sign that the Christians might actually be learning something about their beliefs. Something to the effect of ...not everything in the Bible should be taken as absolute fact and that there are some scientific things that take precedence over it.
-
The Bible is defined by God, whose word takes precedence over science. Science is something created by God to help us understand the world, not something we can distort and abuse run away from Him.
I'm not perfect. I don't pretend that I know everything. My arguments are not perfect, either. If you want me to expound or be more clear, ask me. Don't complain about it.
-
Funny... that last sentence perfectly describes me.
-
"Other". Technically, I'm an atheist, as I do not believe in any religion. However, I do not completely dismiss the existence of a "higher power".
Wouldn't that be Unitarian then? Isn't that where you do practice a certain religion, but you do believe in God, Heaven, etc.?
-
Isn't that where you don't practice a certain religion, but you do believe in God, Heaven, etc.?
That's what you meant, right?
Like I said, I don't believe in God and I really don't think there is a God. Nevertheless, it is blind belief on the opposite end of the spectrum to say with absolute confidence that there is no God, so I don't.
-
Don't confuse religion with belief. I mean, I like to believe in God, but I find religions to be royally screwed up.
Unitarians take elements from whatever religion and kind of blend them into one church service.
-
I am a Solitary Wiccan. I chose Wicca mainly because I felt that it reflected most of my views.
-
The Bible is defined by God
WRONG. Huge misconception by many Christians and others alike. The Bible is a "historical" record of the Biblical era, which is used to convey the message of God's word. I say historical in quotes because a lot of the Bible is metaphorical (I.e. Noah's Ark, the world didn't actually flood.) and that depending on your beliefs, certain things may or may not have really happened in your mind (such as Jesus not really being the Son of God).
See, the biggest problem with religion is that people take it wayyy too literally. That's why we have radical Muslims who blow up cars to get into heaven. It's not just religious people either, it's atheists who obsessively try to debunk religion as well. Is religion bad? No. Just like most things in life, it's ruined by halfwits who defile it unknowingly. Realistically, religion is a wonderful thing when used correctly. It's when you have bigotted, ignorant, fundamentalist, Christian ******bags who throw away hundreds of dollars of their twenty one year old son's 360 games out because they fear it will corrupt him (true story about my friend by the by), that you encounter problems.
And atheists, don't think you're all innocent sitting there in the corner. You do the exact same thing as them. Nearly every time I witness an atheist's angry ramblings about religion, they cite ridiculous stories that are outdated/allegorical in attempts to portray Christians or any religious people as insane idiots. A lot of atheists seem to forget something about science. Nothing in science is 100% proven. Especially elaborate theories like the Big Bang theory. It's funny how atheists are the first ones to denounce religion as a group of people shouting that their opinion is fact and that everyone else is wrong. Simultaneously, atheists are doing the same thing everytime they defend any scientific theory that doesnt include the word "gravity". You can call theists ignorant and stubborn as much as you want, but atheists in general tend to have an arrogant, condescending mindset considering that they have this belief that they know this grand, ultimate truth and that you're this small child who believes in the Easter Bunny (religion) still.
Point and case, religion and science are both flawed, both are not 100%, and both have holes. Any sane, informed individual can see that science and religion are a match made in heaven. The religion, science jointventure works better than any set of scientific theories or religious stories alone could ever hope to.
Where do I sit? I'm a Christian, more accurately a Lutheran since the Catholic Church is insane and a little evil. However, as I said before, religion and science can't rest alone. I belief in evolution and I believe in creationism. I don't believe that prayer alone will get you where you want in life. My principle belief in Christianity is that it, like all religion, should be a standard guideline of morals and ethics. I base my own personal moral system off of that in Christianity. I still believe in Jesus and resurrection and all that jargon, but really I see God as a clockmaker more or less. He sets the clocks and then sits back to watch them work.
And before someone shoots their mouth off calling me a bad Christian or lazy or whatever, spare me your chastisement. I'm a Deacon at my church, that is to say that I attend it regularly and I'm the guy who gives people part of their Communion, including the Pastor herself. I know more about Christianity than probably half of the people who claim to be Christian in this entire country, so I don't want people coming in here to call my ignorant of my religion.
-
I never did mention that I'm not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic. I believe that there's a higher power, but I don't believe in following any sort of religious rules or trying to comprehend said higher power. It's too much for us puny humans. That said, I'll also point out that I sometimes use satirical euphemisms when referring to any higher power/God in conversation, like Primus (the Transformers' equivalent of God) or "the writing staff", in reference to our lives being a TV show and the writers determining everything that happens to us.
A small part of me thinks that last part might actually be true...
-
I never did mention that I'm not an atheist. I'm more of an agnostic. I believe that there's a higher power, but I don't believe in following any sort of religious rules or trying to comprehend said higher power. It's too much for us puny humans. That said, I'll also point out that I sometimes use satirical euphemisms when referring to any higher power/God in conversation, like Primus (the Transformers' equivalent of God) or "the writing staff", in reference to our lives being a TV show and the writers determining everything that happens to us.
A small part of me thinks that last part might actually be true...
Agreed, for the most part. And I don't think this higher power cares about it's beings.
-
How do you agree with a fact I was telling about myself? Better yet, why couldn't you have just responded to that post without quoting it?
-
Well I share some aspects of your beliefs. Because I'm lazy.
-
Quoting the post directly above you should be made against the rules. I just read the freakin' post, I don't want to read the whole thing again.
-
I too sometimes think I'm on a TV show. Sometimes it's very poorly written.
-
I dont think its a problem to quote above unless its a freaking humongous post similar in size to mine.
-
It makes sense to quote a post above yours if you're responding to a specific part of it or if you're breaking it down line-by-line. The only real reason I can see for quoting like that is if you think your post will have a post made before it, but SMF warns you when this happens.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfwchan.com%2Fpics%2F47477417.jpg&hash=89df791cc4a38b61ac8a75e7d26a155e)
-
It makes sense to quote a post above yours if you're responding to a specific part of it or if you're breaking it down line-by-line. The only real reason I can see for quoting like that is if you think your post will have a post made before it, but SMF warns you when this happens.
Or if you want to save the post you are responding to because you know it will be edited. I hate when people edit posts to make it look like they never posted something. I only edit to fix typos, grammar, or to add something. When adding something I usually put it in an "Edit" line at the bottom.
-
Most of the time, however, people only edit posts for minor mistakes.
-
hahaha
-
Actually, if DK weren't so fun to play as in SSB, I would hate him, too... Nothing personal, I just hate monkeys/apes/gorillas.
Hmm, I wonder why...
-
Im Mormon
-
Yeah 'cause science has fundamentally proven every single aspect of religion wrong. Gotcha. You uh, you mind telling me about this grand law that was emperically tested which absolutely 100% proves there's no higher being?
I'll let'cha get back to me on that one.
-
I wish you would have quoted something because I have no idea what you're responding to.
-
I think he means the chart above.
It doesn't say religion is total bull, it just shames how some people ignore the facts because it goes against their religion. But science doesn't disprove every religious belief. I mean, I personally find it hard to believe that a bunch of nothing could suddenly blow up and make something. Then again, before anything ever existed, what could that have been like? So perhaps the most logical thing is that time is a wheel that never begins nor ends (some religions have that idea). But I only have a few decades to live so I'm not going to waste it all pondering useless and unfathomable stuff like how the universe happened.
-
Hence what I said about any sort of all-powerful, all-knowing deity not being worth trying to comprehend.
-
The thing that gets me though, is that Atheists criticize religious people because they see them as ignorant, stubborn, and blindly following an unproven concept. Yet at the same time, these Atheists are the first to argue for enormous theories like the Big Bang which have little proof themselves. Point is, there's a lot of things in science that aren't actually proven either. Outright stating that there's no proof of God is equally as ignorant as the ones they call ignorant.
Another thing about atheists I'm sick of, they constantly cite stories in the Bible when attempting to disprove Christianity. Yeah, there's people who read the Bible word for word, literally. I'll agree with atheists on that one, those people are stupid and clearly can't think for themselves. Atheists like to say that reading the Bible will make any intelligent person an atheist due to stories like Noah's ark or the trials of Job. Yet by doing this, they're showing just how ignorant they are themselves. A lot of the Bible is metaphorical. If you're an atheist and use it literally to debunk it, you're an idiot. If you're this enlightened, superior intellectual then why can't you realize this concept that the Bible isn't literal?
-
The Big Bang has 43976926309709304660298x the amount of evidence to suspect it might be true than all religions ever combined.
Most of it is physics that 99% people don't know or understand.
Go to college, kids (not church).
-
Evidence. Now.
Yeah and clearly I don't go to college because I'm a Christian. gg lizard dud.
-
Evidence. Now.
Okay, have fun reading!
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/debate/1996/hub_1929.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449v2
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0511534
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0101009
-
If you're this enlightened, superior intellectual then why can't you realize this concept that the Bible isn't literal?
...because a lot of die-hard Christians themselves can't either?
-
Well, you're gonna have to disseminate that evidence for me Lizard Dude. That goes beyond my training as a politician. though from I gathered, two of those are only theories. The other ones are laundry lists of convoluted mathematics which don't mention anything about the big bang. You'll have to explain it to me if you really wanna debate it. Otherwise, I dunno what to tell you.
...because a lot of die-hard Christians themselves can't either?
But atheists denounce Christians for doing that. That's hypocrisy city right there. You can't call them stubborn for doing so when atheists themselves do it just as often.
-
Redshift is easy enough to understand, and it's pretty darn good evidence.
And shut the heck up about hypocrisy. Everyone is a hypocrite.
-
I'm an agnostic Christian. I believe in God, I went to Sunday School when I was growing up, but in my opinion, the existence of one or more deity can be neither proven nor disproved. I like to keep an open mind when it comes to spiritual and religious beliefs.
-
I am not religious at all. I have never been to church. Never! If ever I did, chances are I would be lying about my religion to get votes for something I am trying to get elected to. But me running for any government position is as likely as me going to a class about business today and the economy because I thought it would be interesting.
-
I'm a Methodist (earlier I said I was a Christian of no particular denomination). I'm closeted about my faith around other people at college, even though I shouldn't be.
-
I may have mentioned this before, but since we're talking about it again. Protestant, don't know what denomination, unless E.Free counts. Lean more Calvinist than Arminian, but not sure how many points.
-
I'm more Sagan/Einsteinian than Protestant. That is, I am a humanitarian who believes in a God, but has little faith in a 2000-year-old book or religious authority.
-
I am now an agnostic. ShadowBrain, Glorb, The Chef, Lizard Dude...I'm joining the "atheist/agnostic team," so to speak.
I cannot bring myself to suspend my reason any longer. Faith is nice to have until it interferes with reality. There's simply not enough evidence to prove God exists. Does that mean God doesn't exist? Not in my opinion, but I'm tired of putting my faith in (like Luigison said) a 2,000-year-old book/religious authority. Religion breeds a lot of hate and I'm tired of being associated with it. I just want to love without dogma getting in the way.
Until something or someone proves me otherwise, I am going to remain skeptical about God's existence. I'm not going to be militant about my agnosticism, but I will (respectively) disagree with men/women of faith.
Now...someone tell me I'm going to hell! :)
-
Welcome to using your brain.
-
It feels pretty [darn] good too. For the first time in my life I do not have to fear anything. It's quite liberating.
-
I think there are still things you should fear.
-
No doubt, but at least I do not have to fear death. I do not have to fear being placed in a world of suffering for disobeying god.
-
Not necessarily. Beliefs don't determine reality, as any atheist would be glad to point out if you were still a Christian. If that was the way it worked, I'd believe in a god that could automatically forgive everyone in a way that didn't interfere with free will and also give me free sandwiches whenever I wanted them (PB&J with Sriracha sauce, oddly enough).
Anyway, I guess Allah will be George Foreman-grilling your stomach or whatever. I'd really rather not think about it. I hope I get to see you in heaven, but if that's not your choice, then I'll try to be happy with the time I've known you now. You're still the best internet friend I've ever had, and what's a little impending everlasting [darn]ation between friends, right? I wish I could jump in the road and push you out of the way of the truck you don't see, like everyone else who's unsaved, but unfortunately that won't work.
But enough of that kind of stuff, let's debate. What started the universe? Science is pretty sure now that the universe began, so what began it? What about that guy whose name I forgot who estimated that the odds of the Big Bang producing the right gravitational properties for it to work are 1 in 10^10^123? I mean, you can't even write that number. Seriously, there aren't even 10^123 particles in the universe, so it's physically impossible to write. It's a big number.
And if you want to go with the side that's killed fewer people, atheism probably isn't the best option. Russia killed something like 100 million people when it was officially atheist. Granted, Christians shouldn't have been killing anyone at all, let alone millions, but atheists still probably killed a bigger number of millions, if that matters.
As for the 2,000-year-old book thing... well, all books will eventually be 2,000 years old, right? One that actually lasts that long is probably one that deserves some attention. Not saying that proves it's right, of course. There's other evidence supporting that.
-
I wish I could jump in the road and push you out of the way of the truck you don't see, like everyone else who's unsaved, but unfortunately that won't work.
I wish I could jump in the road and push you out of the way of the truck you don't see, like everyone else who's blinded by faith, but unfortunately that won't work.
Science is pretty sure now that the universe began, so what began it? What about that guy whose name I forgot who estimated that the odds of the Big Bang producing the right gravitational properties for it to work are 1 in 10^10^123? I mean, you can't even write that number. Seriously, there aren't even 10^123 particles in the universe, so it's physically impossible to write. It's a big number.
Christians simply don't know and it's pompous of them to say they have a monopoly on the truth. Yes, those are pretty big numbers. May I ask where you got them? Furthermore, they don't necessarily point to a divine creator. With time, anything is possible. We simply do not know for sure, and a 2,000 year old book telling us that God did it (without any mathematical facts backing it up no less) is just silly.
And if you want to go with the side that's killed fewer people, atheism probably isn't the best option. Russia killed something like 100 million people when it was officially atheist. Granted, Christians shouldn't have been killing anyone at all, let alone millions, but atheists still probably killed a bigger number of millions, if that matters.
Correction. Stalin and his government killed millions of people, not atheism.
As for the 2,000-year-old book thing... well, all books will eventually be 2,000 years old, right? One that actually lasts that long is probably one that deserves some attention. Not saying that proves it's right, of course. There's other evidence supporting that.
So if a fairy tale survives 2,000 years, we should regard it as truth?
-
The odds of anything happening are astronomical if looked at from the right point of view. 5000 years ago, I had a 0% chance of existing. But something has to happen.
(I'm talking about the realms of human computation here. Of course with infinite processing power you could model every particle in the universe and extrapolate everything that ever has happened and ever will happen.)
On a simpler level, considering how little is known about "why" the universe exists, any "odds of the universe existing" are highly bogus.
-
I wish I could jump in the road and push you out of the way of the truck you don't see, like everyone else who's blinded by faith, but unfortunately that won't work.
You know, if I knew for sure that there was nothing after death, I'd probably kill myself. To me, that would be the truck. I think the idea that there might be a hell is a better motivator to live than the idea that this is all there is, because if the choice is between feeling pain or feeling nothing, there are many times when I'd probably choose to go with the latter. Of course, that doesn't prove I'm right or anything.
With time, anything is possible.
Except that before the universe began to exist, there kind of wasn't time.
Correction. Stalin and his government killed millions of people, not atheism.
Well, yeah. Ideas don't kill people, people who believe in ideas kill people.
So if a fairy tale survives 2,000 years, we should regard it as truth?
Fairy tales usually don't even claim to be true, let alone have corroborating evidence from other contemporary sources.
Yes, those are pretty big numbers. May I ask where you got them?
I can't find the original source, but they seem to be from Roger Penrose, the guy who apparently, along with Steven Hawking, basically invented the modern understanding of the Big Bang. William Lane Craig has a very long, complicated-sounding article that mentions the number over here (http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/advanced/beyond-the-big-bang.htm). If you just want to see the number, scroll near the bottom of this page (http://www.harunyahya.com/create03.php).
The odds of anything happening are astronomical if looked at from the right point of view.
Yeah, the odds of any specific thing happening are astronomical, but the odds of something happening at all are 1. However, as far as I can understand it, that 1010123 thing is actually the odds of something happening at all -- in 1010123-1 cases, nothing would have happened and there'd be no universe. And the "we wouldn't be here to know there wasn't a universe if there wasn't a universe" doesn't hold much weight without postulating infinite parallel universes or infinitely repeating Big Bangs, ideas which have less scientific basis and falsifiability than the existence of God.
Then again, it's 3:40 AM in my time zone, so I might be wrong (and I'm watching Red Eye right now).
-
What started the universe? Answer is easy:
Dr. Manhattan
Think about it.
-
Aw, I thought it was Tetsuo.
-
I thought about it for two seconds and realized that Dr. Manhattan was a normal man in the obviously already existing universe before getting powers so you're definitely wrong.
-
Maybe he ended up getting so powerful that he transcended time and went back and created himself. Doubtful, though.
-
Precisely. He went back in time and started the universe from scratch. Remember how he said he wanted to go create some life? That's what he did. Hey, the earliest script for the Watchmen movie involved a time paradox at the end, so why the hell not?
However if you want to go and say that his universe is fictional and ours isn't, then he transcended space as well and created our universe instead. I remember reading that at one point in the original Watchment script, the cast winds up on our Earth somehow. Or maybe that was another movie....
On the other hand, if it wasn't Dr. Manhattan, then it was definitely...
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftfwiki.net%2Fw2%2Fimages2%2F2%2F27%2FWarWithinPrimus.jpg&hash=c3870103ef9b85cfdd1a24f326efbba4)
-
No doubt, but at least I do not have to fear death. I do not have to fear being placed in a world of suffering for disobeying god.
If you had to fear it before, were you ever really a Christian?
-
If you had to fear it before, were you ever really a Christian?
Some of the rules in Christianity are so strict, that you could never be sure if you're going to hell.
For instance, if you're gay, you're going to hell. (According to Chrisitans.)
If Dante's Inferno can be trusted, some of the punishments are a little over board.
(If God loves us all, why does he send people to hell for simply believing in another 2000 year old book?)
-
For instance, if you're gay, you're going to hell. (According to Chrisitans.)
If you commit any sin at all in your life and never receive forgiveness, you can't go to heaven. Gays don't get any special treatment in either direction; their sins are no more and no less deserving of hell than any other sins. Fred Phelps is not the Protestant Pope. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
If Dante's Inferno can be trusted
It can't.
(If God loves us all, why does he send people to hell for simply believing in another 2000 year old book?)
If this really represents the extent of your knowledge of Christian doctrine, you better not ever criticize Turtlekid for not understanding evolution. Questions like this have had millions of pages and countless hours of extensive answers for centuries. Don't go into a debate armed only with a caricature.
The Cliff's Notes version: People don't go to hell for believing the wrong thing, they go to hell because their sins aren't forgiven (and if you only take one thing from this post, take this: No one, least of all me, is perfect). All sin is an offense against an infinitely perfect God. Any blemish is infinitely worse than absolute perfection -- 0.01 is smaller than 0.1, but both are infinitely more than 0, multiplicatively. That impossible debt was paid, "once for all," by the infinite sacrifice of Jesus (who is God). Why can't God just automatically forgive everyone? Free will. God's not going to rape you.
You can debate that if you want. You can hate it. You can dispute it. You can offer alternatives. You can accept it or reject it. You can study it deeper or you can leave it be. All I'm asking is that you understand it. Understand that everyone, even Christians, have thought through their beliefs, often quite extensively, and believe their own beliefs make sense, and we're not just making crap up to offend people because we want them to go to hell. We don't want people to go to hell; in fact, that's exactly why we talk about it.
-
I just caught up on this topic, and while I think it's cool that PL is seeing things in a more reasonable light, I have to ask: is it for the right reason?
I'm not an atheist because it's cool or rebellious (I've seen people become atheists because it's apparently the philosphical equivalent of smoking), it's because I honestly see no reason for the belief system seen in almost all religions. I certainly respect the discipline it takes to mold your life around a certain ideal, no matter how much I disagree with it, and I've aways felt that, for all I know, there could actually be a being that single-handedly created the universe. I'm an atheist because I feel that it's not my business to concern myself in such matters. I don't want to obssess over what happens after I die and which actions arbitrarily lead to that outcome.
-
Like I said, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. The reason I turned agnostic is because I haven't seen enough evidence to prove God exists.
-
PaperLuigi, I'd like to shake your hand. That being said, I thought yesterday about the idea of someone going back in time and creating the universe or something like that. So much for the originality of that idea...
-
My only beef with CrossEyed's line of reasoning is that it's so one-sided. (Before you make a comeback to this, I understand that that is of course the point of having such a line of reasoning.) How do you ignore all the other religions out there which are also 100% convinced of their own correctness? A logical mind cannot rationally accept one belief system as "correct" since it is only as subjectively right as all others are.
-
A logical mind knows that the most fundamental law of logic is the law of non-contradiction: something cannot be both true and not true. A logical mind furthermore would not reject all religions simply because they contradict each other. If I tell you that my mother is 50 years old and my brother tells you that my mother is 35 years old, would it be logical to conclude that I don't have a mother, or that if I do, she was born in both 1959 and in 1974? Or would you believe that she was indeed born at one specific time, whether or not you'll ever know what that time was? When people disagree, don't just throw everything out; examine their claims and determine as best as you can which, if either, is right. And finally, a logical mind would recognize that it is rationally impossible not to accept one belief system as correct and reject all others. Even if your belief system doesn't include any gods and doesn't have any official authorities and doesn't fit your or the dictionary's definition of "religion," it's still a belief system; it still answers the big meaning of life questions.
I don't ignore the other religions, I just don't think they're true. And to paraphrase a former president, I believe my beliefs are right. That is, my belief system of Christianity is framed by a belief that absolute reality exists. I believe that if God does exist, he would exist whether or not I believed in him, and furthermore, he would also exist for other people, whether they believe in him or not. I believe that there is objective, universal, logically consistent truth out there, and that it can probably be at least partially discovered, deduced, and understood (and that it's important enough that we should try as hard as we can to know it). Based on that, I, and most other people, examine belief systems and evaluate how likely it is that they are true.
Hope that made sense, considering it's way past my bedtime again.
-
Your first sentence makes my point for me again, and after that I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Also, I don't hold any religion to be correct, which does not mean that my views don't coincide with those of religions here and there.
-
If I tell you that my mother is 50 years old and my brother tells you that my mother is 35 years old, would it be logical to conclude that I don't have a mother, or that if I do, she was born in both 1959 and in 1974? Or would you believe that she was indeed born at one specific time, whether or not you'll ever know what that time was?
I see what you did there.
EDIT: Either CrossEyed is very clever, or he doesn't know how to make accurate analogies
-
Your first sentence makes my point for me again, and after that I disagree with pretty much everything you said. Also, I don't hold any religion to be correct, which does not mean that my views don't coincide with those of religions here and there.
Care to elaborate?
-
I've just finished reading this entire thread in one sitting. Mind = blown.
Anyways, I'm a Christian, technically of the Reformed variety, although denominationalism is something I'd rather not ascribe to.
-
What exactly blew your mind about a religion thread?
-
For one, some of the argu-rants and analogies presented here are so unfathomably confusing that each successive reading only deepens their perplexity. Case in point: MushroomJunkie/Boo Dudley/Shyguy92's Ménage à trois of loaded opinions.
-
All matter bends towards decay. Is it possible for a house to evolve? Once you build a house will it get
stronger or weaker as time goes on? Does a peach get riper and riper or does it eventually rot? Do humans die or
do they just get stronger and stronger over many years.
It's like poetry, man.
-
I'm Jewish and I'm proud!
-
Judaism rox like fox
-
Creating multiple accounts just to have someone always agreeing with you breaks at least three Commandments.
-
I dont have multiple accounts, i just have friends, and the only commandment i've broken is the 14th
-
It's true... unbelievably, these are not the same person.
-
This is one of the more interesting events I've seen on these forums in a LONG, LONG time.
-
I for one fully support it.
-
I still can't believe that it took Fungi Forums ten years to gain one self-identifying Jewish member.
-
Impressive, but I'd be a little more impressed if someone change their religion or lack there of. Also, I'm still waiting for a Buddhist member. Maybe LD will convert and fulfill both of the previous sentences.
-
ha, ha...
-
Maybe LD will convert
The chances of LD converting to any religion are slim to nonexistent.
-
whats wrong with judaism... i dont understand intolerance against different religions
-
I have problems with every major religion. Criticism does not equal intolerance.
Furthermore, I do not recall criticizing Judaism. I will, however, offer my opinion of it if you so desire.
-
ask yoshifansean1... i really don't care one way or another, what religion r u?
-
He's a Frisbeetarian.
-
ah
-
what religion r u?
I am not a religion. I am a human.
-
If PL were a religion, I'd adhere to him.
-
In all seriousness, I do not adhere to any religion.
-
so not atheist, just not commited to any one religion? I'm half jewish like yoshifansean1, not practicing.
-
Let's just say I find it more comforting to believe that life isn't simply a test.
-
i see what ur saying, and i sorta agree...
Judaism rox(like FOX)
-
WHAT'S GOING ON
-
Hell man I don't know
-
so not atheist, just not commited to any one religion?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you implying that atheism is a religion. If so, I think atheism is a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or are you simply trying to ask if he's agnostic? Now that I reread your post the later seems more likely.
-
I just know I'm probably opening a can of worms that I'll later regret opening, but...
Let's just say I find it more comforting to believe that life isn't simply a test.
You'd prefer to think that a few decades on this miserable rock are all we're gonna get? I honestly think if this were all there were to life, then there'd be no point in living. Where do you get your motivation (especially since you still seem to hold to a moral code)?
-
Miserable rock? The earth is pretty cool if you ask me.
-
What about motivation to experience life and improve one's self? I really don't think life on planet Earth is that terrible of a condition. Don't assume that just because you can't conceive of any other reason to live besides getting into an afterlife it means that no one else can find good reasons to do things. Also don't assume that I am completely at odds with the notion of an afterlife or anything.
-
I just know I'm probably opening a can of worms that I'll later regret opening, but...
You'd prefer to think that a few decades on this miserable rock are all we're gonna get? I honestly think if this were all there were to life, then there'd be no point in living. Where do you get your motivation (especially since you still seem to hold to a moral code)?
...
Miserable rock? The Earth is a beautiful, near-magical place. There are amazing creatures and plants everywhere. Color and shape combine into beautiful combinations. By science, yes. Science isn't just boring crap. (Which I actually don't think at all)
And where do you get motivation? How about from the fun of life? You're a depressing invidiual if you're telling me that the only reason you're living is so you can go to Fairyland. Life is great. Except for evil, (Which could be debated) life is great.
-
Heaven doesn't sound all that cool anyway, seeing as how I'll be sharing it with people like Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, Peter Popoff and Tomas de Torquemada.
-
...
Miserable rock? The Earth is a beautiful, near-magical place. There are amazing creatures and plants everywhere. Color and shape combine into beautiful combinations. By science, yes. Science isn't just boring crap. (Which I actually don't think at all)
And where do you get motivation? How about from the fun of life? You're a depressing invidiual if you're telling me that the only reason you're living is so you can go to Fairyland. Life is great. Except for evil, (Which could be debated) life is great.
Science had nothing to do with the creation of the earth, no matter how you look at it. Science is the study of creation, which means it originated after creation.
Also, maybe I should rephrase. I wouldn't live the same way if I didn't believe what I believe. I'd sleep around, do drugs, and commit horrible crimes that would benefit me, all in the spirit of having fun. Why should I care about the pitiful consequences this place has to offer? The worst thing they would be able to do to me is execute me. So what? I had a good run, right? I followed the evolutionary imperative to look out for myself, right? I was going to go eventually anyway. At least I had as much fun and served my interests as well as anyone could have hoped for.
So yeah, the only way I'm living the way I am is because there is such a thing as right and wrong, and because doing what's fun or what benefits me the most isn't necessarily the most important goal to achieve.
And dude... life sucks. From the moment you turn five, you get shipped to school to learn the skills you need to take care of yourself, to get a job, to pay for food, to eat, to live, so you can go to work the next day and earn more money to buy more food. Someday you'll retire, but by then you'll be too bogged down with health problems and maybe a family to enjoy your freedom. Sure, there'll be perks along the way, but in the grand scheme of things, they're extremely insignificant. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll influence a few more people than most; you might even become famous and have the ear of millions. But in the end, their lives are insignificant, too. No matter what you achieve, it's all going to come to nothing in the end, because nothing is all that awaits you.
Yes, evil is everywhere, in everyone. It pollutes and corrodes much worse than any smoke or greenhouse gas ever could. And that's not God's fault; that's our fault for trying to put ourselves on God's level in the first place. It's because of God's influence that we ever even think of doing the right thing. It's because of God's Son that we have any hope of escaping evil at all.
-
I'd sleep around, do drugs, and commit horrible crimes that would benefit me, all in the spirit of having fun.
Most atheists I know do not do drugs, sleep around, commit crimes, etc.
-
I didn't say that atheists do those things (I'm sure some do, but hey, some people claiming to be Christians do, too). I'm saying that it's the only logical choice if God doesn't exist.
-
What do you mean "the only logical choice"?
-
To do whatever the heck you want and enjoy yourself as much as possible is the only logical choice if there's no God. Why would anyone bother restraining himself if there's no reason to do so?
-
To do whatever the heck you want and enjoy yourself as much as possible
God hates enjoyment?
-
Science had nothing to do with the creation of the earth, no matter how you look at it. Science is the study of creation, which means it originated after creation.
Also, maybe I should rephrase. I wouldn't live the same way if I didn't believe what I believe. I'd sleep around, do drugs, and commit horrible crimes that would benefit me, all in the spirit of having fun. Why should I care about the pitiful consequences this place has to offer? The worst thing they would be able to do to me is execute me. So what? I had a good run, right? I followed the evolutionary imperative to look out for myself, right? I was going to go eventually anyway. At least I had as much fun and served my interests as well as anyone could have hoped for.
Okay, maybe you're a bad person, but most people, if they were not brain-washed by their parents, would not do terrible things, just because they can't find a nice storybook.
So, I'm going to try to convince you that doing bad things ARE BAD.
First, doing drugs is unhealthy, and will shorten your life. They'll also make you feel bad. Commiting crimes is cruel and evil. It's immoral as well.
I suppose my final point, is that...
Well, if you'd turn evil if you weren't religious, I guess being Athiest and still being alive and healthy is proof of being a good person. Or maybe you should just keep reading your book, and not go near banks.
-
According to Ecclesiastes, we're supposed to drink and have fun.
-
First, doing drugs is unhealthy, and will shorten your life. They'll also make you feel bad. Commiting crimes is cruel and evil. It's immoral as well.
As far as drugs go, what does it matter if your life is shortened a few years? They let you enjoy yourself here and now, which is all that matters.
And...
Commiting crimes is cruel and evil. It's immoral as well.
Who says? Who are you to tell me what's moral and what's not? If there's no God, the only real morality is arbitrary.
-
"Our morality has a Darwinian explanation: altruistic genes, selected through the process of evolution, give people natural empathy."~Richard Dawkins
Just one of several possible explanations for morality without God.
-
That's ridiculous. Morality defies evolutionary processes. It wouldn't be selected by them.
And even then, that only explains people's feelings. It doesn't prove the existence of an absolute morality.
-
It doesn't prove the existence of an absolute morality.
"Absolute" morality? What the hell is that?
-
Morality defies evolutionary processes.
Who says?
-
Turtlekid, you are fully aware that you are the only person suggesting that people think the way you say they do? Everyone else is pretty clearly telling you that your assumptions about "human nature" or whatever are incorrect. Even the people who don't share your religious viewpoint.
Humanity is not by default some kind of hedonistic culture. People who are stupid are stupid on an individual basis.
Also, what is with the equation of self-destruction with pleasure? For one thing, not every experience or mental condition has the same effect on each human. Also, I'd say the belief in an afterlife is precipitated greatly by the fear of death, so what causes your assumption that people don't care whether they die? Is your underlying desire for momentary "pleasure" so strong that you believe everyone shares it, or what?
What's really great is how this is the second or third time Turtlekid has tried to force his same wrong-thinking ideas on people exactly the same way in this thread already.
-
I don't recall saying that anyone else thinks that way. I never said that anyone shares that line of thought. All I said was that it would be more consistent to think that way.
-
"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them."
– Sextus the Pythagorean, 406 B.C.
This is what it's all about. The reason to be a good person and respect others is because it makes life nice for everybody. You respect others, they respect you, and you have a good society.
It's not: turn into an evil dick because no god can stop you. But if that's your worldview I'm glad you're brainwashed, Turtlekid1.
-
The chances of LD converting to any religion are slim to nonexistent.
http://greenopolis.com/goblog/joe-laur/one-million-buddhist-beers-wall-one-million-buddhist-beers
To do whatever the heck you want and enjoy yourself as much as possible is the only logical choice if there's no God. Why would anyone bother restraining himself if there's no reason to do so?
This is a commonly held assertion, but it is still wrong. Ever notice that the most moving professions in church are from people who previously had the least moral standards. Religions often attract the lowest common denominator giving believers the impression that a large percentage of the population would do whatever the hell they wanted if it weren't for God. This is an unfounded product of a narrow world view. A large percentage of people are naturally good. So much so that it's been called the 80/20 rule. Meaning that 80 percent of the population will cause little to no problems, but the remaining 20 percent will take up the majority of resources and time. Also look at the contrary view to your assertion and consider all of the people who do morally bad things in the name of God. I'm not saying these people are representative of the whole, but that they should be considered before stated, "the only logical choice" type statements. Also, don't assume that believe in a your God is the only reason to be moral.
-
My religious views are pretty similar to Luigison's actually.
-
don't assume that believe in a your God
Wut?
-
is anyone else jewish here?
-
Obviously not.
-
is anyone else jewish here?
Obviously not.
Really? Look up. There are two!
-
The other Jewish member is his best friend.
-
wow paperluigi... what the heck is that supposed to mean... do you not like jews?
-
When did I ever say I disliked Jews?
-
You and your best friend practice Judaism. You asked if anyone else was Jewish and I said obviously not because of Weegee's comment:
I still can't believe that it took Fungi Forums ten years to gain one self-identifying Jewish member.
*cannot find any anti-Semitic statements
-
thats not what i meant, just the "obviously not" sounded kind of harsh... who says hes my best friend?
-
Everything sounds harsher over the internet due to lack of facial expression, tone, etc.
-
Just so you know though, I am not anti-Semitic. I may be critical of a religion but I do not hate its followers.
-
your right about things sounding harsher online... and i wasnt saying you were antisemitic... did you know walt disney was antisemitic?
i dont know where i heard this...
-
did you know walt disney was antisemitic?
...proof?
-
i dunno, you could look for some if u want, i gotta go play brawl!
-
Um...okay.
-
Aside from this (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=12645.msg547156#msg547156) and the second image on the fifteenth page of the MS Paint Story, there is absolutely no antisemitism in Fungi Forums which I've yet to find.
-
that was kind of racist...
-
That picture is disturbing...
-
It's not disturbing, it's hilarious.
-
ya, hilarious at our expense... how is that not antisemitic!?
-
Weegee's picture is stereotypical, not anti-Semitic.
Example of anti-Semitic statement: "Jews are responsible for America's problems. They are inferior to Christians."
Example of stereotypical statement: "Jews have big noses."
Learn to laugh at yourself. Seriously.
-
thats not what im saying... think of it this way- would it be racist to say that all people of german descent are nazis? im not saying youre anti-semitic, im just making a point.
-
im not saying youre anti-semitic
Yes you are:
ya, hilarious at our expense... how is that not antisemitic!?
Do you even know what racism is?
-
Being a Nazi isn't the same as having a big nose. A somewhat more apt analogy would be saying that all people of German descent wear lederhosen.
-
ya i guess... im just saying that its the same basic idea-that they are both stereotypes... and no paperluigi, im not saying anyones racist, im just saying that the picture is a little unfair, but im glad whover posted it acknowledged that it was with an "im going to hell for this".
-
But there's a big difference between stereotypes like all Germans being Nazis or all Jews being evil shapeshifting reptilians from the planet Rahab, and stereotypes like funny noses.
-
ha,ha! what i meant by that stuff earlier is that there still stereotypes either way, no matter what the intensity of them... whatever, i really wasnt very offended by it either way, and yes, you can quote me and try to make the case that i was, but in truth i wasnt... i was simply making a point, as ive said before.
-
im glad whover posted it acknowledged that it was with an "im going to hell for this".
Weegee is sad.
-
I'd be sad too if I was in hell.
-
Weegee is not too good at being funny, so disregard the picture.
And I fail to see how a cock/poo pun is legitimately antisemetic.
-
Are You Serious!?!
In the spirit of keeping it civil, im going to stop myself there.
-
It's not anti-Semitic.
-
just to set the record straight, im pretty pushy with the term "racist". most of the time, i just mean unfair.
-
My apologies to those whom I've offended, as that certainly wasn't my intention. The picture, while stereotypical, was meant in good humour.
By the way I'm posting this from hell.
-
thats fine, im just glad i havent been beaten up yet
(not that may people like the jews.)
-
Suddenly your sig has taken on a rather grim subtext.
-
yep.
-
I like juice.
Hitler didn't like juice.
In fact he killed juice with his gas.
Stupid Hitler thought juice are animals.
Silly Hitler, juice is juice.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flh5.ggpht.com%2F_z3qOPdy0bWw%2FS0p6jXetxfI%2FAAAAAAAAE-M%2FwjJJs55JcSs%2Fs800%2Feliminated_all_the_juice0.jpg&hash=31013096567a8635bc5f1dac122a015e)
-
wow
-
I was born and raised catholic but I put that all behind me now, and renounced my faith. I am now part Agnostic and hold some contemporary neo-shamanic beliefs. I guess you could say I am way more leaning towards the belief that there is an after life, as for One all powerful entity that is controlling this afterlife I am not so sure.
The abandonment of my former faith came so easy, mostly in part from things I have seen in life and experienced on my own. This is very normal for a lot of former Catholics. I don't think any other real religion has as high of a drop out rate than the Catholic church. I think they bring it on themselves mostly, the preisthood is failing because these days everyone likes and wants more and more sex, If they just alowed preist's to marry and they didn't have to take a vowe of celebacy I think they would see a dramatic increase in preists and wouldn't be struggling so hard to keep people's faith.
-
I am now part Agnostic and hold some contemporary neo-shamanic beliefs.
-
I am now part Agnostic and hold some contemporary neo-shamanic beliefs.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arrowheads.com%2Facs%2F04pics%2FMedicine%2520Man.jpg&hash=52095622e9512d1eb269cb962c0bf7d4)
-
I am now part Agnostic and hold some contemporary neo-shamanic beliefs.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mariowiki.com%2Fimages%2Ff%2Ffc%2FMerlon.jpg&hash=75a9047b303df9e145d18ca486e77866)
-
Stop it, guys. Reaction images aren't funny now that LD doesn't use them.
-
somebody get me a live chicken.....
-
It's hard being a Religious man in an atheist world. Somehow I think I'll get banned for this.
So what do you guys believe in? That we all become nothing after we die? Do you ever think about how we got here?
I'm sorry, but one day, I'm going to be a Pastor. Not a word you said has changed my mind about the way I think. If you guys want to live a Godless life, that's fine with me. It's obvious you people just felt like jumping on AB for stating that the Bible was his personal book for living life. I'm telling you to stop. There, I said it. Go ahead, ban me for being a religious freak. I know that the meek will inherit the Earth because I used to be meek! I was nothing, picked on every day of my life, until I found that God brings hope. I'm a different person now. I inherited the Earth and all it's wonders. I learned that the world is not all evil!
So go ahead. Criticize me for going off topic, or sticking up to you guys. I just know what I said was right in my heart. I feel much better now.
Oh god. Could someone like go back in time and beat the hell out of me for being a general [dukar]head okay thanks.
-
Do your best not to cripple me though.
-
I've gone back in time and stopped the person who went back in time to beat you up from beating you up.
-
Thankfully their words did in fact change the way I think. Also, I will never ever be a pastor.
-
What is wrong with your brain man?
-
If you're referring to the 2006 me, it's because I was an insufferable bigot.
Actually, their (meaning TEM, Insane Steve, Lizard Dude, Luigison, etc.) words technically didn't change my thinking. That was accomplished through observation and common sense.
-
So, what are you basically saying?
-
That I am no longer religious, ergo I am disgusted with my ignorant 2006 self.
-
Not because I believed in God but because I was an insufferable, self-righteous ****.
-
The latter is questionable at best, and the former is certainly a shame.
-
Weegee, I think I remember from some past posts (including the one above) that you're somewhat religious. In light of that, and out of some regrettable sense of curiosity, I have to ask you how you juggle your faith and beliefs with your deeply ingrained 4chan culture.
So I will do it: "How do you juggle your presumed religious faith with your seemingly deep entrenchment in 4chan culture?
I understand not everyone is perfect and all, but it would seem to me that there is very little to be found in 4chan and religious texts that could co-exist peacefully within the mind of any man.
-
No, it's not a shame. Irreligiosity rocks.
If it's good enough for the likes of Carl Sagan, Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein...
-
Indeed, the majority of 4chan members are atheists.
-
I also question how Turtlekid1 can be a Christian and a furry on the basis of sexual desire for Inspector Fox. Unless he meant something else by:
Not for Krystal, as may be rather typical, but for Inspector Fox (http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/19000/19657_Carmelita_Fox_Sly_3.jpg). And she makes regular use of handcuffs.
-
PL: Just... don't go superstarMASIAH on us. It's more than a mere coincidence that his life fell apart just as he lost his faith. He's apparently picked up the pieces by now, but it's still painful to see.
BM: Well, for starters, it's worth remembering that the internet is merely a series of tubes on which nothing really important has ever happened. One is under no obligation to ascribe to the values or lack thereof any online community promotes. As with anywhere else, there are just some elements with which I choose not to get involved.
I'm too tired to tell whether I'm responding in proper sentences or not, so I'll pick this back up tomorrow. Don't think that's all I have to say.
-
Im partly afraid of inspector fox.
-
PL: Just... don't go superstarMASIAH on us. It's more than a mere coincidence that his life fell apart just as he lost his faith. He's apparently picked up the pieces by now, but it's still painful to see.
Implying that all people who aren't Christians have screwed up lives.
-
I tried to pretend that I wasn't loosing my faith. Some of you may notice that after I embraced agnosticism in 2009 that I said that I was still a theist in ensuing posts to please my friends and family. But I can't pretend anymore. I have lost my faith and will probably never regain it.
That said, I am much happier.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way. Very sorry, in fact. It's like watching a bullet come at you in slow motion without your seeing it.
I also question how Turtlekid1 can be a Christian and a furry on the basis of sexual desire for Inspector Fox.
Do you think I might have been completely serious? I suppose sarcasm is hard to get across when online. I mean, yeah, if you design a character like that, the only difference between said character and a real woman being (other than exaggerated proportions) animal ears and a tail, of course the general reaction would be "she's hot." It's one thing to think such a thing is attractive, and another to actually have sexual desire for it. I can assure you, the former was the case; sorry if I didn't make that clear.
No, it's not a shame. Irreligiosity rocks.
If it's good enough for the likes of Carl Sagan, Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein...
But not for Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Kelvin, or Chuck Norris.
-
Chuck Norris is an idiot, Issac Newton was private about his faith, and Bacon was a pederast.
I'll give you Lord Kelvin though.
-
I may have lived a screwed up life, but I lived fast and on the edge. I've lived a life most people would only see in a movie or read about in a book. And if that isn't a testament to something, I don't know what is. I don't regret anything, and I don't look back.
-
No matter how you shrug off our concerns, I'm sorry for you as well.
Turtlekid1, for a Christian, you sure are naughty. :/
We're Christians, not prudes. Relating to Black Mage's inquiry towards myself, the key concept is that you be "in the world, but not of it". See also John 17:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+17%3A15&version=NIV). Know your limits, and don't take anything /b/ says too seriously. Having throughly Christian friends who listen to Satanist metal, get drunk every weekend and draw penises on the class announcement board, keeping my connections with questionale online communities doesn't feel like too great a challenge.
-
The plural is "penes."
-
Google it. Both are correct.
-
If a word satisfactorily conveys the meaning you wanted to convey to the audience you wanted to convey it to, especially in a language like English where there's no official governing body, it's correct.
-
No matter how you shrug off our concerns, I'm sorry for you as well.
I don't need anybodies pity, especially not from a boy who's still in school. Believe it or not your still stuck in life's womb called highschool. I used to be just like you, thought I knew how everything in life works. Trust me, its a whole different life outside of school.
-
Weegee, "they," "them," and "their" as singular pronouns are also technically correct, but would you ever use them in that way?
On topic, I suppose my statement earlier in this thread regarding my religion is only technically correct as well.
-
Last note about our linguistical discussion regarding the plural form of penis: Numerous dictionaries cite both aforementioned pluralizations as being correct, but whatever.
MASIAH, you speak as though one has absolutely no control over the choices one makes in life.
-
Well, if you really wanna get into Calvinism, I could probably go a few rounds.
-
There's obviously no God, but it does get one thing right: predestination. Free will is an illusion. All organisms are nothing but complicated moist robots following their programming. And they, along with everything else, always act according to the laws of physics.
But it doesn't matter. Embrace the illusion! What else is there to do? :)
-
Let's not, TK. I was simply stating that getting into [dukar] is avoidable if one uses proper judgement.
-
But it doesn't matter. Embrace the illusion! What else is there to do? :)
Life does not have to be eternal to have meaning, after all.
-
What if there is one ruling body, one God? What if other religions are all praying to the same God that we pray to?
It should be noted that I am not terribly religious, this is just a thought that I've had for a while.
-
Life does not have to be eternal to have meaning, after all.
What meaning to life do you think there is if all one gets is 70-80 years (assuming that nothing happens to him before that) with no lasting consequences? What purpose can we have if we're the results of a cosmic accident? Evolution, being an accident, spits in the face of meaning and purpose.
What if there is one ruling body, one God? What if other religions are all praying to the same God that we pray to?
It should be noted that I am not terribly religious, this is just a thought that I've had for a while.
While I certainly believe that there is only one God, I've always thought that the religions of the world can't possibly all be praying to that same one because of the glaring differences in their belief systems. These aren't just doctrinal disputes, such as the ones that frequently occur between Protestant denominations, these are fundamental and most likely irreconcilable differences.
-
Assuming an eternity merely defers the question. Our little time on this Earth gives our life here even more meaning regardless if we are to live for eternity or not. It could even be asserted that the prospect of life after death gives life here and now less meaning compared to the eternity after death.
-
MASIAH, you speak as though one has absolutely no control over the choices one makes in life.
I speak as though one has control over the choices one makes in life, sometimes they don't give a rat's a** what the consequences will be. Their good-judment is still there, guiding them, they just don't listen or give a [darn]. It's called ignorance. Look it up.....
-
Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence
There can never be undeniable proof towards the existence of God (specifically the monotheistic Abrahamic God). The reason lies in the nature of free will and the story of Adam and Eve.
Also the question of "Why is there evil in the world, why does God allow it?" "Why do bad things happen to good people" etc., etc. is answered.
When God made the perfect land of Eden for his first humans to live in he inexplicably put in the middle of it all an evil, forbidden tree. Why? To instate free will into his humans.
God didn't want robots that loved him undeniably. If you create a creature that has no choice but to love you, does it really love you? The only way to truly love someone is it have the free will to choose to do so, otherwise it isn't a conscious choice, but just a robot following its programming.
So, God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil into Eden so Adam and Eve wouldn't be ceaselessly loving automatons. God gave them the opportunity to screw up so they could make a conscious, free decision to obey and love him.
This is the nature of our world. God exists, but he let's injustice and evil to exist as well. He has put animalistic, tyrannical, sinful urges in us. God has done this so we can choose to hate him. So when we choose to love him it is a choice made by free will.
What does this have to do with there never being scientific proof of God?
If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip us of our free will to either hate or love God.
Discuss.
-
You're both right and wrong. You're right in the sense that we have free will, given to us by God; your argument about his not wanting automatons loving him because they have no other choice is sound.
However, putting aside the actual existence of God, if his nature is as stated in the Bible, he knows everything, correct? Everything also happens in accordance with his ultimate plan, correct? So if he knows what our choices will be before we make them, and he allows us to make those choices, then obviously they're pre-determined. So yes, we have free will and free choice, but we only make those choices according to our natures, which God has already determined.
God allows evil to exist in our understanding of "allows." But any true Christian knows that evil has already been defeated; indeed, it's been defeated since before it began. God knew exactly how everything would play out; he knew that Adam would partake of the fruit, allowing sin to enter the world, necessitating Jesus' intervention. Jesus' sacrifice wasn't a switch to "Plan B" as a result of Adam's will overriding God's, Jesus was always Plan A, because God knew what was going to happen in the first place.
God didn't instill sin in our hearts, we did that on our own. God is the one who saved us from ourselves.
-
If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip us of our free will to either hate or love God.
Then how did Adam and Eve sin (assuming Genesis is at least partly literal)? No one knew more than they did that God existed, and they were able to choose to go against him. Or what about Satan, an angel who chose to rebel against God while living in heaven? He obviously knows God exists.
Somewhat tangentially, I take issue with your specification of "scientific evidence." Putting aside debates over the distinctions between evidence and proof, along with the possibility of circumstantial evidence, I disagree with the implied premise that things must be proven scientifically in order to be conclusively, undeniably true. That is an unprovable philosophical assumption of naturalism, only justified if it is previously accepted that nothing supernatural exists. Actually, taken most literally, it's somewhat self-refuting, since you can't prove scientifically that only things that can be scientifically proven are true. While God must be logically consistent (he cannot exist meaningfully if he is the equivalent of a square circle, a married bachelor, or something that both exists and doesn't exist, and if you can prove that the concept of God is logically self-refuting, then you can indeed prove he doesn't exist), to assume that an all-powerful supernatural creator would conform to our limited understanding of the natural world is a bit silly. Trying to disprove God with science would be circular reasoning, as modern science assumes that nothing supernatural is going on, so it's not legitimate to examine the issue of God's existence purely on scientific grounds. Kind of a pet peeve of mine.
-
Then how did Adam and Eve sin (assuming Genesis is at least partly literal)? No one knew more than they did that God existed, and they were able to choose to go against him. Or what about Satan, an angel who chose to rebel against God while living in heaven? He obviously knows God exists.
Adam and Eve's original nature is very different from what current humans are. You'll take care to notice after they ate the fruit they were like "OH [dukar] we just seriously ****ed up!" As far as Satan goes, I can't guess what the nature of an angel would be, or why he would dare to defy God, knowing he full well exists, my argument is for humans only. I suppose it would have been well to mention that allowing Satan to have a presence in Eden was part of the whole "giving the humans a chance to screw up in order to deny God's will" thing.
-
Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence
Copypasta? Just curious. Regardless, the article's neutral stance is refreshing. Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.
On an unrelated note, I've always loved this picture's poignant message:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.encyclopediadramatica.com%2Fimages%2F1%2F16%2FRewardoftheAtheist.jpg&hash=7256d0b2fb8683fdc7593e0b9545488e)
-
Copypasta? Just curious. Regardless, the article's neutral stance is refreshing. Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.
On an unrelated note, I've always loved this picture's poignant message:
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.encyclopediadramatica.com%2Fimages%2F1%2F16%2FRewardoftheAtheist.jpg&hash=7256d0b2fb8683fdc7593e0b9545488e)
If an artist had done something like this with christians, it would be a person tied to a rock labled RELIGION.
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg7.imageshack.us%2Fimg7%2F5364%2Freligionl.png&hash=f11de1a85c5af5b085699a126afbeb70)
-
You say it, TK!
-
No I didn't copy and paste that. I'm insulted.
-
Ha ha, now you know how I felt when I wrote that Star Wars/Duck Tales fanfic excerpt. (These guys are easily confused, too. Remember they spend half their time here pasting lyrics someone else typed into the lyrics thread, pasting jokes someone else wrote into the joke thread, and pasting pastes they didn't write into the paste thread.)
Humans attempting to fully understand the mysteries of God through science are akin to immobile, single-celled organisms festering somewhere in a Wisconsin sewer trying to draw a comprehensive map of the universe.
Humans are quite successfully constructing a comprehensive map of the universe from a position akin to that. The real universe, though; not your fake [dukar].
-
My apologies, TEM. Your post just seemed too spontaneous to believe.
Also, please note how Turtlekid employed a witty reversal against a statement which he objected to, while Lizard Dude spouted out yet another seething snarkfest of a "response".
-
Did the guy with religion jump off the cliff to make sure he wouldn't fall? I mean, I don't know how else he would have gotten down there.
I think the Bible says not to do that.
-
Hmm, good point. I think Turtlekid1 just basically drew a dude violating Matthew 4:7.
-
You say it, LD!
-
Also, I don't need religion to "save" me from falling. That's what friends and family are for.
-
Did the guy with religion jump off the cliff to make sure he wouldn't fall? I mean, I don't know how else he would have gotten down there.
I think the Bible says not to do that.
He tried to jump the chasm on his own but failed, because no one can do it by himself. When he climbs back up, Jesus, equipped with wings a jetpack, will fly him across.
-
Alright, everyone strap on a mother****ing helmet cos this [dukar] right here I'm about to spit is going to blow your ****ing mind, ese.
Could God microwave a burrito so large and/or hot that He Himself could not eat it?
-
Cue angelic chorus.
-
Could God microwave a burrito so large and/or hot that He Himself could not eat it?
Yes.
And then He'd eat it anyway, 'cause that's how God rolls.
-
Back in college I dared Doug Dale to ask that very question during our Philosophy class. (Where is it from, again? Simpsons?)
On the first day of that same class, the teacher silently walked in and wrote PHIL 105 on the board. Doug Dale and I thought his name was actually Phil Ios for like 30 minutes.
Hey, here's a question: Which version of the Bible do you prefer? I personally love the olde-school language of the King James. Reading it is like licking creamy chocolate silk.
-
I like the ESV a lot. NKJV and NASB are nice too, and the Message is good in small doses. I still do a lot of quotes from KJV out of habit, though.
-
The Gangsta Bible. God is 'Big G', Jesus is 'Jizesus', the Apostles are 'His Homies', Satan is 'the Man', and Judas is 'Whitey'.
-
Hey, here's a question: Which version of the Bible do you prefer?
Try none.
-
Wegee B funi
-
The Weegee Bible. God is 4chan, Jesus is longcat, the Apostles are losers with V for Vendetta masks, Satan is Rick Astley, and Judas is Robotnik or deformed Spongebob or some other [dukar].
-
There is no amount of money I would not pay to read a full book with that premise.
-
"the spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ" (http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769)
-
Oh god. Could someone like go back in time and beat the hell out of me for being a general [dukar]head okay thanks.
...Could I rather beat your current self back to your senses?
-
"Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes."~Karl Marx
So no, you may not. Opium is bad for you.
-
Wait, you're seriously quoting Marx as your defense?
-
I do like how he left it in the original language.
-
Wait, you're seriously quoting Marx as your defense?
And that's...bad?
-
Lizard Dude, I left it in the original language because German is badass.
-
And that's...bad?
I wouldn't say it's bad as much as I would say that you are committing a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority. While it is, at times, appropriate to cite a legitimate authority as an expert of something, and while it is true that we can form very probably premises and truths from the thought of these figures, they are not necessarily always correct.
Because you didn't establish some ethos, or, for that matter a qualifying point of view concerning Marx's expertise and genuine knowledge about religious things, your appeal to authority here is empty. You may as well quote Yogi Berra's famous "Baseball is ninety percent mental, and the other half is physical" as evidence for 50% = 10%.
When making arguments, never appeal to someone's thought simply because he is famous. Rather, establish the person's entire line of thought. Otherwise, you'll never get anywhere in an argument.
-
Yeah, you're right. I was wrong to quote Marx. I was really just trying to **** Weegee off by comparing religion to opium.
-
Apologies abound.
-
I thought you were waiting for someone to point out that Marxism has killed over 100,000,000 people so you could point out that religion has killed a lot of people too.
-
Like I said, I don't give a [dukar] about Karl Marx or Marxism. I was just comparing religion to opium.
Also, ideas can't/don't kill people. People kill people.
-
Like I said, I don't give a [dukar] about Karl Marx or Marxism. I was just comparing religion to opium.
Please tell me how it is. Marx did a poor job substantiating it, I thought. I'd like to hear your defense.
-
How is it like opium? Well, it makes people feel good, and it is a way for them to deal with the pain of knowing that they will die. Faith is the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
-
Opium can make us perceive something that isn't really there. Religion is very similar in that it makes us perceive something that may not exist. Wouldn't it be better for humans not to assume something without substantial evidence supporting it?
-
Since you never explicitly mention God in you response, let's work in general terms. With your line of thought, all metaphysical inquiry is false, because the only thing that exists is matter. Does that mean that we are nothing more than our bodies? Does this mean that anything without matter is non-existent? I suppose, then, that you believe that the concept of number does not exist because it is not "physical." Love, hate, justice, prudence, and the like are all either (a) illusions and delusions, or (b)chemical processes in our brains.
I posit a different solution to your opiate analogy. Metaphysical inquiry IS possible. The person is not simple dead matter in motion. Existence transcends the physical. I can go into more detail a little later. My main idea is that you seem to deny anything that is not sensible as delusion.
Opium can make us perceive something that isn't really there. Religion is very similar in that it makes us perceive something that may not exist.
So does water when we look down at a fish. The water bends the light to make the fish SEEM like it's in a place that it actually is not.
-
Not once did I say that things without matter are non-existent. My argument applies to God. While it's true that things without form exist, that doesn't mean God does.
So does water when we look down at a fish. The water bends the light to make the fish SEEM like it's in a place that it actually is not.
The fish still exists though, correct? Religion makes us perceive things that may not exist period. God, soul, heaven, hell, etc.
-
So, apparently you don't think you have a soul? Which basically means you think you don't have self-awareness? Short of that, you think you don't have some kind of consciousness driving your physical actions?
-
The concept of the soul, self-awareness, and consciousness are valid terms for describing aspects of how it feels to be an organism and what drives organisms, but they don't exist through metaphysical or magical means. They are
(b)chemical processes in our brains
-
The concept of the soul, self-awareness, and consciousness are valid terms for describing aspects of how it feels to be an organism and what drives organisms, but they don't exist through metaphysical or magical means.
Do doubt all metaphysical inquiry? Is all metaphysics simply magic to you? In your line of thought how does the concept of number exist? Is number physical always, id est,without 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x10^100,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 things, then does said number does not exist? Or, could a number exist which does not have enough physical things in the universe to represent it physically?
Further, how do you respond to the argument of appearance?
1)Two sticks can appear themselves to be both equal and unequal at the same time.
e.g.
<------------------------------>
>------------------------------<
2)But in thought itself, equality never appears to be the same as inequality. That means that:
3) there need to be at least some universal idea, apart from matter, which is eternal and unchanging, right? The sorts of things I have in mind here are equality, length, largeness, smallness, etc...
-- The above argument is my abridged version of Plato's from his Phaedo, regarding materialists like yourself.
Let's not think of God, soul, love, hate, or other "feeling" types of metaphysical terms just yet. Let's simply arrive at some consensus with a priori metaphysical principles which drive the physical world (largeness, smallness, equality, etc.). From there we can move onto Goodness, justice, and the like, and then to God.
The major flaw of this thread is the Religious fervor which drives heated debates about ancient doctrines and misrepresented claims about religious intolerance by other religions. What this thread should be doing is carefully defending faith (or lack thereof) through well-reasoned logical arguments and rebuttals.
Response to Paper Luigi:
The water deceives us in that it makes us sense that the existence of the fish is other than it actually is, just as you might claim that religion makes us believe that the concept of heaven is other than it is (misplaced).
You say non-material things exist. Do you think that there is any order to these non-material things? For instance is the non-material concept of "good" better than the non-material concept of "bad"? I am interested to know how you handle gradation in the non-physical realm without God.
N.B. I am not yet talking about the Christian God. I am simply speaking of the highest being, or highest existence.
-
No, I don't deny the concept of numbers larger than the amount of atoms in the universe. I understand the concept of thinking about things that don't actually exist, and why it is useful.
You appear to have plunged into philosophy bull[dukar]-speak, by the way.
-
You appear to have plunged into philosophy bull[dukar]-speak, by the way.
I very much have plunged into philosophy because religion, in my estimation, is always compatible with reason, but I do not think philosophical language to be bull[dukar]-speak. It takes a certain precision in language to convey things that are not self-evident or common to physical experience. I understand that I might come off as verbally-bloated or whatever, but it is nearly impossible to enter into discussion about things of this nature without differing to such language. I am certainly not a skilled-enough writer to pull off a discussion of non-physical concepts with the simplicity of conventional English. If I could wield my pen as swiftly and nimbly as a mighty warrior a sword, then I would. But alas, I cannot; for that I am sorry.
But, I insist, these Philosophical foundations are essential components of why it is that I believe what I believe. I think that this is a most fitting place for me to discuss these things, especially in this way. This topic has alwyas encouraged debate about religion. I find these logical arguments a worth means to that end. Now, if you are not willing to accept my arguments, fine, but dissent with arguments of your own. You jumped into the argument and I responded to your statements. It's fine if you disagree with my arguments, but casually and deprecatingly dismissing my arguments to establish what it is that I sought to convey won't either win you any points or make you come across as very bright. It is my belief that you just dismissed my language as bull[dukar] because you have no response, and you didn't want to admit checkmate. If you do have a response, I kindly invite you to share it.
And finally, let me get this straight: you acknowledge the concept of things that have no physical existence, but yet, you say that you understand the concept of thinking about things that don't actually exist (a statement which suggests to me that the concept in the first sentence of your reply you actually find to be non-existent). So... what is it? Do you think this concept exists or not?
-
I think that this whole God deal is looking pretty sweet to me since both arguments for and against it in this topic have devolved into insane gibberjabber at this point.
-
I didn't dismiss your arguments; I agreed. There are "things" that have no physical existence. They are called... concepts!
-
The water deceives us in that it makes us sense that the existence of the fish is other than it actually is, just as you might claim that religion makes us believe that the concept of heaven is other than it is (misplaced).
You're saying that religion distorts the concept of heaven. I'm saying that religion makes us believe in the concept of heaven.
Also, belief is not always truth.
-
I think that this whole God deal is looking pretty sweet to me since both arguments for and against it in this topic have devolved into insane gibberjabber at this point.
What you perceive as babble, we perceive as a philosophical conversation.
Truth is not perception though, so I may be wrong.
-
Why do you
post
in
2s
-
Glorb's right, man. All the stuff about the fish and KS's last three posts were insane gibberjabber.
-
You're saying that religion distorts the concept of heaven. I'm saying that religion makes us believe in the concept of heaven.
Also, belief is not always truth.
I think we've strayed far from the original point of this example. I think we've both been misunderstanding one another here. I do not think faith is an opiate. The water example was just meant to show that water has a similar property to opium, so water (and a vast host of other perception-bending things) could also be considered a opiates in these Marxian terms. I do not think that religion blurs the truth, especially when grounded and backed by solid philosophical and logical arguments. Religion holds to faith in beliefs, but I can assure you that these beliefs are all, at the very least, logical possibilities.
-
What religion is backed by logical arguments?
-
The problem with such a loaded question: You view religion as being contrary and adverse to science, while we see science as an element of God's creation, therefore under religion and thus impossible to compare.
-
Why do you post in 2s?
Because editing is stupid.
-
Clearly you should make your whole post the first time instead of making posts you'd need to go back and add to a minute later. Editing isn't "stupid." You're just trying to excuse your own laziness, inability to think things through from the start, and/or love for postcount++.
TEM's post a few pages back (which obviously wasn't copy-pasted from elsewhere; it would've been easy to tell that if you paid any attention at all to TEM's writing style) was probably the most brilliant argument I've seen in this thread.
-
Clearly you should make your whole post the first time instead of making posts you'd need to go back and add to a minute later. Editing isn't "stupid." You're just trying to excuse your own laziness, inability to think things through from the start, and/or love for postcount++.
Lizard Dude has done this many times before and you get mad at me first? God[darn], you do worship him.
-
Lizard Dude doesn't feel the need to do this every single time he posts or make excuses for it.
Or quote posts right above him, for that matter. We can all look up a couple of inches, thank you.
There's some irony in someone who argues against religion in a religion thread saying "God[darn]" in said religion thread.
-
Why There Can Never Be Conclusive Scientific Evidence of God's Existence
There can never be undeniable proof towards the existence of God (specifically the monotheistic Abrahamic God). The reason lies in the nature of free will and the story of Adam and Eve.
Also the question of "Why is there evil in the world, why does God allow it?" "Why do bad things happen to good people" etc., etc. is answered.
When God made the perfect land of Eden for his first humans to live in he inexplicably put in the middle of it all an evil, forbidden tree. Why? To instate free will into his humans.
God didn't want robots that loved him undeniably. If you create a creature that has no choice but to love you, does it really love you? The only way to truly love someone is it have the free will to choose to do so, otherwise it isn't a conscious choice, but just a robot following its programming.
So, God placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil into Eden so Adam and Eve wouldn't be ceaselessly loving automatons. God gave them the opportunity to screw up so they could make a conscious, free decision to obey and love him.
This is the nature of our world. God exists, but he let's injustice and evil to exist as well. He has put animalistic, tyrannical, sinful urges in us. God has done this so we can choose to hate him. So when we choose to love him it is a choice made by free will.
What does this have to do with there never being scientific proof of God?
If it were possible to prove God existed, we would all become automatons. If we saw or heard some kind of undeniable proof of God's existence we would love God without a choice. The mere knowledge of his for certain existence would strip us of our free will to either hate or love God.
Discuss.
Warp, thanks for bringing my attention to this post. I'll try to be more brief this time and not use philosophical "jibbergabber."
TEM: I agree with much of your post. You make astute observations and good logical use of mythical, lesson-teaching stories. The last paragraph of argumentation, however, seems to suggest to me that knowledge necessitates action; that is, if we know then we MUST act in accord with said knowledge. It is my belief that if an undeniable scientific proof of God is possible (and it very well might be), then people, while still believing, still might make sinful decisions. Knowledge of God's existence (or even, for that matter, absolute knowledge of God's will) is still indeed consistent with action against the divine will. How does this happen? The capacity for free will (which you readily acknowledge), might take to lower, temporal pleasures. Motion toward base things occurs when the rational part of the human being -- which very well might contain hard "facts,"like a proof of God's existence -- does not properly order the other parts of the human being. Passions, desires, and appetite, unchecked by will and even a reason which contains many hard facts can seize control of action.
Even with certain knowledge of things, action contrary to that knowing is possible because apparent goods carry a particularly strong pleasurable nature to them. The problem is that this pleasure is disordered.
In conclusion, most of the post is very good. It simply does not follow, however, that knowledge of God necessitates action which is always in accord with the divine mind. If there is an absolute, undeniable proof God, it is is still very possible that man could choose to act against what God would want.
-
There's some irony in someone who argues against religion in a religion thread saying "God[darn]" in said religion thread.
How so? People who aren't religious say "god[darn]" all the time.
Also, **** your rules. Who cares if people post twice in a row, quote posts, use sigs and/or a different layout, etc.?
-
There is some irony in someone who is not only not religious but who is against religion saying "God[darn]," especially in a religion thread.
How about these (http://themushroomkingdom.net/board/index.php?topic=8638.0) rules, then?
-
I suppose someone who doesn't believe in God can use the word god[darn] just as much as someone who doesn't believe in Tyr, Odin, Thor, Frigg, or Saturn can use the words Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.
I long assumed Paper posted like that to goad someone into yelling at him for it so he could point out that I've done it. It took a lot longer than I expected!
-
Completely unrelated, but: If the religions whose gods the names of the days of the week are derived from were still around today, do you think we'd be using the corrupted names today, or refer to them as Moon Day, Tyr's Day, Woden's Day, et cetera?
The term "god[darn]" and its variants clearly imply the [darn]ation of something by a god. It seems rather counter-intuitive to make that implication if you don't believe in gods.
-
- stuff KS said -
It is definitely true that humans do stupid things in spite of knowing certain facts. BUT I think any kind of undeniable, unarguable proof of God's existence would incite a stronger reaction than say, knowledge of gravity or knowing that drugs are harmful. The difference being that the infinite happiness caused by this proof is unlike anything a human would (or in the case of my argument can) normally experience. I imagine it would have a consciousness altering effect similar to when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. I think this feeling is probably reserved for those in heaven. I admit that this potential reaction to proof of God is just speculation and I don't really have any further proof or reference.
-
This is starting to remind me of the theory postulated in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy that if the universe were ever explained, it would only be replaced by something bigger and even more unexplainable.
-
That would be because you're a retard who makes inane connections so he can show off that he's read a book before.
-
I imagine it would have a consciousness altering effect similar to when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.
If you are willing to accept that, then you are willing to accept at least the possibility that someone could have absolute proof of God, yet think that he be greater than God, for Adam and Eve certainly knew God's existence, yet they disobeyed.
Even those who have convinced themselves of the absolute necessity of God (whether or not they are right) have sinned. This is significant because the force of their absolute belief, which, in this case, would hold the same weight of absolute knowledge for them, is still not enough to stop them from sinning. Knowledge of God is not knowledge of God's will. I will stick to that point.
Also, knowledge of God does not hijack the will. Though your conclusion that people would all act as God wills might be true (and is actually the hope and prayer of Christians when they say "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"), they are not robotic slaves to God's will, because everything the person does would have to still come as the result of a free choice of the will; I would still need to choose the best option among many possible options to do something in accord with God's will. Knowledge of God would not take away the plurality of options or the choice that one would have to make, even if in every instance he chose the good. Socrates calls this the examined life; Plato, virtue; and the Christian, holiness.
I suppose the necessary conclusion to your argument is as follows: because of some aspect of human nature (which I still don't understand from what you have written), any proof for God that does not result in all people's conversion to sinlessness and God's will necessarily be a poor proof. I'm still not sure that this is right from what you said.
-
I think he's saying people would freak plumb on out.
-
TEM, you're such a sweetie.
-
Even those who have convinced themselves of the absolute necessity of God (whether or not they are right) have sinned.
We never stop sinning.
-
That would be because you're a retard who makes inane connections so he can show off that he's read a book before.
Well, if all I'm going to get is an insult, then so long and thanks for nothing.
-
I meant that maybe a second transformation would result, removing freewill to turn from God. A&E went from willing to defy God, but then being frightened after being transformed by the knowledge brought on by the fruit. I was merely suggesting that a new transformation might take place in the human psyche if a proof were shown. Just speculation, and a solid proof of the nature I'm speaking of is well beyond any amount of faith a person could conjure. It would have to be more real and in your face than reality itself.
-
Ahh, I see your point now. It's an interesting concept. I definitely agree that complete comprehension of the Eternal God is something beyond the scope of human capability. To behold the Divine would indeed be more real than reality itself, because you would be for the first time staring pure reality in the face.
-
Mario, of all people. I never would have guessed...
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4chanarchive.org%2Fimages%2Fv%2F19390162%2F1220143271816.jpg&hash=01ec18bbaf8abf4b173d4ad6433445a6)
-
I'm a nudist.
-
/thread
-
OK, im not being serious, so if youre the kind of person to overreact at the smallest thing, dont scroll down.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gosai.com%2Fkrishna-talk%2Fgraphics%2Fsatkona-picts%2Fstar-of-david.gif&hash=f129ae6292b027883c34da8e08926e9d)
Convert.
-
Its definitely not okay.
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.am-church.com%2Fimages%2Fbliss%2F1000-1999%2F1212YSS.jpg&hash=19a4e0621fa5c2b0b6f28cbee1d89f17)
-
theres three of us now.
-
...Jewish Catholics, you mean?
-
no just jews.
we're called Cashews
-
I want to apologize to Warp and Chupperson for my *ahem* behavior back on page 28. While I am still an atheist, I will debate with theists in a respective manner that does not involve cursing, double posting, and/or using famous figures to support my arguments.
-
I am Taoist.
-
(Still Jewish.)
-
(Still Nudist.)
-
Right on brother.
-
Don't you mean right off?
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fjesus_as_a_drummer_jesus_saves_drums_t_shirt_flyer-p2446135772172894062mcvz_400.jpg&hash=1a16adba58cdf6b468e09ddd34081636) (http://instantrimshot.com/)
BA DUM tsshh.
-
(Still agnostic)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frlv.zcache.com%2Fjesus_as_a_drummer_jesus_saves_drums_t_shirt_flyer-p2446135772172894062mcvz_400.jpg&hash=1a16adba58cdf6b468e09ddd34081636) (http://instantrimshot.com/)
I'd just like to say how much I love this image.
-
(Still Muslim)
-
(https://themushroomkingdom.net/board/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eltopo-jp.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2F20100102_paulsimon.jpg&hash=ae73839005928f4c8c5b7eaff150cc90)
Still crazy. And proabably still Jewish.
-
Still atheist.
Actually, atheism isn't a religion.
-
True.
It's a gaping hole.
-
Still gaping.
First person to ****** someone gets 5 internet cool person points.
-
Still Christian.
A bit more tolerant of things that I used to spew absolute hatred for, (mostly trivial things like XBox) but still Christian.
-
Agnostic, I wouldn't try to warship something that I'm not 100% sure exists, but somehow, I feel a large presence above me.
-
I say we should warship it whether it exists or not. What's the point of having a huge armada of warships if we can't use them to blow something up?
-
Curses! I've a spelling error!
-
Yeah, playing Battleship with God is risky business.
-
My new religion is Warship thanks to Turtle's antics.