D
DumpsterDan
Guest
I don't think I'd cry too hard about the availability and legality of polygamy and temple prostitutes.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Okay. The Bible SUCKS!
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
- Watchers 0
- Status
G
Guest
Guest
ok......say the bible was never written and we all grew up never being introduced to the concept of god? Kind of like me...I wasn't introduced to God until I was 14...and by then I've already had my ideas of life and death, right and wrong. My mother raised us kids without repression tho I'm not sure if that was her intent...but that's just how it happened. When we are born, we don't know a damn thing about god until someone (who was also told) comes along in your young and oh so impressionable age and fills your head with all these ideas. For some it affects their lives in a good way, for some it twists and perverts them only to create a fanaticist. But how would it affect us if we never knew? I believe we humans are some type of animal. The most advanced animal, but I cannot accept the fact that we are the only beings on this earth that are not. So just play along for a second...do you think our fellow animals believe in god? Like that one song..."Fools like me who cross the sea and come to foreign lands/ask the sheep for their beliefs, "Do you kill on gods command?". Ok...let's get out of the man = animal thing before people freak out. Sheesh. For some reason, I also believe that man will have eventually invented some sort of being to easily explain why things are the way they are. But that's probably just what humans do. Pigs oink, and humans create gods to justify their existence. So for me growing up without a god, what do I ultimately believe in that's not based on any religion in the world? Me. And if you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you.
I'm sorry if none of this makes sense, but I'm really tired. Been awake for over 26 hours because of my stupid work schedule. I'll read over it tomorrow and fill in the holes...if any. But until then, you all have a good er..night/day whatever. Take care.
I'm sorry if none of this makes sense, but I'm really tired. Been awake for over 26 hours because of my stupid work schedule. I'll read over it tomorrow and fill in the holes...if any. But until then, you all have a good er..night/day whatever. Take care.
G
Guest
Guest
There http://inanna.virtualave.net/ishtarshrine.html no prostitutes inside i'm afraid.
G
Guest
Guest
Baker wrote this:
<blockquote><hr>
Say I tell you that there is an ape-like creature covered in pink hair that lives on the dark side of the moon. Furthermore, I tell you that I know because he communicates with me via telepathy. Do you believe me? I sure wouldn't. I also wouldn't say "Well, maybe some pink ape on the dark side of the moon, I don't really know." I would believe that there wasn't, and that you're the I'm (in the hypothetical ) simply delusional. See, a person can produce any number of entities with their imagination, but one would tend to disbelieve in those entities until there is some reason to believe in the existence of those beings. Keep in mind that belief is not necessarily dependent on proof. For example, if I show you footprints and pink hair on the dark side of the moon, you may be inclined to believe me, even without proof, or at least believe that there's not enough evidence to believe either way.
<hr></blockquote>
You have shown me footprints, but you have not proved anything. Your still trying to tell me that something just appears in a vacuum randomly and to trust that on blind faith. Its not up to me to prove this is indeed a fact, its up to you. Just as it would be up to me to prove there is a god. Its a two way street guy. I will not believe on blind faith.
<blockquote><hr>
Say I tell you that there is an ape-like creature covered in pink hair that lives on the dark side of the moon. Furthermore, I tell you that I know because he communicates with me via telepathy. Do you believe me? I sure wouldn't. I also wouldn't say "Well, maybe some pink ape on the dark side of the moon, I don't really know." I would believe that there wasn't, and that you're the I'm (in the hypothetical ) simply delusional. See, a person can produce any number of entities with their imagination, but one would tend to disbelieve in those entities until there is some reason to believe in the existence of those beings. Keep in mind that belief is not necessarily dependent on proof. For example, if I show you footprints and pink hair on the dark side of the moon, you may be inclined to believe me, even without proof, or at least believe that there's not enough evidence to believe either way.
<hr></blockquote>
You have shown me footprints, but you have not proved anything. Your still trying to tell me that something just appears in a vacuum randomly and to trust that on blind faith. Its not up to me to prove this is indeed a fact, its up to you. Just as it would be up to me to prove there is a god. Its a two way street guy. I will not believe on blind faith.
G
Guest
Guest
Well, considering most animals don't have self awareness ( meaning they don't recognize themselves in a mirror ) I really doubt they try too hard to think anything outside of what they can feel, see, hear, taste, or smell. Or perhaps most animals simply can't.
V
Vio
Guest
For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough.
B
Baker|NV
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
You have shown me footprints, but you have not proved anything. Your still trying to tell me that something just appears in a vacuum randomly and to trust that on blind faith. Its not up to me to prove this is indeed a fact, its up to you. Just as it would be up to me to prove there is a god. Its a two way street guy. I will not believe on blind faith.
<hr></blockquote>
The difference between quantum theory and religious theory of God is not proof. Neither are proven. The difference is that there is solid evidence of quantum physics while there is not necessarily any evidence of God.
Unfortunately it's not really plausible to develop and derive quantum physics or to demonstrate evidence on these forums with anything more than a cursory introduction.
You have shown me footprints, but you have not proved anything. Your still trying to tell me that something just appears in a vacuum randomly and to trust that on blind faith. Its not up to me to prove this is indeed a fact, its up to you. Just as it would be up to me to prove there is a god. Its a two way street guy. I will not believe on blind faith.
<hr></blockquote>
The difference between quantum theory and religious theory of God is not proof. Neither are proven. The difference is that there is solid evidence of quantum physics while there is not necessarily any evidence of God.
Unfortunately it's not really plausible to develop and derive quantum physics or to demonstrate evidence on these forums with anything more than a cursory introduction.
B
Baker|NV
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
But seriously, if the Bible had never been written, then this forum would have a lot fewer posts, we'd have 80% less con artists in the world, and there would be the same amount of really tall buildings in New York City that there was on September 10, 2001.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually I personally would disagree with you here. In my experience, God has never controlled man, rather man has always controlled God. The reason that religion may appear to be a source of violence at first glance is that men have always seen it as necessary to justify their questionable actions through religion. Generally people have alterior motives aside from religion and other causes can be found.
Basically without religion, and especially without the bible, we'd still have essentially the same people doing essentially the same things. They'd simply say different things about it.
But seriously, if the Bible had never been written, then this forum would have a lot fewer posts, we'd have 80% less con artists in the world, and there would be the same amount of really tall buildings in New York City that there was on September 10, 2001.
<hr></blockquote>
Actually I personally would disagree with you here. In my experience, God has never controlled man, rather man has always controlled God. The reason that religion may appear to be a source of violence at first glance is that men have always seen it as necessary to justify their questionable actions through religion. Generally people have alterior motives aside from religion and other causes can be found.
Basically without religion, and especially without the bible, we'd still have essentially the same people doing essentially the same things. They'd simply say different things about it.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
Alright, I only got to page three before I had to stop and post. I always miss the good threads. Deezamn.
Any, this one goes out to Roscoe:
<blockquote><hr>
The seat of the issue you're debating can be answered in a philosophical argument.
<hr></blockquote>
This implies that what he's about to say qualifies as an answer. However, implying something does not make it true.
<blockquote><hr>
First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God. It's an oversimplification mind you.
<hr></blockquote>
I like how you lead up to a good question, but then immediately answer it for yourself and move on. The question being "can the personal come from the impersonal?" My answer being, "why not?" No matter how slim the chances of evolution, in an infinite universe anything is possible.
But whether you prefer my answer or yours, neither one of them is reason enough to pick one religions out of the thousands that exist on God's planet. And if you did pick one over all the others, you had better have a damn good reason, because it sounds to me like a lot of people just pull their beliefs out of their ass. Oh wait, that's called faith.
<blockquote><hr>
Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard.
<hr></blockquote>
This is called an assumption, not philosophy. And anything you build off of this assumption will be even more meaningless.
<blockquote><hr>
But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge.
<hr></blockquote>
You say that arguing evolution brings us back to the problem of "man and his personal nature". What problem? I agree that our nature is unique and perhaps even mysterious, but I don't feel the need to pick up the local religion to explain it.
<blockquote><hr>
If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better.
<hr></blockquote>
So basically you make up some more stuff like a 6th sense that you have to back up your assumption....erm, I mean faith about the nature of man. Bravo, you now accomplished the same feat as most of the other people on this planet, but of course you do it in the style of your culture.
I prefer to remain undecided as to the nature of the universe, but I have no problem dismissing anything called "religion" from the realm of possibility. To believe that one religion out of thousands is true is more foolish by far than to believe that they are all a construct of man and his personal nature. If philosophy and gut instinct lead you to belief in a higher power, that's just great. As soon as you think you know anything at all about this higher power, you're now being taken in by someone elses bs. Whether it's 50 years old, 2000 years old or 6000 years old, it's still just someone elses assumption. Oh, and if you disagree on that last point, then prove me wrong.
Any, this one goes out to Roscoe:
<blockquote><hr>
The seat of the issue you're debating can be answered in a philosophical argument.
<hr></blockquote>
This implies that what he's about to say qualifies as an answer. However, implying something does not make it true.
<blockquote><hr>
First - we have the existence of man. Man is a personal being in that he can communicate and socialize and ask the question 'why am I here'. There is no other creature that does this. Yes, there is social order among various creatures but to date I do not know of any that stand around wondering 'why'. This personal nature came from somewhere - can the personal come from the impersonal? If not then it means that the personal nature of who we are is not a byproduct of evolution but is instead a direct result of being fashioned after its make which is also personal. That's argument number one for the existence of God. It's an oversimplification mind you.
<hr></blockquote>
I like how you lead up to a good question, but then immediately answer it for yourself and move on. The question being "can the personal come from the impersonal?" My answer being, "why not?" No matter how slim the chances of evolution, in an infinite universe anything is possible.
But whether you prefer my answer or yours, neither one of them is reason enough to pick one religions out of the thousands that exist on God's planet. And if you did pick one over all the others, you had better have a damn good reason, because it sounds to me like a lot of people just pull their beliefs out of their ass. Oh wait, that's called faith.
<blockquote><hr>
Second - have you ever read a record of history? An ancient manuscript that clues us in to the past? Or maybe you've read some classic work that communicates some fantastic notion about humanity but it was written centuries ago. The point is that being personal as we are it is in our nature and by deduction, if there is a God and we are created in His image, then communication is in his nature too. Therefore it's not out of the realm of possibility to believe in times past that God spoke to men and they recorded what they heard.
<hr></blockquote>
This is called an assumption, not philosophy. And anything you build off of this assumption will be even more meaningless.
<blockquote><hr>
But I've not offered proof as of yet. As for the proof - I point to all of creation. You may argue that creation can be explained through the 'big bang' theory and through evolution but that brings us back to the problem of man and his personal nature. Not to mention the problem of morality as well as the problem of knowledge.
<hr></blockquote>
You say that arguing evolution brings us back to the problem of "man and his personal nature". What problem? I agree that our nature is unique and perhaps even mysterious, but I don't feel the need to pick up the local religion to explain it.
<blockquote><hr>
If you do not accept nature as evidence then all that remains is to perceive God. And to do that requires the utilization of a spiritual 6th sense called faith. If you define faith as a 'blind acceptance' devoid of any evidence then you'll struggle here. If you define 'faith' as the seeing eye of religion then you'll fare much better.
<hr></blockquote>
So basically you make up some more stuff like a 6th sense that you have to back up your assumption....erm, I mean faith about the nature of man. Bravo, you now accomplished the same feat as most of the other people on this planet, but of course you do it in the style of your culture.
I prefer to remain undecided as to the nature of the universe, but I have no problem dismissing anything called "religion" from the realm of possibility. To believe that one religion out of thousands is true is more foolish by far than to believe that they are all a construct of man and his personal nature. If philosophy and gut instinct lead you to belief in a higher power, that's just great. As soon as you think you know anything at all about this higher power, you're now being taken in by someone elses bs. Whether it's 50 years old, 2000 years old or 6000 years old, it's still just someone elses assumption. Oh, and if you disagree on that last point, then prove me wrong.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
Jebus Roscoe, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you keep spouting such nonsense.
<blockquote><hr>
3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.
They're there. So are the demons that one guy was talking about a few months ago on this forum.
<hr></blockquote>
I can just as easily say, "They don't exist and neither do the demons that that one guy was talking about a few months ago" and have just as much validity as you. So what's your point?
<blockquote><hr>
3) Where are the Angels? You know, the ones that smite sinners with their blades of fire or what have you.
They're there. So are the demons that one guy was talking about a few months ago on this forum.
<hr></blockquote>
I can just as easily say, "They don't exist and neither do the demons that that one guy was talking about a few months ago" and have just as much validity as you. So what's your point?
W
Wisty
Guest
>For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough.
*applauds* So very truthfully succinct. I should use it as a sig, but then everywhere I posted it would be like inviting more religious argument, and frankly I can take only so much of that before it's just unresolvable rehash after rehash -- for me; for others, perhaps it's fine tuning and learning and finalizing decisions.
*applauds* So very truthfully succinct. I should use it as a sig, but then everywhere I posted it would be like inviting more religious argument, and frankly I can take only so much of that before it's just unresolvable rehash after rehash -- for me; for others, perhaps it's fine tuning and learning and finalizing decisions.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
I have to go shortly so I won't be able to continue this further until tonight, but there is one truth in Science or Math.
Something cannot come from nothing. So, where did we come from? I'll keep asking that until someone says it 'just is'.
Then I'll say 'so is god'
<hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference here. The first person is saying "just is" to explain what we see all around us. You're saying "just is" to something you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell. It's only in your mind.
I have to go shortly so I won't be able to continue this further until tonight, but there is one truth in Science or Math.
Something cannot come from nothing. So, where did we come from? I'll keep asking that until someone says it 'just is'.
Then I'll say 'so is god'
<hr></blockquote>
There's a big difference here. The first person is saying "just is" to explain what we see all around us. You're saying "just is" to something you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell. It's only in your mind.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
ROFL, key words quantum physics and theory
They are theories, unproven. You can't use unproven science to prove science. Its a oxymoron.
<hr></blockquote>
You obviously have no comprehension of what a scientific theory is. Theories are proven thousands upon thousands of times, they are just never assumed to be absolute truth because that would take an act of faith
ROFL, key words quantum physics and theory
They are theories, unproven. You can't use unproven science to prove science. Its a oxymoron.
<hr></blockquote>
You obviously have no comprehension of what a scientific theory is. Theories are proven thousands upon thousands of times, they are just never assumed to be absolute truth because that would take an act of faith
W
Wisty
Guest
>Well, considering most animals don't have self awareness ( meaning they don't recognize themselves in a mirror )
Yes they do. Perhaps not when they are young, just as young humans have to learn that is they in the mirror. But indeed cats DO recognize it's they, but I'm not sure they all can understand it. I've had cats that, when kittens, were startled the first time they saw their reflection in the mirror and ran off and hid; then curiousity brought them back, this time braver, and they'd hiss and fight and slap at the mirror; and after awhile would somehow put two and two together and would actually frequent the mirrored places (such as, bathroom countertops, or doors and hallways that had mirrors) and sit and stare and watch themselves preen.
But it's not as heartwarming as the first time I watched my little son find himself in the mirror for that very first time. He kept touching the mirror, trying to stand up so he could walk to it, etc. He was so fascinated. After sometime I'd help him walk up to it and hold him next to it and he'd give "his little friend" a hug and a kiss and he'd giggle and have so much fun. But the day he walked up to it on his own I felt so strange. And that night I wrote a very touching story (in so many words, that is) about my son and "his little friend" and how they "both" were growing up so fast...seemingly yesterday just a newborn snug and cozy in my arms, but today bravely walking away on both feet...as I and the mother of "his little friend" knowingly stared at one another, with mixed emotions, as two tears fell, one from her cheek, the other from mine... etc. The short piece was titled using my son's name forwards and backwards...I forget exactly...it's tucked away somewhere, probably in the baby book I took several years to complete for him which he loved re-reading all throughout his childhood. Which reminds me, I kept meaning to scan it into pc and rewrite it, since it needs MASSIVE EDITING, boy'oh'boy'OH! But somehow, post-divorce, son-now-a-man, it just doesn't hold the...what?...dunno...? Maybe I should go look into the mirror again. brb.
*the sounds of two screams*
Sheesh, time sure flies! Scared the hell outta of each other, geesh! Damn, poor thing. She looks as OLD as I do now. Gah! Terrible!
/hehe
Yes they do. Perhaps not when they are young, just as young humans have to learn that is they in the mirror. But indeed cats DO recognize it's they, but I'm not sure they all can understand it. I've had cats that, when kittens, were startled the first time they saw their reflection in the mirror and ran off and hid; then curiousity brought them back, this time braver, and they'd hiss and fight and slap at the mirror; and after awhile would somehow put two and two together and would actually frequent the mirrored places (such as, bathroom countertops, or doors and hallways that had mirrors) and sit and stare and watch themselves preen.
But it's not as heartwarming as the first time I watched my little son find himself in the mirror for that very first time. He kept touching the mirror, trying to stand up so he could walk to it, etc. He was so fascinated. After sometime I'd help him walk up to it and hold him next to it and he'd give "his little friend" a hug and a kiss and he'd giggle and have so much fun. But the day he walked up to it on his own I felt so strange. And that night I wrote a very touching story (in so many words, that is) about my son and "his little friend" and how they "both" were growing up so fast...seemingly yesterday just a newborn snug and cozy in my arms, but today bravely walking away on both feet...as I and the mother of "his little friend" knowingly stared at one another, with mixed emotions, as two tears fell, one from her cheek, the other from mine... etc. The short piece was titled using my son's name forwards and backwards...I forget exactly...it's tucked away somewhere, probably in the baby book I took several years to complete for him which he loved re-reading all throughout his childhood. Which reminds me, I kept meaning to scan it into pc and rewrite it, since it needs MASSIVE EDITING, boy'oh'boy'OH! But somehow, post-divorce, son-now-a-man, it just doesn't hold the...what?...dunno...? Maybe I should go look into the mirror again. brb.
*the sounds of two screams*
Sheesh, time sure flies! Scared the hell outta of each other, geesh! Damn, poor thing. She looks as OLD as I do now. Gah! Terrible!
/hehe
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
God exists, just accept it.
>>All calculations and evidence we have say that this happens. Just accept it.
Sounds just as stupid doesn't it?
<hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things.
God exists, just accept it.
>>All calculations and evidence we have say that this happens. Just accept it.
Sounds just as stupid doesn't it?
<hr></blockquote>
Not at all. I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things.
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>>>Not at all. I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things.</font color=blue>
So would I, and I agree. I see no point however on defecating on someones religion until science can prove otherwise.
So would I, and I agree. I see no point however on defecating on someones religion until science can prove otherwise.
G
Guest
Guest
Wistaria:
>Well, considering most animals don't have self awareness
I'm not going to take it any further than that.
>Well, considering most animals don't have self awareness
I'm not going to take it any further than that.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
>>Not at all. I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things.
So would I, and I agree. I see no point however on defecating on someones religion until science can prove otherwise.
<hr></blockquote>
When did I ever defacate on someone's religion? And since I didn't, what the hell does that have to do with my statement? And how can you possibly agree with my last statement when that would imply that you believe your first statement to be bs, as I do?
>>Not at all. I'll take calculations and evidence anyday over something that simply comes out of your mouth. They are two very different things.
So would I, and I agree. I see no point however on defecating on someones religion until science can prove otherwise.
<hr></blockquote>
When did I ever defacate on someone's religion? And since I didn't, what the hell does that have to do with my statement? And how can you possibly agree with my last statement when that would imply that you believe your first statement to be bs, as I do?
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>>>There's a big difference here. The first person is saying "just is" to explain what we see all around us. You're saying "just is" to something you can't see, hear, taste, touch or smell. It's only in your mind. </font color=blue>
Ok, I'm going to put this in real god damn big bold letters because I don't want to say this again.
I'm not arguing that there is a god. I am arguing that you or anyone else to date, cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the universe can be created without one. <font color=blue>I do not believe in god, nor do I believe it is possible for nothing to explode.</font color=blue>
Will one day science explain how everything came about, yes... I think it will. But they have not done it so far. And all those that are defecating on religion without a solid base in which to prove it, are no better than the bible thumpers that they claim others to be that swear by God. What can I say, I'm in the grey.
Ok, I'm going to put this in real god damn big bold letters because I don't want to say this again.
I'm not arguing that there is a god. I am arguing that you or anyone else to date, cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the universe can be created without one. <font color=blue>I do not believe in god, nor do I believe it is possible for nothing to explode.</font color=blue>
Will one day science explain how everything came about, yes... I think it will. But they have not done it so far. And all those that are defecating on religion without a solid base in which to prove it, are no better than the bible thumpers that they claim others to be that swear by God. What can I say, I'm in the grey.
T
thunderbirde
Guest
I dub this whole topic 'Son of Faith Thread.'
<center>It's the question that drives us.</center>
thunderbirde
<center>It's the question that drives us.</center>
thunderbirde
R
Roscoe
Guest
I feel that the world would be a much better place without God and all forms of organized religion.
Tell that to the people killed in the name of socialism/communism.
Tell that to the people killed in the name of socialism/communism.
B
Budner
Guest
"Tell that to the people killed in the name of socialism/communism"
People didn't die under socialist/communist regimes due a lack of religion. They died because the socialist/communist leaders were psychotic ****s. The world is thankfully though too slowly ridding itself of socialism and communism.
I agree with the original poster that some areas of the world would certainly be better off without the atrocities committed largely in the name of religion (Israel/Palestine, Kashmir Valley, the Balkans, etc. etc. etc.).
Religion in the hands of animals can be more destructive than conventional weaponry.
Religion in the hands of good people can benefit mankind enormously.
Unfortunately religion always attracts more than its fair share of animals.
Personally I think we'd all be better off, on balance, without religion.
People didn't die under socialist/communist regimes due a lack of religion. They died because the socialist/communist leaders were psychotic ****s. The world is thankfully though too slowly ridding itself of socialism and communism.
I agree with the original poster that some areas of the world would certainly be better off without the atrocities committed largely in the name of religion (Israel/Palestine, Kashmir Valley, the Balkans, etc. etc. etc.).
Religion in the hands of animals can be more destructive than conventional weaponry.
Religion in the hands of good people can benefit mankind enormously.
Unfortunately religion always attracts more than its fair share of animals.
Personally I think we'd all be better off, on balance, without religion.
R
Roscoe
Guest
Look - no matter how you slice it they were killed under a secular regime.
K
Kalidor
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
No, but it's overly simplistic to dismiss it as being a passing fad.
<hr></blockquote>I didn't dimiss anything, I am always trying to keep an open mind. What was once Newton's theory has been proven to be true for our limited experiences on this planet, just like you say. What is being discussed in this thread is in theory mostly and could be dismissed again tomorrow. Solid evidence is scarce here.
<blockquote><hr>
Unproven, yes. But every indication points to a finite universe in volume, mass, energy, time, etc...
<hr></blockquote>I suspect you've not been exposed to Hawking's work very often. Aren't you doing a math/physics major?
<blockquote><hr>
The current discussion is about God, not the universe, the two are not the same. If you see the universe as God, then you're talking about a different God with little to no meaning. You're "God" is not a conscious entity, it is not any basis for morality, it has nothing to do with humanity. It is ridiculous to use the term "God" here.
<hr></blockquote>Well, I hope you can do better in your studied than here, trying to wrap your brain around ideas. That's especially funny coming from you, since you suggested I have only little experience in physics and philosophy...
Cosidering the elements of the human body, we are not consious being with morality then, too, right?
<blockquote><hr>
That's not even relevant to anything in this discussion....
<hr></blockquote>Of course it is. It's nowhere written, much less proven that everything has to happen in your (and our) limited view of the "world".
<blockquote><hr>
The Big Bang theory best describes all astronomical observations one can make... There is currently no better theory.
<hr></blockquote>Well, obviously it is just a theory. How can mankind be expected to understand the universe, the macrocosm, when there are countless questions unanswered in the microcosm.
And since it is a subject of discussion here, what the chance is that a god-like being would pop into our existence... What's the chance of this universe popping into existence, forming a huge ball and then exploding?
"I don't know, it just happened" is not a sufficient answer. Is the human brain even able to process everything and anything? Is it possible to find an explanation for everything?
No, but it's overly simplistic to dismiss it as being a passing fad.
<hr></blockquote>I didn't dimiss anything, I am always trying to keep an open mind. What was once Newton's theory has been proven to be true for our limited experiences on this planet, just like you say. What is being discussed in this thread is in theory mostly and could be dismissed again tomorrow. Solid evidence is scarce here.
<blockquote><hr>
Unproven, yes. But every indication points to a finite universe in volume, mass, energy, time, etc...
<hr></blockquote>I suspect you've not been exposed to Hawking's work very often. Aren't you doing a math/physics major?
<blockquote><hr>
The current discussion is about God, not the universe, the two are not the same. If you see the universe as God, then you're talking about a different God with little to no meaning. You're "God" is not a conscious entity, it is not any basis for morality, it has nothing to do with humanity. It is ridiculous to use the term "God" here.
<hr></blockquote>Well, I hope you can do better in your studied than here, trying to wrap your brain around ideas. That's especially funny coming from you, since you suggested I have only little experience in physics and philosophy...
Cosidering the elements of the human body, we are not consious being with morality then, too, right?
<blockquote><hr>
That's not even relevant to anything in this discussion....
<hr></blockquote>Of course it is. It's nowhere written, much less proven that everything has to happen in your (and our) limited view of the "world".
<blockquote><hr>
The Big Bang theory best describes all astronomical observations one can make... There is currently no better theory.
<hr></blockquote>Well, obviously it is just a theory. How can mankind be expected to understand the universe, the macrocosm, when there are countless questions unanswered in the microcosm.
And since it is a subject of discussion here, what the chance is that a god-like being would pop into our existence... What's the chance of this universe popping into existence, forming a huge ball and then exploding?
"I don't know, it just happened" is not a sufficient answer. Is the human brain even able to process everything and anything? Is it possible to find an explanation for everything?
K
Kalidor
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
Tell that to the people killed in the name of socialism/communism.
<hr></blockquote>Who died in the name of socialsm? Millions have been killed though in the name of our American Freedom. Oh yeah,... and only our America is to blessed by God. And may God help everyone to say the truth in court...
Tell that to the people killed in the name of socialism/communism.
<hr></blockquote>Who died in the name of socialsm? Millions have been killed though in the name of our American Freedom. Oh yeah,... and only our America is to blessed by God. And may God help everyone to say the truth in court...
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
It funny how you've now twice responded to my comments by spouting off defensive statements that have nothing to do with what I said. I read this entire thread last night and I'm well aware of your claim to be somewhere in the middle with regards to religion and science. So what? That doesn't make the things you've been saying any less stupid. Which is exactly why I called you on them and exactly why you didn't have a decent response.
B
Budner
Guest
"Look - no matter how you slice it they were killed under a secular regime."
Ummm.....yes....and millions of others WEREN'T killed under secular regimes. What does that have to do with religion?
And even under communism, religion played a central role in the death of millions. Just ask the 700,000 Orthodox christians murdered by the Catholics in Croatia, or the 400,000 Jews killed in Romania, or the 100,000+ muslims murdered by the Orthodox in Serbia/Kosovo, etc. etc. And that's just former Yugoslavia and Romania.
Ummm.....yes....and millions of others WEREN'T killed under secular regimes. What does that have to do with religion?
And even under communism, religion played a central role in the death of millions. Just ask the 700,000 Orthodox christians murdered by the Catholics in Croatia, or the 400,000 Jews killed in Romania, or the 100,000+ muslims murdered by the Orthodox in Serbia/Kosovo, etc. etc. And that's just former Yugoslavia and Romania.
R
Roscoe
Guest
The accusation is that religion is responsible for much of what is wrong in the world today. I'm simply pointing out that by comparison Socialism/Communism under certain regimes are probably more so than religion by measureable standards. I'm not sure what's so confusing about that?
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>Therefore, if you take the factor time out, something can just be.</font color=blue>
Well, I have a muted feeling that we are going "deeper into the forest". The fundamental physical processes, such as motion, happen in time. Moreover, any good arguments to the contrary absent, it is safe to say that the time is unidirectional, irreversible, "very fundamental", I'd say. It is not sufficient to state that it can be "simply" taken out; one needs to show good grounds for doing so.
<font color=blue>Because we cannot really grasp this concept doesn't mean it is not possible.</font color=blue>
Because we cannot really grasp any given concept does not mean that it is possible either...
<font color=blue>According to Stephen Hawking, the universe is not just infinite by our nderstanding of 3D+Time.</font color=blue>
Therefore, before "going any further into infinite universe, I suggest that at least two terms are described:
- what is the universe;
- which (fundamental) properties of universe are infinite.
<font color=blue>Ok, I will try a different approach. Every thought of ours is nothing else but a very complex series of chemical reactions, which themselves again are bound to the rules of physics. Therefore every thought of ours is part of our universe, since the "mechanics" behind these chemical reactions cannot happen outside of it. It is not possible that the same thought would create the same chemical reaction twice (that's where chaos theory and infinitesimal mathematics come in). In other words, you cannot form thoughts which would cause impossible chemical reactions in your brain, which means that the thoughs anyone can form are bound to the physical and chemical rules of the universe.</font color=blue>
Ok, that I think I understand, at least intuitively. Essentially, what you are saying is that the rules of physics and chemistry (or more broadly -- the rules governing the universe) do not permit the brain a thought that is impossible in accordance with those rules.
And I beg to differ, because I can contemplate perfectly well that no gravitation is there...
I will note, however, that you did not assert that everything one can imagine not to exist has to either exist or not exist.
However, going back to the original statement and rephrasing it:
<font color=green>"In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means."</font color=blue>
I do not see how any of:
"Since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means,"
is a condition for:
"everything anyone can imagine has to exist."
Well, I have a muted feeling that we are going "deeper into the forest". The fundamental physical processes, such as motion, happen in time. Moreover, any good arguments to the contrary absent, it is safe to say that the time is unidirectional, irreversible, "very fundamental", I'd say. It is not sufficient to state that it can be "simply" taken out; one needs to show good grounds for doing so.
<font color=blue>Because we cannot really grasp this concept doesn't mean it is not possible.</font color=blue>
Because we cannot really grasp any given concept does not mean that it is possible either...
<font color=blue>According to Stephen Hawking, the universe is not just infinite by our nderstanding of 3D+Time.</font color=blue>
Therefore, before "going any further into infinite universe, I suggest that at least two terms are described:
- what is the universe;
- which (fundamental) properties of universe are infinite.
<font color=blue>Ok, I will try a different approach. Every thought of ours is nothing else but a very complex series of chemical reactions, which themselves again are bound to the rules of physics. Therefore every thought of ours is part of our universe, since the "mechanics" behind these chemical reactions cannot happen outside of it. It is not possible that the same thought would create the same chemical reaction twice (that's where chaos theory and infinitesimal mathematics come in). In other words, you cannot form thoughts which would cause impossible chemical reactions in your brain, which means that the thoughs anyone can form are bound to the physical and chemical rules of the universe.</font color=blue>
Ok, that I think I understand, at least intuitively. Essentially, what you are saying is that the rules of physics and chemistry (or more broadly -- the rules governing the universe) do not permit the brain a thought that is impossible in accordance with those rules.
And I beg to differ, because I can contemplate perfectly well that no gravitation is there...
I will note, however, that you did not assert that everything one can imagine not to exist has to either exist or not exist.
However, going back to the original statement and rephrasing it:
<font color=green>"In fact everything anyone can imagine has to exist, since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means."</font color=blue>
I do not see how any of:
"Since the inifite universe would only be finite if the human mind is excluded from being a part of the same nature phyisics is trying to describe by mathematical means,"
is a condition for:
"everything anyone can imagine has to exist."
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>Well, that to me implies that it had no initial state, and consequently God could not have initiated it *scratches head*.
Also, under no circumstances could he have afforded himself the liberty of stretching it out over the time period of six days. Thus Bible sucks, violently.
I always find these comments quite interesting.</font color=blue>
I suspected, you would, because unlike Vio, who is a God, I'm the Unholy Spirit. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif I know that those irrelevant conclusions (an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion), especially without restating the assumptions, especially when expressed in a pompous manner, are likely to draw the woolly mammals back into the herd of jackals.
<font color=blue>If you define god in context of the Universe you might be right. If you define the universe in context of God you'd be wrong.</font color=blue>
When you or someone ascertains the "context of God", do let me know, and then let's examine what "might be" an what "would be.
Also, under no circumstances could he have afforded himself the liberty of stretching it out over the time period of six days. Thus Bible sucks, violently.
I always find these comments quite interesting.</font color=blue>
I suspected, you would, because unlike Vio, who is a God, I'm the Unholy Spirit. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/biggrin.gif I know that those irrelevant conclusions (an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion), especially without restating the assumptions, especially when expressed in a pompous manner, are likely to draw the woolly mammals back into the herd of jackals.
<font color=blue>If you define god in context of the Universe you might be right. If you define the universe in context of God you'd be wrong.</font color=blue>
When you or someone ascertains the "context of God", do let me know, and then let's examine what "might be" an what "would be.
B
Budner
Guest
So because there are worse things than religion, we shouldn't examine whether religion is a bad idea?
I admit, communism kills.
Now you admit, religion kills.
That's all I'm saying.
I admit, communism kills.
Now you admit, religion kills.
That's all I'm saying.
R
Roscoe
Guest
Religion kills - true Christianity does not.
B
Budner
Guest
Nor does true communism. So what.
G
Guest
Guest
Tell that to the true Christian that tried to kill me at the bus stop on my way to work back in 96. I have scars to prove it.
G
Guest
Guest
True Chrystianity and true communism have one thing in common - both are utopias.
R
Roscoe
Guest
Tell that to the true Christian that tried to kill me at the bus stop on my way to work back in 96. I have scars to prove it.
I believe you have the scars but I don't believe he was a true Christian.
I believe you have the scars but I don't believe he was a true Christian.
R
Roscoe
Guest
or does true communism. So what.
So what you're saying is that it's not the ideal or the religion that is specifically the cause? I can buy that.
So what you're saying is that it's not the ideal or the religion that is specifically the cause? I can buy that.
R
Roscoe
Guest
True Chrystianity and true communism have one thing in common - both are utopias.
The biggest difference is that one is attainable and one isn't.
The biggest difference is that one is attainable and one isn't.
P
Pirate Wench
Guest
I agree. True Communism exists within most family units.
True Christianity is impossible to achieve, since the contradictions and loopholes and multitudes of dogmatic trivia make it impossible to understand, much less achieve.
True Christianity is impossible to achieve, since the contradictions and loopholes and multitudes of dogmatic trivia make it impossible to understand, much less achieve.
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
Jeez Roscoe, I woulda thought my giant post directed at you would have gotten some sort of response. I guess you just can't argue with the truth though. (The truth being my PoV of course) /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
R
Roscoe
Guest
I thought I asked you to explain to me how the impersonal can come from nothing.
R
Roscoe
Guest
And the family is a God-ordained institution.
G
Guest
Guest
Heh, I don't believe there is such thing as true Chrisianity. It's like an oxy moron...to me.
In my statement, my "philosophy"..."If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you." has nothing to do with God or religion. So, if everyone believed in my philosophy and practiced it, the world would be a better place, wouldn't you agree? People who need religion to lead their lives are basically just followers. Why can't they just lead their own lives?
who's right and who's wrong...it doesn't really matter...when you really think about it. What matters is how we get along together in this life. Worrying about if God exist or not, who believes in it or who doesn't...is just one big distraction from life. And when people lose sight of the real importance in life, all hell breaks loose and people get hurt. So while everyone is going back and forth in this forum saying who's right and who's wrong (in the nicest way possible of course) time is still moving, people are still living...and dying...and I'm still not getting any work done
In my statement, my "philosophy"..."If you're nice to me, I'll be nice to you." has nothing to do with God or religion. So, if everyone believed in my philosophy and practiced it, the world would be a better place, wouldn't you agree? People who need religion to lead their lives are basically just followers. Why can't they just lead their own lives?
who's right and who's wrong...it doesn't really matter...when you really think about it. What matters is how we get along together in this life. Worrying about if God exist or not, who believes in it or who doesn't...is just one big distraction from life. And when people lose sight of the real importance in life, all hell breaks loose and people get hurt. So while everyone is going back and forth in this forum saying who's right and who's wrong (in the nicest way possible of course) time is still moving, people are still living...and dying...and I'm still not getting any work done
M
Mhoram the Mage
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
I thought I asked you to explain to me how the impersonal can come from nothing.
<hr></blockquote>
Umm...no, you never did. My answer though, is that I don't know. Unlike you however, I don't presume to have the answer based on nothing but a belief and lacking any proof.
And since that is your only response, am I to assume you agree with all of my other counter-points?
I thought I asked you to explain to me how the impersonal can come from nothing.
<hr></blockquote>
Umm...no, you never did. My answer though, is that I don't know. Unlike you however, I don't presume to have the answer based on nothing but a belief and lacking any proof.
And since that is your only response, am I to assume you agree with all of my other counter-points?
O
Orglif
Guest
Jesus.
D
DumpsterDan
Guest
<blockquote><hr>
True Christianity and true communism have one thing in common - both are utopias.
<hr></blockquote>
There's so much religion peppered into Christianity would anyone know what it was if we saw it?
<center><font color=red>True Christians don't eat cats. True Commies do. </font color=red></center>
True Christianity and true communism have one thing in common - both are utopias.
<hr></blockquote>
There's so much religion peppered into Christianity would anyone know what it was if we saw it?
<center><font color=red>True Christians don't eat cats. True Commies do. </font color=red></center>
G
Guest
Guest
True Christians don't eat cats. True Commies do.
Cats? Or was it "eat babies"? Who cares anyway. (Don't point to me who cares.)
Cats? Or was it "eat babies"? Who cares anyway. (Don't point to me who cares.)
G
Guest
Guest
<font color=blue>>>It funny how you've now twice responded to my comments by spouting off defensive statements that have nothing to do with what I said.</font color=blue>
True enough... But then you did take quotes from a reply I made not to you, hence it was not for you. Point being here, that was what they were saying, 'just accept it' and I was pointing out the other side could also say the same thing. It was meant to sound stupid, because quite frankly it was a stupid thing to say in the first place. I'm mildly happy that I got the desired reaction, just from the wrong person./php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
Or are you saying the same thing as they were of 'just accept it' as truth?
<font color=blue>>>Which is exactly why I called you on them and exactly why you didn't have a decent response. </font color=blue>
What makes you think I can come up with a decent response? Are you asking me to prove God or science? You already know my stand on that.
Are you buying into this theory that allows a dog to magically appear before you? Hang on I'll get a quote from the newest theory. Thats what this is about by the way( most the comments you quoted from me were linked to this ) I believe this theory is a bunch of hooey.
"Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely"
Now I believe it was Baker that said this was wrong, and I agree with him, but unfortunately the above has to happen in order for the rest of this theory to work.
True enough... But then you did take quotes from a reply I made not to you, hence it was not for you. Point being here, that was what they were saying, 'just accept it' and I was pointing out the other side could also say the same thing. It was meant to sound stupid, because quite frankly it was a stupid thing to say in the first place. I'm mildly happy that I got the desired reaction, just from the wrong person./php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
Or are you saying the same thing as they were of 'just accept it' as truth?
<font color=blue>>>Which is exactly why I called you on them and exactly why you didn't have a decent response. </font color=blue>
What makes you think I can come up with a decent response? Are you asking me to prove God or science? You already know my stand on that.
Are you buying into this theory that allows a dog to magically appear before you? Hang on I'll get a quote from the newest theory. Thats what this is about by the way( most the comments you quoted from me were linked to this ) I believe this theory is a bunch of hooey.
"Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely"
Now I believe it was Baker that said this was wrong, and I agree with him, but unfortunately the above has to happen in order for the rest of this theory to work.
V
Vio
Guest
If memory serves me correct, most Stalinist Communists were atheists.
R
Roscoe
Guest
Ok - here's your reply. Open wide!
<font color=blue>I like how you lead up to a good question, but then immediately answer it for yourself and move on. The question being "can the personal come from the impersonal?" My answer being, "why not?" No matter how slim the chances of evolution, in an infinite universe anything is possible. </font color=blue>
Tell you what - since I got it so wrong would you please then tell me - how does the personal come from the impersonal? I am certainly willing to continue the conversation and will try my best to be more lucid in my efforts to explain my point of view but I would like to hear your thoughts first. 'Why not' is significantly less of an answer than my attempt.
<font color=blue>This is called an assumption, not philosophy. And anything you build off of this assumption will be even more meaningless. </font color=blue>
It's a continuation of a thought. On its own it would be perceived as an assumption but if you didn't buy the prior point you surely won't buy this one. No surprise in your response here.
<font color=blue>You say that arguing evolution brings us back to the problem of "man and his personal nature". What problem? I agree that our nature is unique and perhaps even mysterious, but I don't feel the need to pick up the local religion to explain it. </font color=blue>
Again - then by all means. Be my guest. Explain it.
<font color=blue>So basically you make up some more stuff like a 6th sense that you have to back up your assumption....erm, I mean faith about the nature of man. Bravo, you now accomplished the same feat as most of the other people on this planet, but of course you do it in the style of your culture.
I prefer to remain undecided as to the nature of the universe, but I have no problem dismissing anything called "religion" from the realm of possibility. To believe that one religion out of thousands is true is more foolish by far than to believe that they are all a construct of man and his personal nature. If philosophy and gut instinct lead you to belief in a higher power, that's just great. As soon as you think you know anything at all about this higher power, you're now being taken in by someone elses bs. Whether it's 50 years old, 2000 years old or 6000 years old, it's still just someone elses assumption. Oh, and if you disagree on that last point, then prove me wrong. </font color=blue>
Well, bravo! You've said absolutely nothing on which I can hang my hat. You've ridiculed, teased and insulted but not said anything remotely worth debating. Give a go at my question above and then we'll see if this thread is dead or not.
<font color=blue>I like how you lead up to a good question, but then immediately answer it for yourself and move on. The question being "can the personal come from the impersonal?" My answer being, "why not?" No matter how slim the chances of evolution, in an infinite universe anything is possible. </font color=blue>
Tell you what - since I got it so wrong would you please then tell me - how does the personal come from the impersonal? I am certainly willing to continue the conversation and will try my best to be more lucid in my efforts to explain my point of view but I would like to hear your thoughts first. 'Why not' is significantly less of an answer than my attempt.
<font color=blue>This is called an assumption, not philosophy. And anything you build off of this assumption will be even more meaningless. </font color=blue>
It's a continuation of a thought. On its own it would be perceived as an assumption but if you didn't buy the prior point you surely won't buy this one. No surprise in your response here.
<font color=blue>You say that arguing evolution brings us back to the problem of "man and his personal nature". What problem? I agree that our nature is unique and perhaps even mysterious, but I don't feel the need to pick up the local religion to explain it. </font color=blue>
Again - then by all means. Be my guest. Explain it.
<font color=blue>So basically you make up some more stuff like a 6th sense that you have to back up your assumption....erm, I mean faith about the nature of man. Bravo, you now accomplished the same feat as most of the other people on this planet, but of course you do it in the style of your culture.
I prefer to remain undecided as to the nature of the universe, but I have no problem dismissing anything called "religion" from the realm of possibility. To believe that one religion out of thousands is true is more foolish by far than to believe that they are all a construct of man and his personal nature. If philosophy and gut instinct lead you to belief in a higher power, that's just great. As soon as you think you know anything at all about this higher power, you're now being taken in by someone elses bs. Whether it's 50 years old, 2000 years old or 6000 years old, it's still just someone elses assumption. Oh, and if you disagree on that last point, then prove me wrong. </font color=blue>
Well, bravo! You've said absolutely nothing on which I can hang my hat. You've ridiculed, teased and insulted but not said anything remotely worth debating. Give a go at my question above and then we'll see if this thread is dead or not.
- Status