Post by: gronned on March 01, 2008, 07:08:00 PM
He's an atheist too, or really he doesn't care at all, which is why it's not fun debating him. But one of the things he claimed was that religious people present evidence for the existence of god, do they? I mean they use arguments that it exists, but can they really present any evidence for its existence? If they could present an evidence it'd mean god does exist, right? Atheists don't have any evidence god does not exist, but we use arguments that are as valid as evidence for his non existence.
He was really stubborn on this, so I want to ask if religious people claim there are genuine evidences for god's existence. And then I'd be more than thrilled if you can say what they are.
And remember, an argument is NOT an evidence, but please give arguments as well.
Post by: throwingks on February 02, 2020, 08:05:00 PM
This post has been edited by throwingks: Yesterday, 04:12 AM
Post by: lostboyz on March 01, 2008, 07:31:00 PM
its all how you perceive the world on a finer level. If you feel we are just a random collection of electrons and matter then that is your opinion. If however you feel that there is a higher power to any degree has influence in your life then that is what you are going to believe.
I personally believe in a higher power for specific events in my life where i did not feel could possibly be random. Although I despise atheists and religious fanatics alike, the key I believe is to always be open to reshape your outlook on life rather then locking into one idea without the possibility of change.
Post by: gronned on March 01, 2008, 08:02:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Mar 2 2008, 04:05 AM) 
Where did the matter, that made up the contents of the big bang, come from?
I don't know, I don't have a greater knowledge of the big bang. When talking about the issue of singularity I can't say how it works and neither can any scientist, to my knowledge. But big bang itself is questioned in the scientific realm too, so we'll have to see what happens there.
In order to answer your question though, it's not necessary to know what the issue of singularity is, as it wouldn't prove there's a god anyway.
That we don't know what caused the big bang to happen in the first place, does, at least, in no way prove a god created it. If one however do believe there was a god that created that "ignition", you'll be left with an even harder question to answer; what had created the ever so advanced god then?
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Mar 2 2008, 04:07 AM)
if there was definitive evidence either way there wouldnt be any question about it
its all how you perceive the world on a finer level. If you feel we are just a then that is your opinion. If however you feel that there is a higher power to any degree has influence in your life then that is what you are going to believe.
I personally believe in a higher power for specific events in my life where i did not feel could possibly be random. Although I despise atheists and religious fanatics alike, the key I believe is to always be open to reshape your outlook on life rather then locking into one idea without the possibility of change.
That's a great motto, to allow yourself to change. I've changed my mind about virtually everything, but people still call me dogmatic =)
I would however totally disagree with your statement that we're a "random collection of electrons and matter".
There's NOTHING random about the evolution. It's trial and error, in an attempt to adapt to our surroundings. If it was random, how could any animal look the way they do? There's definitely nothing random about evolution.
Post by: throwingks on March 01, 2008, 08:27:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 1 2008, 10:38 PM)
I don't know, I don't have a greater knowledge of the big bang. When talking about the issue of singularity I can't say how it works and neither can any scientist, to my knowledge. But big bang itself is questioned in the scientific realm too, so we'll have to see what happens there.
In order to answer your question though, it's not necessary to know what the issue of singularity is, as it wouldn't prove there's a god anyway.
That we don't know what caused the big bang to happen in the first place, does, at least, in no way prove a god created it. If one however do believe there was a god that created that "ignition", you'll be left with an even harder question to answer; what had created the ever so advanced god then?
In order to answer your question though, it's not necessary to know what the issue of singularity is, as it wouldn't prove there's a god anyway.
That we don't know what caused the big bang to happen in the first place, does, at least, in no way prove a god created it. If one however do believe there was a god that created that "ignition", you'll be left with an even harder question to answer; what had created the ever so advanced god then?
I was simply (ok, complexly) showing that with scientific reasoning, you can only prove things false. You cannot prove things true. Things are believed to be true after all possible methods to falsify have been exhausted. If someone were to make the statement, "Higher Intelligence created the matter that was compacted so tightly it created an explosion spewing that matter all over the universe" it would be impossible to falsify. He/She/They/It may not exist as religious people view their Higher Power to be, but logically you cannot falsify the possibility of an existence.
That does not mean there is and that does not mean there isn't a higher power. Just that logic means nothing to the argument. While you can logically disprove every single religion, that does not mean God does not exist. You know from my earlier posts I am a spiritual person, but I am anti-religion. Truthfully, because of the single though process behind my last post. I have pondered that question for many years (at least 8, because I remember talking about it with a very religious friend I haven't spoken to in 8 years) and I am no closer to the answer than I ever was.
So, what is the real answer? Love and respect yourself and others.
Post by: gronned on March 01, 2008, 08:49:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Mar 2 2008, 05:03 AM)
I was simply (ok, complexly) showing that with scientific reasoning, you can only prove things false. You cannot prove things true. Things are believed to be true after all possible methods to falsify have been exhausted. If someone were to make the statement, "Higher Intelligence created the matter that was compacted so tightly it created an explosion spewing that matter all over the universe" it would be impossible to falsify. He/She/They/It may not exist as religious people view their Higher Power to be, but logically you cannot falsify the possibility of an existence.
That does not mean there is and that does not mean there isn't a higher power. Just that logic means nothing to the argument. While you can logically disprove every single religion, that does not mean God does not exist. You know from my earlier posts I am a spiritual person, but I am anti-religion. Truthfully, because of the single though process behind my last post. I have pondered that question for many years (at least 8, because I remember talking about it with a very religious friend I haven't spoken to in 8 years) and I am no closer to the answer than I ever was.
So, what is the real answer? Love and respect yourself and others.
As you say, it's easy to logically disprove all religions, but I would claim it's fairly easy to logically disprove a god as well using rational arguments. Dawkins has very good rational arguments for it's non-existence in "The God delusion", which I recommend everyone to read. Russel's teapot is an interesting argument that's included in the book. It does in no way prove there is no god, but it's a rational argument for it's non-existence.
Whether a deity exists or not, is simply a yes or no-question, but with rational arguments the possibility of a yes as the answer is VERY slim.
Love and respect sounds as a lovely answer to everything, the problem is that religious people many times tend to lack heavily in moral. I saw a quote where 75% of americans are christian, and 10% are atheists. In prison, 75% were christian and 0.2% were atheists. Now I don't know of the validity of that quote, but I tend to believe there's some truth in it.
Anyway, I fear muslims taking over my country with sharia or attacking innocent people because we're infidels, but that they are muslims doesn't mean that christianity would be any better, they've made many atrocities as well, especially in Ireland.
Post by: Libtoem on February 02, 2020, 09:27:00 PM
This post has been edited by Libtoem: Yesterday, 05:27 AM
Post by: throwingks on March 01, 2008, 09:14:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 1 2008, 11:25 PM)
As you say, it's easy to logically disprove all religions, but I would claim it's fairly easy to logically disprove a god as well using rational arguments. Dawkins has very good rational arguments for it's non-existence in "The God delusion", which I recommend everyone to read. Russel's teapot is an interesting argument that's included in the book. It does in no way prove there is no god, but it's a rational argument for it's non-existence.
Whether a deity exists or not, is simply a yes or no-question, but with rational arguments the possibility of a yes as the answer is VERY slim.
Whether a deity exists or not, is simply a yes or no-question, but with rational arguments the possibility of a yes as the answer is VERY slim.
I see what you are saying about the teapot, but I believe my point is different. There is no logical need to explain a belief in a magical satellite teapot too small to see with our microscopes. However, there is matter throughout the universe moving in direction and speed that would appear to have originated from a singular source. As a logical thinker, I ask "why?" There is no logical thought process as to "there may be a teapot." You cannot prove by example and that is what the Russel is trying to do with his teapot.
QUOTE
Love and respect sounds as a lovely answer to everything, the problem is that religious people many times tend to lack heavily in moral. I saw a quote where 75% of americans are christian, and 10% are atheists. In prison, 75% were christian and 0.2% were atheists. Now I don't know of the validity of that quote, but I tend to believe there's some truth in it.
I have seen a similar quote somewhere in the past also. I am not sure if the numbers are right but I get where you are coming from. My theory is, people need "something to hold onto", and they need to feel protected by being part of a herd. In prison religion easily fills both needs.
QUOTE
Anyway, I fear muslims taking over my country with sharia or attacking innocent people because we're infidels, but that they are muslims doesn't mean that christianity would be any better, they've made many atrocities as well, especially in Ireland.
I don't want you to confuse religion with God. I personally do not believe they are related. They are both separate entities without a need for the other.
QUOTE(Libtoem @ Mar 1 2008, 11:27 PM)
Well here is something to ponder,if humans never existed would religion exist.
Humans are the only creatures with the frontal lobe and capacity to ponder such thoughts. Therefore, religion as we know it would not exist without us, or an equivalently intelligent species. But, that has nothing to do with God.
Post by: gronned on March 01, 2008, 09:21:00 PM
QUOTE(Libtoem @ Mar 2 2008, 05:27 AM)
Well here is something to ponder,if humans never existed would religion exist.
In a sense that's actually interesting. Because even if the answer to your question obviously is no, it should be fairly interesting anyway, as everyone should realize that all humans may die, and only animals continue to live (theoretically it could happen). Then who would praise the god(s)? Everyone knows animals don't praise any gods right now, and if we die, everything will continue without us, but the animals won't even wonder about gods(until they become as "advanced" as we are, at least). So what will the gods do if nobody cares about them at all?
Throwingks: I have to go to bed, it's 5 in the morning here! I hope I get time to reply tomorrow. Fun having a discussion nonetheless... been a while something happened in this forum =)
Post by: CJLee89 on March 01, 2008, 11:15:00 PM
QUOTE
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, "Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes sir," the student says.
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
The student remains silent.
"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er...yes," the student says.
"Is Satan good?"
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."
"Then where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From God"
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"
"Yes."
"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"So who created them?"
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."
The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir, I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"Yes."
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."
"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No sir, there isn't."
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."
"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."
"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"
"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."
"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."
The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."
"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."
"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"
Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"
"Yes sir," the student says.
"So you believe in God?"
"Absolutely."
"Is God good?"
"Sure! God's good."
"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"
"Yes."
"Are you good or evil?"
"The Bible says I'm evil."
The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"
"Yes sir, I would."
"So you're good...!"
"I wouldn't say that."
"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?"
The student remains silent.
"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"
"Er...yes," the student says.
"Is Satan good?"
The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."
"Then where does Satan come from?"
The student falters. "From God"
"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"
"Yes, sir."
"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"
"Yes."
"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."
Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"
The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."
"So who created them?"
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"
The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."
The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"
"No sir. I've never seen Him."
"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"
"No, sir, I have not."
"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"
"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."
"Yet you still believe in him?"
"Yes."
"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"
"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."
"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"
"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."
"And is there such a thing as cold?"
"Yes, son, there's cold too."
"No sir, there isn't."
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees."
"Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"
"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"
"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word."
"In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"
"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."
The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"
"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought."
"It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it."
"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"
"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."
"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean."
The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir."
"So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."
"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"
Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
I believe in God very much.
Post by: StrictPuppet on March 02, 2008, 01:01:00 AM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 1 2008, 08:57 PM)
...... Then who would praise the god(s)? Everyone knows animals don't praise any gods right now.....
I do not know this to be true. While humans are reportedly the most adept at reasoning/free thought(non instinctual response), we are definitely not alone in this ability. Our limited knowledge of things that are not like ourselves limits our ability to make such an assumption. Other mammals such as primates, whales, dolphins, and elephants have proven their ability to reason. Interesting that the most intelligent class of animals is the same as our own. Is it that way because their brain function is easiest for us to comprehend? Could a honey bee not praise (its) god in a way that we could never understand? Could it not have completely free thought via a mechanism that we have yet to discover.
God did not create man, man created God. God fills a need to explain that which defies current explanation. Does God exist? He certainly does, for those that need him to, humans and honey bees alike.
Post by: stiletto on February 03, 2020, 03:01:00 AM
Post by: sicknasty413 on March 02, 2008, 10:20:00 AM
Hmm. Does God exist? Well, I personally cannot prove, nor disprove. his/her existence, nor do I know of anyone who can.
My life, my influences-
I currently reside in a very Christian town in central(ish) Virginia. And when I say "very Christian," I mean students in my high school carry bibles with them in their bookbags and whip 'em out during class and start reading them. The majority of them attend church on Sundays and also church on Wednesday nights. My school even has a "Fellowship Of Christian Athletes" Club.
To be honest, I was never truly exposed to Christianity during my childhood, and I'm thankful for that. My mom is actually Catholic (from the Philippines) and I was also baptized when I was a baby. But my dad on the other hand, has always considered him an atheist. I went to church a few times when I was a child and I simply recall those occurrences some of the most boring times of my life.
Before I moved down to Virginia, I always saw Christianity as a "thing of the past." Like, something you'd read in history books and say, "Oh... well that's interesting that they thought that way" or poke fun at them for thinking that way, knowing you know better now. But, moving Virginia, I was felt as if I stepped right into the past, often pondering to myself, "Wow, people TRULY think this stuff!"
I've personally considered myself an atheist all my life and down here, I get judged for it. But I mean, that's basically how I was raised. I theorize that Christians would NOT be Christian if they weren't raised the way they were. You know, having preachers and pastors telling them that they'd go to a fiery place called hell where they'll be eternally tortured and what not unless they sign their life away to imaginary person they can't see, hear, touch, feel, or taste... with this all occurring in the most important development stages of one's life, their childhood. If a kid is getting taught this, getting this crap shoved down their throat, since the day they were born, OF COURSE they're gonna believe it. Why wouldn't they? They have no reason to question their parents or people their parents respect. Children are naive and would never think their parents would lie to them.. hell, at such early ages, children probably don't even know what a "lie" is!
Don't get me wrong though, I don't particularly have anything against Christians... I have a lot of friends that are Christian and a (pseudo) girlfriend that is extremely Christian.
About my dad.. I've mentioned that he's always considered himself an atheist, but ever since he's moved down here, he's turned into like.. a radical atheist... which pisses me off. It's okay to think what you want, but he's taken it to a whole new level. I compare his level of radical atheism to that of anyone's (down here) level of Christianity. He's starting to preach crap and argue with people and it's just disgusting. In my opinion, he's being just what he despises! And sure, I probably agree with most he says, but still. Can't personal thoughts stay exactly what they are? Personal?
As you see, I'm pretty much sick of people who preach their crap to everyone and assume they're automatically right. Christians and atheists.. doesn't matter.
Now to address other things-
The Big Bang- I believe it. There's evidence supporting it and there's no evidence -not- supporting it. I get taught it at school.. and I've always felt, why would they teach something at school that isn't true? I mean, sure, we as society, don't know all about it, but does that mean it's not true? Just because we don't know where the matter came from doesn't mean we should automatically attach it some deity or dismiss the theory all together. It's a work-in-progress.
Evolution- I believe it. There's evidence supporting it and there's no evidence -not- supporting it. I get taught it at school.. and I've always felt, why would they teach something at school that isn't true? To me, it just makes PERFECT sense. Geographical situations and various climates have caused species to physically (and mentally I suppose) adapt to their environment to better their chance of survival. Those who did survive, live on to reproduce; those who don't, die. How does that NOT make sense!? I just don't understand.
Morals- I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that others believe I'm immoral just because I don't believe in God/have a religion. Do morals really come from religion? I believe they can.. but it's not a necessity. I believe it's one's own decision what they think is right and wrong. I think that's what makes them who they are; it's what makes them an individual.
Gay Rights- This one pisses me off to the fullest extent. Christians seem to think homosexuality is wrong and that they can stop it, cure it, keep them from getting married, etc. It's prejudice! They're clearly keeping a group of people from doing what all other people are allowed to do. I strongly believe gays and lesbians should be able to marry; if they wanna suffer just like every other married couple, let 'em be!
---Here's an argument I've had with my super Christian (pseudo) girlfriend-
her: "It's wrong"
me: "You realize that's prejudice right?"
her: "No it's not. It's wrong."
me: "Okay, WHY is it wrong?"
her: "Because!"
me: "Because isn't a proper response."
her: ::eventually refers to some story from the bible::
me: "Wow, so God is prejudice!?!"
her: ::silent::
::awkward silence::
Dinosaurs- Don't Christians deny the existence of dinosaurs or something? Or believe the Earth is only like 1000 years old, thus dinosaurs couldn't possibly have existed millions and millions of years ago? I don't know. Perhaps I need a little more insight to this one. But regardless, denying scientific evidence that dates dinosaurs back to millions of years ago just seems idiotic to me. lol
Other random thoughts-
QUOTE
God did not create man, man created God. God fills a need to explain that which defies current explanation. Does God exist? He certainly does, for those that need him to, humans and honey bees alike.
I COMPLETELY agree with that. I personally do not need such an "item." I feel strong-willed enough to rely on myself and believe in myself, no matter what the situation.
-CJLee89 brings up an interesting story with very valid points. However, I feel it's flawed at the "brain" part. The professor's brain's existence can easily be proved. However, I realize that's not particularly the point of the story. Also, I feel the part about the student arguing with the teacher about evolution is flawed. Take for example the physical growth of a human being. Do you ever truly see them growing? Do you see them the next day and say, "Wow! You've grown one third of a millimeter!" I know I don't.. But does that mean people don't grow? Well, it's quite obvious they do, because.. well.. THEY DO. We simply conclude a person has grown by observing their change from a particularly height at one age to a particular height at a different age.. it just takes time to see the difference.. just like in evolution.
-I tend to put my "faith" in math. "Math?" you say. Yes. I believe I can easily relate my beliefs to probability. Example: What is the probability that Creationism is true compared to that of Evolution? In my mind, although I lack sufficient numbers, it is MUCH more likely that evolution got us where we are today. I wouldn't say Creationism is impossible, because I don't believe anything is impossible. Like, walking through a wall. What are the chances of that? Probably 59823475983274x10^5 to 1.. but that's just it.. it's simply improbable. And that's how I feel about Creationism.
Closing statements-
Well, clearly I've rambled on an ass load, so I'll end it here. Clearly, everyone's ideas are flawed and everyone is going to believe what they're going to believe. I feel it's very important to not dismiss all religions and ideas, but rather to take in all you can and better yourself as a human being. I feel those who are close-minded and simply focussed on one idea, religion, deity, etc will never succeed as much as those who open themselves up, whether it be socially, economically, or spiritually.
I'd like to thank those who have taken the time to read my extremely long response and to those who plan on criticizing my points in a very mature, adult-like manner.
Post by: vide0bug13 on March 02, 2008, 11:30:00 AM
pretty much what i was thinking.
Post by: hamwbone on March 02, 2008, 04:22:00 PM
Post by: lostboyz on March 02, 2008, 08:15:00 PM
I have plenty of these conversations with my religious friend. I respect him because he grew up in a very poor situation and chose to be religious, it makes him happy and he returns it by teaching youth groups. The conversations are great because its basically bouncing opinions and viewpoints off of each other rather then trying to win an argument. It basically just proves how personal the whole belief system is. It truly does not matter what you believe in as long as it helps you live your life in a morally sane way.
I had the question to my mother of why she was catholic, whether or not it is because she was brought up that way, this was probably about when I was in 5th grade. Since then I have been analyzing my life to explain my own existence. I still go to church out of respect of my mother (when I am home) but I am not catholic even though coming from a strict catholic family and going to a catholic school from 1st to 8th grade.
There is absolutely no way you are going to prove if god does or doesn't exist, and truly it does not matter. You should never live your life based on anothers faith. In most cases differences in faith should have nothing to do with how two people interact if both practice what they believe. Other then scientology I believe all major faith based systems have a structure to promote moral teachings and strong communities, although get twisted and political on certain topics. I am a firm believer of separation of church and state.
Post by: stiletto on February 04, 2020, 01:05:00 AM
Post by: hamwbone on March 03, 2008, 04:15:00 AM
Post by: lostboyz on March 03, 2008, 08:37:00 AM
like I said earlier your faith should not draw a line in the sand on people that you interact with.
Post by: pug_ster on February 04, 2020, 10:18:00 AM
This post has been edited by pug_ster: Today, 06:19 PM
Post by: throwingks on February 04, 2020, 11:25:00 AM
QUOTE(sicknasty413 @ Mar 2 2008, 12:56 PM) 
Now to address other things-
The Big Bang- I believe it. There's evidence supporting it and there's no evidence -not- supporting it. I get taught it at school.. and I've always felt, why would they teach something at school that isn't true? I mean, sure, we as society, don't know all about it, but does that mean it's not true? Just because we don't know where the matter came from doesn't mean we should automatically attach it some deity or dismiss the theory all together. It's a work-in-progress.
There are things about the big bang that dont make sense using math as we know it. For example, the outermost stars seem to be accelerating.The Big Bang- I believe it. There's evidence supporting it and there's no evidence -not- supporting it. I get taught it at school.. and I've always felt, why would they teach something at school that isn't true? I mean, sure, we as society, don't know all about it, but does that mean it's not true? Just because we don't know where the matter came from doesn't mean we should automatically attach it some deity or dismiss the theory all together. It's a work-in-progress.
QUOTE
Evolution- I believe it. There's evidence supporting it and there's no evidence -not- supporting it. I get taught it at school.. and I've always felt, why would they teach something at school that isn't true? To me, it just makes PERFECT sense. Geographical situations and various climates have caused species to physically (and mentally I suppose) adapt to their environment to better their chance of survival. Those who did survive, live on to reproduce; those who don't, die. How does that NOT make sense!? I just don't understand.
There is evidence that not enough time has passed for humans to evolve from primordial ooze. There are also missing links in the chain from ooze to humans. Maybe aliens merged their DNA with Neanderthals? Look into Raelism. They say that Gods from the Heavens is literal.QUOTE
Morals- I don't know about anyone else, but I feel that others believe I'm immoral just because I don't believe in God/have a religion. Do morals really come from religion? I believe they can.. but it's not a necessity. I believe it's one's own decision what they think is right and wrong. I think that's what makes them who they are; it's what makes them an individual.
I agree with you. Morals can come from religion, but more times than not, morals come from the people that raise you. Parents, coaches, teachers, etc.
QUOTE
Gay Rights- This one pisses me off to the fullest extent. Christians seem to think homosexuality is wrong and that they can stop it, cure it, keep them from getting married, etc. It's prejudice! They're clearly keeping a group of people from doing what all other people are allowed to do. I strongly believe gays and lesbians should be able to marry; if they wanna suffer just like every other married couple, let 'em be!
It is disappointing to me that you believe married people suffer. Studies have shown the opposite. Even if a marriage ends in divorce, usually there were many happier times that preceded that. I also believe a marriage does not need to be recognized by the church to be a marriage. I have been with my wife 12 years now, but only married for 3. If situations were different, we would have been married sooner. I have also seen couple together for way many more years than that, that never got "married". Gays, heteros, whoever should be able to marry whomever they want, or be partnered with whomever they want.This post has been edited by throwingks: Today, 07:30 PM
Post by: throwingks on February 04, 2020, 11:26:00 AM
QUOTE
---Here's an argument I've had with my super Christian (pseudo) girlfriend-
her: "It's wrong"
me: "You realize that's prejudice right?"
her: "No it's not. It's wrong."
me: "Okay, WHY is it wrong?"
her: "Because!"
me: "Because isn't a proper response."
her: ::eventually refers to some story from the bible::
me: "Wow, so God is prejudice!?!"
her: ::silent::
::awkward silence::
QUOTE
Dinosaurs- Don't Christians deny the existence of dinosaurs or something? Or believe the Earth is only like 1000 years old, thus dinosaurs couldn't possibly have existed millions and millions of years ago? I don't know. Perhaps I need a little more insight to this one. But regardless, denying scientific evidence that dates dinosaurs back to millions of years ago just seems idiotic to me. lol
no ideaQUOTE
-I tend to put my "faith" in math. "Math?" you say. Yes. I believe I can easily relate my beliefs to probability. Example: What is the probability that Creationism is true compared to that of Evolution? In my mind, although I lack sufficient numbers, it is MUCH more likely that evolution got us where we are today. I wouldn't say Creationism is impossible, because I don't believe anything is impossible. Like, walking through a wall. What are the chances of that? Probably 59823475983274x10^5 to 1.. but that's just it.. it's simply improbable. And that's how I feel about Creationism.
You would like a book I have called "The Laws of Thought" by George Boole.http://www.amazon.com/Investigation-Laws-T...e/dp/0486600289
PM me if you want it.
QUOTE
I'd like to thank those who have taken the time to read my extremely long response and to those who plan on criticizing my points in a very mature, adult-like manner.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/sleep.gif)
Edit: I made 2 posts so that the quotes didnt break because of the quantity.
This post has been edited by throwingks: Today, 07:27 PM
Post by: gatorayde on March 03, 2008, 03:34:00 PM
I don't see how anyone can be atheist TBH, because sure, maybe we did come from monkeys and sure, maybe our planets and existence all exploded from a set amount of gases... but where did that all come from? Where did outer space come from? It all has to have some sort of start, so I just think that it's too obvious that we can't create ourselves here, nor can hydrogen create mercury, like gold can't creat, silver, etc etc (JUST examples before someone flips shit about it).
IDK what or who made our planets and our existence, but I would have to say that it didn't just "appear" out of no where to explode, then make single celled organisms, all the way up to humans. However we came about, it definitely had some sort of help from a god of some sort, thats my belief. What happens when we die still confuses the hell outta me and Ill figure that out when I die I guess.
Summed up, is there a god? In my personal opinion, Yes. I don't see how anyone can deny that. Who or what is god? Who knows, but at some point in our lives (or afterlife) we shall find out. That is what I personally believe in.
All in all, who cares? Why not live your life not having to fear what's beyond this world or how we got here or where we will go, or who we must obey to get into heaven or whatever you believe in. Ignorance is bliss
Let me also say, that I myself, nor anyone (except maybe god himself) can prove that he exists or doesn't. However, I think that common sense would tell you that some kind of invisible existence beyond our universe would exist.
Post by: hamwbone on March 03, 2008, 04:36:00 PM
Post by: lostboyz on March 03, 2008, 04:38:00 PM
Post by: StrictPuppet on March 03, 2008, 04:51:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Mar 3 2008, 04:14 PM)
Either way I am stoked for the apocalypse
Hellz ya....bring it...
Post by: crackfeen on March 03, 2008, 06:08:00 PM
QUOTE
I just think that it's too obvious that we can't create ourselves here, nor can hydrogen create mercury, like gold can't creat, silver, etc etc
hydrogen in fact CAN create mercury and amazingly enough gold can create silver and vice versa it just requires a bunch of work to get the reaction started but it is possible... in fact if you look at a dying star.. you get just that
EVOLUTION
as far as evolution goes, i don't think anyone can rightfully doubt the theory of evolution... whether it happened on earth or it came by meteor or any other random processes that resulted in life again it doesn't matter.. if you want proof of evolution you don't have to go far.. just look in the mirror and tell me are you the same as your parents? are you exactly the same or a collection of random mutations.. sometimes those mutations are just more severe than others...
furthermore.. there are what... 5billion people on the planet right now? we're really a minority.. the lower down the food chain you go, the higher the numbers are of that particular species.. so there's more opportunity for those mutations to occur simply because there is more to pick from.
as far as the story goes about that kid and the "science" teacher.. oh man.. so many logical fallacies...
first of all.. a teacher would never put a student on the stand like that and no student would realistically talk to a teacher like that.. if you set that aside, i can pick flaws in their individual banter but that would take too long. instead let's go to the very end where the kid says that evil is the absence of god... that right there counters his point in a big way.. god by definition is omnipresent so in a way the kid made the worst statement he possibly could have.
people keep mentioning morals.. if anything, morals started religions... look at fables that tell a story with some kind of very important message... blah blah blah.. moral of the story.. don't kill... be good to your friends and neighbors... some other very important message... then let's put all these fables together and give the big book a name. sound familiar? if not let me ask you guys.. who wrote the bible? was it god? if it was, then why would we even have this argument... no it was people, and people tend to embellish stories to make them more effective. Moral of the story, morals exist outside of religion.. they are defined by society, or if you wanna bring philosophers into it, the social contract (hobbes or locke i dont' remember)
now.. religion on homosexuality... "and his spunk hit the floor and his sin was great" that is about as much as religion says about the evils of homosexuality... and as much as that is open to interpretation, the interpretation that is most used is that any sperm ejected that's not looking to produce a baby is sinful.. thus instilling that male homosexuality is wrong, male masturbation is wrong, and wet dreams are wrong.. which brings me to my next question why do we not allow women to marry? perhaps because of equal rights? not sure
i'm sure there are lots of things left out.. but i feel like i've made a contribution... always welcome any criticism (constructive or otherwise)
Post by: gatorayde on March 03, 2008, 06:35:00 PM
@hambone
how so? Did adam and eve (just an example people!) pop up, on an also spontaneously created Earth? Last time I checked my head I don't recall anything spontaneously creating itself
TBH, I spent quite a few hours reading up on "the god of god" subject and Im still baffled. I don't see how god, also, just sprouted up out of the clouds and said "heyyy lets makes some peoples n planets n stuff" but then again if god is real, he is a god and all
@crackfeen
So gold can create silver (thinking back to chem...), but where did the gold come from in the first place? Hydrogen, mercury, etc etc?
The plain ol' fact of religion is that there is no evidence to support or disprove whatever the hell we read in a 2000 year old book. We all find a blind faith religion (other than atheism or a handful of others), stick with it, live by the rules, and hope we all go to a better place which is why the religion pissing match will never be won
Post by: crackfeen on March 03, 2008, 06:56:00 PM
QUOTE(gatorayde @ Mar 3 2008, 09:11 PM)
lemme rephrase in a nutshell what I said.... I beleive something, whether it be a god, a flying dragon or a sea otter, had to create whatever we are currently living in (ie: a breathing universe like hambone stated). IDK what you'd call that sort of a "creator", but Id say its pretty damn close to a god (not limited to jesus, God, allah, etc etc etc).
@crackfeen
So gold can create silver (thinking back to chem...), but where did the gold come from in the first place? Hydrogen, mercury, etc etc?
The plain ol' fact of religion is that there is no evidence to support or disprove whatever the hell we read in a 2000 year old book. We all find a blind faith religion (other than atheism or a handful of others), stick with it, live by the rules, and hope we all go to a better place which is why the religion pissing match will never be won
don't think back to chemistry (it's wrong anyways).. think back to nuclear physics it takes you to the next step of nuclear interractions. i'm sure you know einstein, and his famous e=mc^2 that equation is the basic explanation to what you're asking.. energy/matter transformation
i have a question... why does everything need a creator? be it flying sea otter or a regular nonflying sea otter... why can't things just be? someone mentioned who created outer space.... honestly what kind of question is that.. outer space is a whole lot of nothing.... so.. who created nothing? was it god? or perhaps it could have always been there
sicknasty brought up a good point with the line on a cylinder (incidentally i used the same reasoning in 6th grade to convince my math teacher that one could easily draw an infinite line where he said it was impossible) one of the most popular explanations of the big bang is that the universe keeps exploding and then being sucked into a singularity just to explode again. is it really so hard to believe that in the beggining, there was a buncha garbage randomly in space one day it got together, exploded, then got together again and exploded again... why can't we just say that it always has been
i think the concept of god has been created for a similar reason as when the greeks tried to explain the phenomenon of lightning... the concept comes from the lack of understanding of the world around us. and personally i think we will always have this argument because some questions simply can't be answered. like life after death.. once you die, you can't come back and tell everyone about it... thus to make your life seem less pointless, you will be rewarded when you die.. if you done did god proud you done go to heaven otherwise to the barbeque.
Post by: throwingks on March 03, 2008, 07:01:00 PM
QUOTE(gatorayde @ Mar 3 2008, 09:11 PM)
So gold can create silver (thinking back to chem...), but where did the gold come from in the first place? Hydrogen, mercury, etc etc?
I was just talking to SickNasty about this on IM.
I believe light started everything. But, I don't know where the light came from. A giant cosmic shart.
From light you can create matter and vice versa. The easiest element to make is hydrogen. When a bunch of Hydrogen clumps up and starts building some mass, gravity takes over and bunches them tightly enough to create heat, igniting a star. The star gets so hot, fusion occurs. Fusion can create every element up the periodic table up to iron. Stars cannot get big enough to create a higher element. External forces are needed. Heat, pressure, friction, etc. So planets had to come next, that is where further elements came from.
Now, all of this is from an old broken memory. But, you get the idea.
Also, @crackfeen, the universe is spinning? Where did you get that idea? It is spinning in relation to what?
Post by: gcskate27 on March 03, 2008, 07:38:00 PM
Post by: gatorayde on March 03, 2008, 08:55:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ Mar 3 2008, 09:14 PM)
why does there have to be a start?
Probably because I can't think of one thing that doesn't have a beginning/creator/start. If you do, please enlighten me
And sure, had someone or something created just a single (maybe two now that I think about it...) hydrogen atom, our entire universe could most likely exist as it is now.
On a way side note, anyone know a 5v source in a ps3
(honestly, I can't find one anywhere...)
Post by: Albut35 on March 03, 2008, 09:18:00 PM
QUOTE(hamwbone @ Mar 3 2008, 07:12 PM)
its so much more comfortable to say a god created some starting point. but who created that god then? if god always was and always will be according to the bible, why cant the universe be always and forever be here.
That is a question that I have been wondering for a couple months now. After some deep thinking and some research I've came up with this idea of who created God:
Nothing/NoOne created God.
You see. If God created everything, then wouldn't he of had to create 'creation'. So there for, nothing created God, since he created creation in the first place.
Also, If God created everything, he would of had to created 'time' right? So there for, there was no time before which God created time. So there was no time before He created time.
Also, we think of God as a physical creature/matter. Which in fact, God could be something totally different, he could be something that we can't even comprehend cause there's nothing like it in OUR universe.
Also, check out this video:
Post by: hamwbone on March 03, 2008, 10:14:00 PM
gator, how can you use adam and eve as an example of spontaneos creation, im open to any ideas, but you are taking that form a book that contains STORIES. Creation i think is a from of mutation, evolution, change, destruction followed by rebirth. why do you think stuff has to be created? If you think a god has always been why is it so hard to believe that the place we live, the universe, has not always been. My eyes see some thing that exists when i look up. to.. many... thoughts... ahhh
Post by: gatorayde on March 03, 2008, 11:01:00 PM
I also dont see howyou can deny the fact of any sort of aided creation by another force. Where did our universe come from? How did it get started? Where did all the gases from the big bang theory come from?
And I was mearley using Adam and eve as an example, it was the first thing that poped in my head.
Post by: ubernewb on March 04, 2008, 03:06:00 AM
1. christians say that the big bang is impossible because "something had to create that initial mass" ... well, if everything had to have been created, then where did god come from? how can the rule exist for one thing, but not the other?
2. people bring up creationism via adam and eve.. how could this be possible? did you never study inbred hybridization in school? generation upon generation stemmed from the same genes leads to utter failure. offspring are, for lack of a better word, retarded. this has been both studied and proved in various tests, yet somehow humans are immune to these effects?
my personal belief? god (and the bible) was seen as an easy way to maintain order over a large group of people. threaten people with punishment from an all-seeing invisible force (along with a few staged examples of this unforseen power) and they will, for the most part, be scared into doing pretty much whatever you want them to do. religious leaders see the general public as cattle in need of herding.. nothing more
Post by: gatorayde on March 04, 2008, 06:04:00 AM
@ #2: I was simply using adam and eve as two random people, I could have said John and Jane or Bob and Betty. I wasn't trying to say that adam and eve. So then like I said, I do beleive in the theory of evolution so maybe two people weren't "created", but rather two elements and from then onto single celled organisms, etc etc
I still have yet to see any evidence of something not having a beginning (besides god because that will never be proven nor disproven) so please, if anyone has a picture or video or something showing something spontaneously creating itself onto something, I will change my beliefs forever (no im not a christian TBH, I believe what I believe and nothing more FYI)
Post by: throwingks on March 04, 2008, 07:51:00 AM
QUOTE(gatorayde @ Mar 4 2008, 01:37 AM)
i still dont see how anything can come from nothing. If you have any specific examples of something spontaneously creating itself, please do share as I have found nothing yet like such a thing.
Energy can be spontaneously created for extremely short bursts of time.
For all we know, since time is not real, this all can be a spontaneous quantum fluctuation. The closer you are to the speed of light the slower times goes. We could be traveling at as close to as mathematically possible to the speed of light right now. Therefor to "God's" inertial frame, we are still only in the middle of a burst.
Post by: crackfeen on March 04, 2008, 08:34:00 AM
QUOTE(gatorayde @ Mar 4 2008, 08:40 AM)
I still have yet to see any evidence of something not having a beginning (besides god because that will never be proven nor disproven) so please, if anyone has a picture or video or something showing something spontaneously creating itself onto something
evidence of something with no beginning? such as numbers?
and as far as something spontaniously creating itself out of nothing... how about the decay of a deuterium atom into a proton and electron.. if you look at the end results... you will notice that the combined mass of the two particles after the reaction is greater than the mass of one deuterium atom.. it's not much but it proves a point that matter can in fact be created... however you need energy to do so.. and as throwingks brought up right before me.. quantum fluctuations can produce energy
Post by: lostboyz on March 04, 2008, 09:58:00 AM
Post by: lostboyz on March 05, 2008, 08:17:00 PM
Post by: HOUSECAT on March 06, 2008, 05:05:00 AM
When it's all said and done, your dead and you will never be existing again. EVER!! Hurt's but it's the truth. SO STAY ALIVE AS LONG AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. BUT EVEN THAT DOEST"T MATTER!!! SURVIVAL DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOUR GOING TO DIE EVENTUALLY.
Post by: crackfeen on March 06, 2008, 08:55:00 AM
regarding the afterlife, honestly i agree with you, was it Marx who said that religion was the opium of the people? that it distracts people from the now and lets them focus on the later... i agree in the sense that i don't think there's an afterlife but i don't need one yet... (by yet i mean that a lot of people getting up in the years magically find out that they've been religious all their lives) i just think that it's one of those things made up to not feel so bad about dying.. do what the old and exciting religions did.. become immortal through some kind of achievement that makes your legacy live on forever.. a legend that lives on forever
kitty.. your arguments are poorly formed how can you deny the existence of a bible or even jesus for that matter... go to a church to become convinced that both are in fact very real.. their holy validity is under suspicion but you have to specify.. otherwise assholes like myself are gonna pick apart your arguments.
furthermore you're a little defeatist. the fact that you're inevitably going to die doesn't mean that survival doesn't matter.. it just means that you only have from the time you're born to the time you die to actually do something useful with your life
but this is getting off topic of the existence of god.. and simply put we're not going to get an answer. because the question itself is vague. the idea of "god" is poorly defined thus it cannot be proved or disproved, the whole point is that you're supposed to take it on faith and if you have it, more power to you. religion however has played a HUGE role on the evolution of society.. historically, mostly negatively so i don't really want or need it in my life
Post by: lostboyz on March 06, 2008, 11:58:00 AM
As far as the afterlife is concerned i am huge believer in the method described in slaughterhouse 5.
Post by: crackfeen on March 06, 2008, 02:34:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Mar 6 2008, 02:34 PM)
are you calling me angry or Nietzsche?
As far as the afterlife is concerned i am huge believer in the method described in slaughterhouse 5.
god is dead was one of nietzche's most popular quotes so i found it funny that you said that and were followed up by roughly his philosophical perspective
and i never read slaughterhouse 5.. so you're gonna have to elaborate a little bit
Post by: hamwbone on March 06, 2008, 02:40:00 PM
QUOTE(HOUSECAT @ Mar 6 2008, 06:41 AM)
Any intelligible person knows that deep down.
Quoth the ignorant man.
Post by: crackfeen on March 06, 2008, 02:58:00 PM
QUOTE(hamwbone @ Mar 6 2008, 05:16 PM)
Quoth the ignorant man.
lol you don't understand.. if deep down inside you don't know.. then obviously you're not intelligible enough
Post by: hamwbone on March 06, 2008, 03:30:00 PM
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Mar 6 2008, 04:34 PM)
lol you don't understand.. if deep down inside you don't know.. then obviously you're not intelligible enough
haha, some people
Post by: lostboyz on March 06, 2008, 04:24:00 PM
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Mar 6 2008, 05:10 PM)
god is dead was one of nietzche's most popular quotes so i found it funny that you said that and were followed up by roughly his philosophical perspective
and i never read slaughterhouse 5.. so you're gonna have to elaborate a little bit
that second quote is not nietzche, i forget who it was but it was in my psych book, how two differing theories arent necessarily mutually exclusive.
slaughterhouse 5 is an amazing book so go ahead and read it. The premise is this guy is abducted by aliens who live in the 5th dimension basically they not only travel in our three dimensions but are free to move about in time. Basically history exists and they can relive any point in their lives. Death is not the end its merely the understanding of this logic.
Great part of the book is when it originally came out 50 or so years ago on the book it says from the bestseller of Hocus Pocus. At that point in time he had not written a book called Hocus Pocus, but at one point did write it, and it was a best seller. Somewhat reaffirmed his own philosophy through an elaborate joke.
Post by: crackfeen on March 06, 2008, 05:12:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Mar 6 2008, 07:00 PM)
that second quote is not nietzche, i forget who it was but it was in my psych book, how two differing theories arent necessarily mutually exclusive.
slaughterhouse 5 is an amazing book so go ahead and read it. The premise is this guy is abducted by aliens who live in the 5th dimension basically they not only travel in our three dimensions but are free to move about in time. Basically history exists and they can relive any point in their lives. Death is not the end its merely the understanding of this logic.
Great part of the book is when it originally came out 50 or so years ago on the book it says from the bestseller of Hocus Pocus. At that point in time he had not written a book called Hocus Pocus, but at one point did write it, and it was a best seller. Somewhat reaffirmed his own philosophy through an elaborate joke.
i was just talking about the first quote. i don't know the second one.. but i'll make sure to check it out.. i've read a couple things by vonnegut... he's a very out there writer
Post by: StrictPuppet on March 06, 2008, 05:13:00 PM
QUOTE(hamwbone @ Mar 6 2008, 03:06 PM)
haha, some people
word
Post by: HOUSECAT on March 10, 2008, 08:27:00 AM
But then when I turned 18 (Last year) I started thinking independently and realized...Ok god said let their be light and their was light....But their is also a sun and when our side of the earth is facing towards the giant ball of fire we see light....lol.... it's so simple.
Ok this bible i'm reading is man made it's paper and it was wrote in language...Well if you look at language it was something that developed overtime with evolution...cavemen used to grunt at eachother to try and communicate and eventually language developed over time.
Were born in a world with our minds pretty much pre-programmed from the people around us...Like language you don't remember being 1 yrs old and starting to talk. Religion is sort of the same kind of concept you just were brought up to believe and everyone around you believes. And to me only the intelligent ones are able to break away from this. Like me. The rest of the world are just robot's and slaves.
Post by: crackfeen on March 10, 2008, 07:01:00 PM
honestly, you're blindly describing your own upbringing. by far, not everyone learned to be christian or catholic, or any other religion for that matter. the fact that there are multiple religions around goes against your argument that you just do what you're taught.
more importantly, some of the most devout religious figures have historically been converts from either atheism or another religion
on a lighter note, i'm glad that at your old ripe age of 18 you figured out that god didn't in fact go "click" or get himself a clapper.. but the whole point is where did the sun come from... aside from the few hardcore radicals people don't take the bible literally, (honestly i don't think you were ever supposed to). the "let there be light" is more an indication that an all mighty god created the sun and the earth and all our playsets and toys.
also.. what right do you have calling religious people stupid or robots or slaves or anything condescending? the fact that you're having a pubescent rebellion against things you've been doing all your life simply means that you're finally growing up /cheer but in no way does it make you any better than all those people who have contemplated it, and decided to stick with it for one reason or another
Post by: HOUSECAT on March 11, 2008, 01:00:00 PM
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Mar 10 2008, 08:37 PM)
holy hell man.. grammar and spelling are your friends.
I thought I sounded pretty clear on the grammar and spelling. Where does it sound messed up?
QUOTE(crackfeen @ Mar 10 2008, 08:37 PM)
honestly, you're blindly describing your own upbringing. by far, not everyone learned to be christian or catholic, or any other religion for that matter. the fact that there are multiple religions around goes against your argument that you just do what you're taught.
more importantly, some of the most devout religious figures have historically been converts from either atheism or another religion
on a lighter note, i'm glad that at your old ripe age of 18 you figured out that god didn't in fact go "click" or get himself a clapper.. but the whole point is where did the sun come from... aside from the few hardcore radicals people don't take the bible literally, (honestly i don't think you were ever supposed to). the "let there be light" is more an indication that an all mighty god created the sun and the earth and all our playsets and toys.
also.. what right do you have calling religious people stupid or robots or slaves or anything condescending? the fact that you're having a pubescent rebellion against things you've been doing all your life simply means that you're finally growing up /cheer but in no way does it make you any better than all those people who have contemplated it, and decided to stick with it for one reason or another
Growing up? I'm going to be 20 years old in a month!!! I went threw puberty like 8 years ago lol. It's not rebellion trust me. It's more depression....everything thing seems meaningless and pointless knowing when you die your gonna be nothing... so why even try in life ya know. ..when in the end nothing matters. One day your here the next day your gone...ain't nobody here to stay...everything means nothing. I'm on that type a shit right now and can't get it out my head
maybe it's just a stage in life where at my age you become obsessed with pondering LIFE AND DEATH??? Maybe it was those bad shrooms I ate....or the 3 hits of acid I took at a phish concert lol What happened too me?? ahhhhhh Post by: lostboyz on March 11, 2008, 02:11:00 PM
why do people who believe in god have to be stupid sheep? Whatever it takes for people to respect one another, whether its your own morals or trying to get to heaven, who cares?
They are all devices to help us lead our lives, if you can do that on your own great, no reason to be angry about it. Did you bitch this much when you found out santa was your parents? Did you go to grade schools telling the kids they were mindless sheep?
Post by: StrictPuppet on March 11, 2008, 02:40:00 PM
QUOTE(lostboyz @ Mar 11 2008, 01:47 PM)
Did you bitch this much when you found out santa was your parents?
LIES!!!!
Post by: crackfeen on March 11, 2008, 04:05:00 PM
QUOTE(StrictPuppet @ Mar 11 2008, 05:16 PM)
LIES!!!!
don't worry little buddy.. not your parents... other parents... kitty's parents over there
QUOTE
everything thing seems meaningless and pointless knowing when you die your gonna be nothing... so why even try in life ya know
then how are you any better off knowing this instead of believing in a heaven? at least there you have something to look forward to... also there's reincarnation and all that good stuff
simply put you don't know.. i don't know... you cannot prove or disprove it. if you wanna be depressed about knowing you're gonna die pointlessly, do something with your life while you still have time.. personally i find it motivating. also the lack of a heaven pretty much gives me the freedom to do anything i want without long term repercussions. incidentally, this is another reason they invented the idea of hell..
Post by: damam on March 12, 2008, 02:18:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 1 2008, 05:25 PM)
As you say, it's easy to logically disprove all religions, but I would claim it's fairly easy to logically disprove a god as well using rational arguments. Dawkins has very good rational arguments for it's non-existence in "The God delusion", which I recommend everyone to read. Russel's teapot is an interesting argument that's included in the book. It does in no way prove there is no god, but it's a rational argument for it's non-existence.
Whether a deity exists or not, is simply a yes or no-question, but with rational arguments the possibility of a yes as the answer is VERY slim.
its hard to read about scientists justifying the usurpation of science. Although given the state of science at the moment, I cant say I am suprised. The arguement that because something cant be disproven at the moment means that it does or does not exist is blatantly absurd. The only thing that it means is that the question cannot be answered at this time. The rest of the "rational arguments" are merely a facade to skirt the problem of not having an answer. So in the end it is faith. Faith on the side of Dawkins that g-d does not exist, and faith on the side of the religious person that g-d does exist. Kind of an ironic predicament that dawkins finds himself in.
A side note: Dawkins seems overly concerned about the transgressions of organized religion to which there are many, and indifferent about the transgressions of science to which there are many. After all, "rational arguments" and sound sceince have never resulted in anything horrific *cough*holocaust*cough*. I really wonder what he is trying to accomplish. Does he really want morality, science, and the ability to move the masses all centrally controlled? Weve already seen that nightmare.
Post by: gronned on March 13, 2008, 04:26:00 AM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 12 2008, 09:54 PM)
its hard to read about scientists justifying the usurpation of science. Although given the state of science at the moment, I cant say I am suprised. The arguement that because something cant be disproven at the moment means that it does or does not exist is blatantly absurd. The only thing that it means is that the question cannot be answered at this time. The rest of the "rational arguments" are merely a facade to skirt the problem of not having an answer. So in the end it is faith. Faith on the side of Dawkins that g-d does not exist, and faith on the side of the religious person that g-d does exist. Kind of an ironic predicament that dawkins finds himself in.
A side note: Dawkins seems overly concerned about the transgressions of organized religion to which there are many, and indifferent about the transgressions of science to which there are many. After all, "rational arguments" and sound sceince have never resulted in anything horrific *cough*holocaust*cough*. I really wonder what he is trying to accomplish. Does he really want morality, science, and the ability to move the masses all centrally controlled? Weve already seen that nightmare.
It's the theists job to find proof for what they believe in, not the atheists job to disprove what they don't believe in. In all fairness, we are right until you can prove us wrong. Despite thousands of years of belief in various gods, there hasn't been a shred of evidence for any of them. The only way I can reasonably see this change would be if god shows herself, otherwise it will be hard(impossible?) for atheists to ever disprove her. Until she's somehow been proven, I cannot really understand how so many theists can hate us and some even want to kill us. It's only reasonable not to believe in what hasn't been proven, right?
No, you're right(even if you're ironic), the arguments for the holocaust were not rational and that's the core when people try to argue that atheism is the cause of the greatest genocides, because it has nothing to do with atheism. As Dawkins and the others say, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot etcetera never committed their atrocities for the sake of atheism, but only for the sake of irrational arguments which had nothing to do with atheism.
We have however seen other great atrocities being made specifically in the name of various gods. And even Hitler is controversial as many view him as a christian(even if I'm not too sure myself).
What do you mean by "centrally controlled"? Please elaborate. My country is the most atheist in the world and we have far less criminality than most other countries. According to most theists, we should be shooting each others on the open street. Please compare us with USA. Now, however, we've received an extreme amount of immigrants(virtually all because of USA), who apart from being poor have brought their religion here, and criminality has since gone up badly.
As much as I hate to say it, your belief is of my concern. I don't want to be killed in the name of some unproven God. And frankly, I believe there's a great chance I will.
Post by: gronned on March 13, 2008, 05:34:00 AM
I switched to communism which in many peoples mind is the opposite of nazism(in many aspects I find them very similar). As a communist however, I was very dogmatic, and generally I dismissed every rational argument as false and I was convinced so was the case. I'm not positively sure why I left it, I can only guess there were several factors that eventually allowed me to seriously look at the rational arguments against it. Anyway, I've since long completely abandoned it, and today I don't really embrace any ideology at all, probably because of my exceptionally dogmatic, and obviously false, past.The purpose of a debate rarely is, but should be, about challenging your own belief and/or learning what you didn't know about. Most(?) people, myself still sometimes, start a debate in order to prove others wrong and are not open to being questioned. This is a very bad approach if you want to develop yourself.
I may seem dogmatic in my atheism, and as of now, I definitely want people to let go of their beliefs as I find them dangerous and above all false. But I wouldn't say I am very dogmatic in my atheism, because I am listening to the other sides arguments, but I truly don't feel like I'm a bit challenged in why there should be a god. I don't know what started the big bang for example(if it ever was), but because I don't know, doesn't in any way imply that it should have been a god of any kind.
I'm not accusing anyone in particular, because dogmatism goes for all sides of any kind of debate, but I want to remind everyone about it, as it's not very progressive for anybody to be it. May sound pathetic, but once in a while I actually ask myself whether I'm counter-arguing somebody only for the sake of showing myself right, or if I really shouldn't try to truly ponder what she/he's been saying.
Post by: damam on March 13, 2008, 01:34:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:02 AM)
It's the theists job to find proof for what they believe in, not the atheists job to disprove what they don't believe in. In all fairness, we are right until you can prove us wrong. Despite thousands of years of belief in various gods, there hasn't been a shred of evidence for any of them. The only way I can reasonably see this change would be if god shows herself, otherwise it will be hard(impossible?) for atheists to ever disprove her. Until she's somehow been proven, I cannot really understand how so many theists can hate us and some even want to kill us. It's only reasonable not to believe in what hasn't been proven, right?
with science it is impossible to prove anything, you can only disprove it or fail to disprove it. That is fundamental to the scientific method. your arguement that the lack of a way to test the theory at this moment means that we should not believe it is flawed. The only answer we have is that we dont know. What you choose to do with that answer is based on faith. Agnostics are the only ones here that have any ground to stand on as they choose not to take a stand on the matter.
as far as being hated, I can tell you that I have never been more hated in my life since I became a christian. mostly by agnostics and atheists calling themselves "humanists". theres some hypocrisy for you. you can argue that they are not true humanists, but I can also argue that the atrocities commited by past theists were not true practitioners. I dont understand the aggression or hatred on the part of atheists. as an atheist, which is how I was raised, I never experienced anything that I would equate to hatred or oppression by christians. That has been my personal experience.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:02 AM)
No, you're right(even if you're ironic), the arguments for the holocaust were not rational and that's the core when people try to argue that atheism is the cause of the greatest genocides, because it has nothing to do with atheism. As Dawkins and the others say, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot etcetera never committed their atrocities for the sake of atheism, but only for the sake of irrational arguments which had nothing to do with atheism.
We have however seen other great atrocities being made specifically in the name of various gods. And even Hitler is controversial as many view him as a christian(even if I'm not too sure myself).
are you talking about rationalism as in the rationalist movement? any rate, thats the problem, they were not irrational arguements. they were stone cold logical arguements.
in the past g-d represented a way of life. not necessarily the deity itself. Even then, most of the autrocities were done for power not for the deity. The deity or "way of life" was just a rallying point. Now people fight for numerous secular reasons which are by definition atheistic. Just because people are not yelling "in the name of science" or "in the name of atheism" as a battle cry does not mean it was not done for secular reasons.
hitler may have considered himself a christian. its hard to tell. He apparently never attended mass or took sacraments which is frowned upon by catholics. Its obvious that he considered religion a vehicle to accelerate his own goals. so was he a believer, was religion just a tool, or was it both? only hitler knows.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:02 AM)
What do you mean by "centrally controlled"? Please elaborate. My country is the most atheist in the world and we have far less criminality than most other countries. According to most theists, we should be shooting each others on the open street. Please compare us with USA. Now, however, we've received an extreme amount of immigrants(virtually all because of USA), who apart from being poor have brought their religion here, and criminality has since gone up badly.
when the state controls morality, science, and the ability to move the masses bad things can happen at a rapid pace. its far easier to put out an illusion of freedom and free thinking for that matter. Really the masses have no way of knowing what is true and what is not. hitler did use religion, but he primarily used science and logic to defend and push his agenda as did Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And really, the only thing we have learned is how easy it is for someone to do.
sweden, up until now, has remained a fairly homogenous and peaceful country. this makes a lot of things easier. You are importing a lot of people that are of a radically different culture that dont necessarily have a tradition of peace.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:02 AM)
As much as I hate to say it, your belief is of my concern. I don't want to be killed in the name of some unproven God. And frankly, I believe there's a great chance I will.
your fear is largely misplaced. if you want something to fear, fear violent cultures regardless of belief. Mexico is one of the most violent countries in the world. Do you believe they would be any different if they were largely atheist? Do you believe the Zeta's and MS13 would suddenly start saying, "well that doesnt seem rational" and stop all the killing. I have remained un-convinced of the idea that if atheism ruled the world we would all be holding hands and sucking on lolipops. There are plenty of other reasons for us to kill each other over. Atheism is not immune to the human desire for power.
Post by: gronned on March 13, 2008, 04:30:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ Mar 13 2008, 09:10 PM)
with science it is impossible to prove anything, you can only disprove it or fail to disprove it. That is fundamental to the scientific method. your arguement that the lack of a way to test the theory at this moment means that we should not believe it is flawed. The only answer we have is that we dont know. What you choose to do with that answer is based on faith. Agnostics are the only ones here that have any ground to stand on as they choose not to take a stand on the matter.
Is it really flawed? There are way too many things we cannot disprove, yet there's absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe in them, such as Russel's teapot, or any of the other gods out there, such as Zeus, Thor or Vishnu. Do you really think we should not say Zeus cannot exist, because we cannot definitely disprove his existence? Should we really put energy in debating whether it's likely Thor exists or not? I cannot disprove any gods existence, but I find the logical arguments for their non-existence to be overwhelmingly great. If god exists or not, is a yes or no-question, whereas I don't find the question to be a 50-50% shot in whether it's likely or not. With arguments and personal experiences(I guess) you have come to the conclusion that she exists, and likewise I have come to the conclusion with arguments that she cannot exist. Therefore the more arguments we get on the matter, our percentages on the yes or no-scale will differ. Rendering it theoretically possible to switch ones mind with arguments to the opposite side.
I am definitely suggesting I would be able to become a theist if someone could convince me it's likely god exists, or that she shows herself.
QUOTE
as far as being hated, I can tell you that I have never been more hated in my life since I became a christian. mostly by agnostics and atheists calling themselves "humanists". theres some hypocrisy for you. you can argue that they are not true humanists, but I can also argue that the atrocities commited by past theists were not true practitioners. I dont understand the aggression or hatred on the part of atheists. as an atheist, which is how I was raised, I never experienced anything that I would equate to hatred or oppression by christians. That has been my personal experience.
Ok, maybe that's a question about oppressed minorities, over here an absolute majority are atheists or agnostics so maybe the christian minority is cocky because they feel oppressed. I always thought they were cocky because they thought they could do whatever as they were sure they were going to heaven anyway.
QUOTE
are you talking about rationalism as in the rationalist movement? any rate, thats the problem, they were not irrational arguements. they were stone cold logical arguements.
My definition of rational may be wrong, but if killing people in order to achieve some goal is rational, then I need a better explanation(I'm not ironic, btw).
QUOTE
in the past g-d represented a way of life. not necessarily the deity itself. Even then, most of the autrocities were done for power not for the deity. The deity or "way of life" was just a rallying point. Now people fight for numerous secular reasons which are by definition atheistic. Just because people are not yelling "in the name of science" or "in the name of atheism" as a battle cry does not mean it was not done for secular reasons.
Honestly, I respect you in so many ways, but I completely disagree with you here and cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. Sure, the reasons for many of the atrocities by religious people have not been for god herself, but they've always used god to justify their deeds. Practically meaning there was nothing holding them back when they had god's approval. You claim they did not commit atrocities for their gods, but atheists did commit atrocities for atheism? Stalin committed atrocities for a belief in socialism, not because of his non-belief in a deity. I don't really have anything in common with him, Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot apart from our non-belief in a deity that hasn't been proven, meaning we have nothing in common. If you could give me some reasons to believe they did it for the sake of atheism, I'd be more than interested.
QUOTE
your fear is largely misplaced. if you want something to fear, fear violent cultures regardless of belief. Mexico is one of the most violent countries in the world. Do you believe they would be any different if they were largely atheist? Do you believe the Zeta's and MS13 would suddenly start saying, "well that doesnt seem rational" and stop all the killing. I have remained un-convinced of the idea that if atheism ruled the world we would all be holding hands and sucking on lolipops. There are plenty of other reasons for us to kill each other over. Atheism is not immune to the human desire for power.
No atheism is definitely not immune to the desire for power, it's very human actually. I do believe the world would be a better place without religion actually. I'm not talking about some kind of utopia, but a better place where reason will not be interfered with superstition. If you read my third post on the first page I say I've read a quote about how few are non-believers in american prisons versus believers.
Post by: damam on March 24, 2008, 04:07:00 PM
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Is it really flawed? There are way too many things we cannot disprove, yet there's absolutely no logical reason whatsoever to believe in them, such as Russel's teapot, or any of the other gods out there, such as Zeus, Thor or Vishnu. Do you really think we should not say Zeus cannot exist, because we cannot definitely disprove his existence? Should we really put energy in debating whether it's likely Thor exists or not? I cannot disprove any gods existence, but I find the logical arguments for their non-existence to be overwhelmingly great. If god exists or not, is a yes or no-question, whereas I don't find the question to be a 50-50% shot in whether it's likely or not. With arguments and personal experiences(I guess) you have come to the conclusion that she exists, and likewise I have come to the conclusion with arguments that she cannot exist. Therefore the more arguments we get on the matter, our percentages on the yes or no-scale will differ. Rendering it theoretically possible to switch ones mind with arguments to the opposite side.
I am definitely suggesting I would be able to become a theist if someone could convince me it's likely god exists, or that she shows herself.
Your point about the dogmas surrounding a deity are well taken and I agree with them. However, the idea of a creator in general is not that outlandish. Ra, zeus, etc are all references to the same idea that something created all this initially which remains a valid theory about what was going on if and when time=0. Applying morality to that creator is a different topic and bringing names of deities present and past into the discussion is tantamount to building a straw man. Just because the stories of zeus sound funny to us today, does not invalidate the basic theory of a creator which zeus represents.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Ok, maybe that's a question about oppressed minorities, over here an absolute majority are atheists or agnostics so maybe the christian minority is cocky because they feel oppressed. I always thought they were cocky because they thought they could do whatever as they were sure they were going to heaven anyway.
I had someone from England tell me the same thing. That Christians were smug because they thought they were going to heaven. I suppose that those Christians probably do exist, but I dont feel that I am one of them. I can tell you that from my perspective, atheist seem smug because they feel a sense of intellectual superiority. That theists are simpletons, prisoners of flawed thought, etc. I am not confident that I am going to heaven if hell does indeed exist. While I do believe in an after life, I dont really believe in the doctrine of hell. So if there is an afterlife, but no hell, then why would we not all end up in the same place regardless of our faith or lack there of it?
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
My definition of rational may be wrong, but if killing people in order to achieve some goal is rational, then I need a better explanation(I'm not ironic, btw).
The holocaust started with the sterilization of mentally retarded people and ended with the attempted extermination of jews. There are entire books which discuss in detail how this path was followed by the respected philosphers at the time. I simply cannot address the complexity in a forum like this, but I encourage you to read up on it because the parallels to the current rationalist movement to which dawkins and singer are a part of is eerie to say the least. In a nutshell, it started by applying the theories in evolution and other sciences by stating that these people are genetic dead ends so lets sterilize them to ensure they dont reproduce, and moved to these people are genetic dead ends and not fully human so lets just kill them because they are a drain on society so that we can focus on the genetically viable population whom is fully human.
So that would never happen today right? Science, logic, and rationalists philosophy would never be used to justify the killing of innocent human beings today. Well the humanists movement to which Dawkins is a self selected member of have outlined when it is ethical to kill innocent people. For example, Singer, a leading philosopher in the humanist movement and 2004 Humanist of the Year, has stated that "I do not think it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being," He has written papers that justify killing babies one month after which they are born for any reason at all whether it be economic reasons or simply not wanting the responsibility anymore. He has also justified the killing of infants post birth who have any genetic abnormalities at all as they become apparent. Now, I am not sure about Sweden, but in America one thing that is generally agreed upon about abortion is that once the baby is born full term, you should take care of it and otherwise let it live. Yet these are rational arguments put forthe by collegues of dawkins that argue that infanticide is not wrong because while they are humans they are not a fully human person defined as a self conscious being that sees itself over time. Having gone through child bearing and child rearing, I have an extremely difficult time with people saying that the child is not self aware in the third trimester, let alone one month after they are born.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
Honestly, I respect you in so many ways, but I completely disagree with you here and cannot understand how you came to that conclusion. Sure, the reasons for many of the atrocities by religious people have not been for god herself, but they've always used god to justify their deeds. Practically meaning there was nothing holding them back when they had god's approval. You claim they did not commit atrocities for their gods, but atheists did commit atrocities for atheism? Stalin committed atrocities for a belief in socialism, not because of his non-belief in a deity. I don't really have anything in common with him, Hitler, Mao or Pol Pot apart from our non-belief in a deity that hasn't been proven, meaning we have nothing in common. If you could give me some reasons to believe they did it for the sake of atheism, I'd be more than interested.
First, there are people who have killed for their g-d. there is no doubt about it. Bin Laden comes to mind. Also I dont have anything in common with them either, other than I believe in the idea of a creator too. I totally disagree with their methodology.
But Honestly, I dont know how you can separate communism as represented in Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, and Marx and atheism. You, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Dawkins and Marx all seem to agree upon the idea that religion somehow imprisons people, creates the false illusion of happiness, and keeps them from rational thought. You and company also seem to agree that the cure for the prison called religion, is atheism. Mao, Pol Pot, and Stalin sought to do a forced conversions to atheism. Towards that end, they would often kill all the religious leaders first when taking over an area whehter they be christian, muslim, buddhist, etc. Like me, however, you disagree in their methodology to attain an atheist society. The conversion to an atheist society was a key idea of marx actually. Through atheism and rational thought the people would be freed from social constructs and hence would be truly free, or so the story goes. I dont think i am saying anything you are not already aware of though.
QUOTE(gronned @ Mar 13 2008, 12:06 PM)
No atheism is definitely not immune to the desire for power, it's very human actually. I do believe the world would be a better place without religion actually. I'm not talking about some kind of utopia, but a better place where reason will not be interfered with superstition. If you read my third post on the first page I say I've read a quote about how few are non-believers in american prisons versus believers..
Atheist tend to be upperclass people in america so its not exactly the demographic found in prison. Also, religion is seen as a way out of prison by many prisoners. Its often seen as "proof" of a heart felt change of character. So the fact that atheism appears to be 10x lower in prison is skewed.
A world led by people like singer and dawkins would be a scary world indeed. Its a world I dont even think I would recognize. But if you honestly think that it would be a better place and have really read what they are talking about, then all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say hey I guess we disagree on that. I love you to death gronne, but i truly fear this path you are going down. I really encourage you to read deeply into the movements surrounding dawkins to which he has lent his name too. Get beyond the superficial stuff, and start digging into what they are really saying, and the world they invision.
Post by: underworlderZer0 on March 26, 2008, 03:31:00 AM
If one reverses that structure, however, the question ceases to have any mystery whatsoever. Rather than God being a sub-set of existence, existence is a sub-set of God. Furthermore, the world that we can understand and experience is a very limited sub-set of existence.
God
:
Existence
:
Human Experience
:
Personal Experience
Claiming God is not real because you have no evidence for Him is like a tissue cell claiming there's no such thing as Texas based on evidence in the organ in which it is a member.
State
:
Person
:
Organ
:
Cell
"The Tao one can speak upon is not the true Tao".
-Tao Te Ching 1:1
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Panentheism