Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
Everybody who walks the earth is destined to die at some point. It's a depressing thought, however it is nevertheless true. What happens then? Are we just obliterated or is there a life after this one? If there is eternal life, then the next life will be a lot longer than this one. If we win the genetic lottery here, we may live to be 100 years old. Most of us will live a shorter life than this. By comparison, the next life will last forever. Bearing this in mind it is very important to consider how we live this life and to give some serious thought to the choices we make. Unless you subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident then you need to consider what you will say to your maker when you meet Him. The Bible says that we will all face judgement when we die. The Bible also says that all of us have done bad things in the eyes of God, we have all sinned. If we are to be held accountable for these things that we have done, then our eternal destination is going to be very unpleasant. We will not be able to tell God that we deserve to go into His heaven, because we don't deserve to go into His heaven. God has made a way for us to avoid hell, which is where I deserve to go along with everyone else. He sent Jesus Christ to earth to live the perfect life that we couldn't live, pay for our sins with His suffering on the cross and to purchase a place in heaven for us. The way to receive the gift of eternal life is to do the following: 1. Trust Jesus to save you from your sins. 2. Accept Him as your Savior. 3. Make Him the Lord of your life (Giving Him control of your life). 4. Confess your sins to God (He knows them all anyway) and ask Him to forgive you of them. These are not steps to be taken lightly. If you follow Jesus, it can't help but change your life. It will also make the next life a lot more enjoyable.
I subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident.
Fish wrote on Fri, 25 August 2006 23:58 Everybody who walks the earth is destined to die at some point. It's a depressing thought, however it is nevertheless true. What happens then? Are we just obliterated or is there a life after this one? If there is eternal life, then the next life will be a lot longer than this one. If we win the genetic lottery here, we may live to be 100 years old. Most of us will live a shorter life than this. By comparison, the next life will last forever. Bearing this in mind it is very important to consider how we live this life and to give some serious thought to the choices we make. Unless you subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident then you need to consider what you will say to your maker when you meet Him. The Bible says that we will all face judgement when we die. The Bible also says that all of us have done bad things in the eyes of God, we have all sinned. If we are to be held accountable for these things that we have done, then our eternal destination is going to be very unpleasant. We will not be able to tell God that we deserve to go into His heaven, because we don't deserve to go into His heaven. God has made a way for us to avoid hell, which is where I deserve to go along with everyone else. He sent Jesus Christ to earth to live the perfect life that we couldn't live, pay for our sins with His suffering on the cross and to purchase a place in heaven for us. The way to receive the gift of eternal life is to do the following: 1. Trust Jesus to save you from your sins. 2. Accept Him as your Savior. 3. Make Him the Lord of your life (Giving Him control of your life). 4. Confess your sins to God (He knows them all anyway) and ask Him to forgive you of them. These are not steps to be taken lightly. If you follow Jesus, it can't help but change your life. It will also make the next life a lot more enjoyable. I don't believe it.
Bear in mind that the gospels from the Bible were printed over 300 years after Jesus died. Now what you have is a story told by word of mouth, just like "chinese whispers" where the story becomes longer, twisted and more corrupt. The gospels were originally supposed to tell you about his life and were NOT meant to rules our lifes. Think long and hard! We are still believing in things 2000 years later printed by people that thought Thunder was the gods talking. Is there life after death? lets just say that no-one has ever came back to tell me. It is all about faith.
Religions suck
Fish wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 02:58 Everybody who walks the earth is destined to die at some point. It's a depressing thought, however it is nevertheless true. What happens then? Are we just obliterated or is there a life after this one? If there is eternal life, then the next life will be a lot longer than this one. If we win the genetic lottery here, we may live to be 100 years old. Most of us will live a shorter life than this. By comparison, the next life will last forever. Bearing this in mind it is very important to consider how we live this life and to give some serious thought to the choices we make. Unless you subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident then you need to consider what you will say to your maker when you meet Him. The Bible says that we will all face judgement when we die. The Bible also says that all of us have done bad things in the eyes of God, we have all sinned. If we are to be held accountable for these things that we have done, then our eternal destination is going to be very unpleasant. We will not be able to tell God that we deserve to go into His heaven, because we don't deserve to go into His heaven. God has made a way for us to avoid hell, which is where I deserve to go along with everyone else. He sent Jesus Christ to earth to live the perfect life that we couldn't live, pay for our sins with His suffering on the cross and to purchase a place in heaven for us. The way to receive the gift of eternal life is to do the following: 1. Trust Jesus to save you from your sins. 2. Accept Him as your Savior. 3. Make Him the Lord of your life (Giving Him control of your life). 4. Confess your sins to God (He knows them all anyway) and ask Him to forgive you of them. These are not steps to be taken lightly. If you follow Jesus, it can't help but change your life. It will also make the next life a lot more enjoyable. Evangellicals suck.
If there is a god, he would not be the Christian god. Christianity is a religion created by man. Its book, rules, history, and ideals were made by men, not a god. Life was a random mess up, that is untill I see otherwise.
z310 wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 03:06 I subscribe to the notion that life is a random accident. How depressing. puddle_splasher Bear in mind that the gospels from the Bible were printed over 300 years after Jesus died. Bear in mind that the blurb in your science textbook about Sir Isaac Newton's three main laws of physics were written over 400 years after he actually tested them. That's more than 300 years, so according to your logic, we can't believe what is written in our science textbooks today. Hell, according to that logic, we can't believe a single written record, whether scientific, religious, historical, or anything else, older than 100 years. Quote: Think long and hard! We are still believing in things 2000 years later printed by people that thought Thunder was the gods talking. You're right. Let's completely renounce all of our beliefs in all religions AND science and not attempt to learn anything about our environment, nor should we base any of our current knowledge on past experiences and written accounts. j_ball430 Evangellicals suck. NOU Quote: If there is a god, he would not be the Christian god. And you know this to be absolutely true, don't you, despite your complete lack of evidence?
Don't we just love Religious Zealots. You are just the same as the Muslim race. Only problem there, is that they came after Christianity. Have you ever known scientifically, of anyone, animal or any living thing to be resurrected and not after being "dead" for a few seconds or minutes? What you have is Faith and there is nothing wrong with that. However science can and frequently rips the Old Testament apart with stone cold, hard facts. Google "The Dead Scrolls" and learn something different. Do not let yourself become brainwashed. Always ask questions, for there are a lot more questions for every answer that you will be given. Again we still believe in stories written by people who thought that Thunder was God speaking. Even in todays world of science when we have disproved that theory, do people still believe in ancient writings of what was a good mans story of his life and teachings, that was sadly corrupted by a few interpreters 300 years later. What happened to the gospel of Mary Magdalene or the gospel of Josuah of Nazareth? there are approximately another 50+ gospels that have been revealed. Try reading some of them.
Wow I can't believe someone started this topic. Don't people learn to avoid religious discussions? There is nothing that anyone can say, from any religion or point of view, that will sway the other person(s). Religion, or lack thereof is deeply ingrained in people, they are either taught it from childbirth or they have come to their own decision at some point, and in my experience everyone almost violently defends whichever their point of view is. This does not only apply to religious versus non-religious people...I have seen practical knock-down-dragout fights between which god is the "true" god (one person may believe Jesus is the son of God, while another belives in Buddah...one follows the bible and another follows the Koran, etc) There's no winning the "argument", and no amount of pasting what you believe or referencing scientific materials is going to sway the other person one bit, so all that happens is everyone flames each other to death and gets pissed off. There are exceptions to the rule of course, and I have seen calm intelligent discussion on opposing sides...but one thing that I have never seen is someones mind changed due to the discussion.
Dethdeath wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 09:37 Religions suck Religion is great, just look at what it has done for the middle east
Quote: You are just the same as the Muslim race. Only problem there, is that they came after Christianity. Muslims are a race?
(Revised and updated from its last posting; if you notice any inconsistencies and blatant fallacies, let me know.) "Atheist in quotes." *Theist in asteriks.* "God doesn't exist; God is just some fairytale people made up to give purpose to their meaningless lives. It's easy for people to attribute to 'God' that which they cannot explain. I absolutely KNOW there is no God and believe strictly in science and logic." *Sure God exists. How else did we get here, completely unorganized randomness? You call THAT science?* "Well, it all started with the Big Bang…." *What initiated the Big Bang? What even originated the matter that supposedly exploded in the Big Bang?* "It was the result of a long chain of nuclear and chemical reactions among all the concentrated matter." *Still doesn't answer my question as to what originated that matter or what caused those chemical reactions in the first place.* "Why does it have to be created? Like your God, why couldn't it just always have existed without any initial creation?" *Because everything finite, unlike an omnipotent deity, must have a beginning and something that caused it into being. Something outside the realm of our universe must have created it because it couldn't just create itself.* "Sure it could. In fact, when you think about it, matter is hardly finite at all, anyway, since it only changes from one form to another. It has simply always existed." *Yet matter does not have omnipotent powers and cannot create more of itself, nor could it have created itself in the first place, so what created it?* "Haven't we gone over this about five times already? Nothing created it; if anything, it created itself." *So you believe in spontaneous generation of matter out of nothing... (a "theory" science has failed to substantiate with any reputable evidence/experimentation). Why doesn't this seem to happen anymore within our observable realm of space?* "Well, the universe has changed much since the time of the Big Bang. The conditions that caused the Big Bang to occur in the first place aren't present anymore." *Conditions such as...?* "Proper temperature, pressure, close proximity of all matter to itself… stuff like that." *Uh-huh... and what caused all those things to be set just right in order for everything to explode? (Never mind that you still haven't answered my question as to where it all came from.)* "Random collisions and reactions of millions of atoms with each other. All matter was contained in a single point, so billions of reactions could be occurring at the same point in time. The Big Bang occurred when the outward forces caused by the billions of nuclear and chemical reactions became too great for the forces holding the matter together to overcome. KA-BOOM! It swelled up and exploded." *So how did just the right reactions occur at just the right moments to leave us with our current roster of elements, polyatomic ions, etc. and their various properties 'n' such?* "Randomness occurring over an infinite timescale. Given enough time, all possibilities that can happen, will happen. Matter had all the time in the universe to get everything right." *So, you're saying that you believe in an infinite chain of finite, causal events that have no beginning or any outside cause to exist? Also, if time is infinite, how did we ever get to now?* "Which do you want me to answer first?" *Take your pick.* "Time is infinite because it never stops ticking. It has always been ticking and always will be ticking. I assume you're going to ask what initiated time to start its ticking, so let me just ask why it couldn't have always been around just like you claim your God has?" *Because we could never have gotten to this current point in time if we were spending an eternity trying to catch up with ourselves. With no starting point and ending point on an infinitely long line of duration, how could we possibly progress from one spot to the next when we are moving forever into the past?* "Whoa, wait a minute; time flows in one direction. We don't go from present to past; we go into the future at an infinitely fast rate since time does not stop. In fact, you could argue that the past doesn't even exist and that we are just forever transitioning from the present to the future." *Okay… your point?* “Well, we're here in one point in time that instantly progresses to the next…." *Still doesn't explain how we got there in the first place if the starting point is an infinite distance away from where we are now.* "…" *Right…. Let’s move on, to a different point, shall we?* “Okay, let’s.” *You mentioned earlier that “given enough time, all possibilities that can happen, will happen.” Does this include the possibility of total system failure?* “What do you mean by ‘system failure?’” *Meaning that given the right conditions, the entire universe would “undo” itself.* “The universe has ‘undone’ itself already many times over. At some point in time, possibly billions of years from now, all the matter that was flung to the far reaches of space by the Big Bang will come back together at a single point, just like it was from before the Big Bang.” *That’s not what I meant.* “Well, what did you mean, then?” *By total system failure, I meant that the laws governing that entire process, from Big Bang to Big Crunch, will cease to properly function, halting the process altogether and destroying all matter in the universe. This is certainly a possibility, and according to you, all possibilities have already occurred, meaning we shouldn’t be here having this discussion since the universe should have been zapped out of existence an infinity ago.* “…Obviously, since we’re still here, this hasn’t happened, meaning…” *…Meaning not all possibilities have happened or are happening at the same time (like string theory tells us) since one of those possibilities is the possibility of total system failure that would negate existence… meaning we aren’t on an infinite timescale (since we haven’t been blinked out of existence yet)… meaning our universe had a definite starting point when something outside the boundaries of our physical laws caused it into being.* “*sigh* There’s nothing I can do with you, is there? You’re just too blindly devoted to this idea of a higher being just so you can feel morally superior to me. Congratulations, you religious zealot.” *How am I being a religious zealot if all I did was logically defend the idea of a higher power outside the realm of this universe that caused it into being? If anything, that’s only the agnostic point of view and doesn’t even bring other religions into play. I haven’t even BEGUN to delve into the logic behind my belief in the Christian god Jehovah….* “That’s because GOD DOES NOT EXIST.” *Funny how you keep saying that, yet you aren’t able to defend it, it seems.* “I don’t NEED to defend it because IT’S TRUE!” * *scoff* Who’s the religious zealot now?*
You are brainwashed and unable to think for yourself P.S. delve into the true meaning behind "The Rampant Lion" on your crest. Prepare to be shocked, its about your religion. Start thinking Templar Knights and Christianity and before anyone says, "Oh, thats that D'Vinci code", no, its not mentioned in there. No! Its not about being a Scotsman. Thats a red lion on a yellow background.
I think you'll find, Hydra, that such Atheists are in minority.
Hydra wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 16:07 (Revised and updated from its last posting; if you notice any inconsistencies and blatant fallacies, let me know.) ... In fact, when you think about it, matter is hardly finite at all, anyway, since it only changes from one form to another. It has simply always existed." *Yet matter does not have omnipotent powers and cannot create more of itself, nor could it have created itself in the first place, so what created it?* "Haven't we gone over this about five times already? Nothing created it; if anything, it created itself." *So you believe in spontaneous generation of matter out of nothing... (a "theory" science has failed to substantiate with any reputable evidence/experimentation). Why doesn't this seem to happen anymore within our observable realm of space?* So, first the atheist says that matter has always existed, and then for some reason he says "if anything, it created itself" which is a completely different case, and the rest of the conversation is based on that statement... This is an interesting text but seems too made-up for me. Matter could be infinite, i.e. it has always existed, and no, I don't understand why it should thus be omnipotent as well.
puddle_splasher wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 14:33 You are brainwashed and unable to think for yourself P.S. delve into the true meaning behind "The Rampant Lion" on your crest. Prepare to be shocked, its about your religion. Start thinking Templar Knights and Christianity and before anyone says, "Oh, thats that D'Vinci code", no, its not mentioned in there. No! Its not about being a Scotsman. Thats a red lion on a yellow background. "One religion may have gotten it wrong! Therefore God must not exist!" Ugh... please. Will people stop arguing the falacies of relgion in their quest to prove that God does not exist. Religion and God have nothing in common other than the idea of worshiping a divine being. The ideas of religion are human-made. There have been 1000's of different religions throughout history. Yet NONE of those being wrong either proves or disproves the existance of God. Quote: Have you ever known scientifically, of anyone, animal or any living thing to be resurrected and not after being "dead" for a few seconds or minutes? I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. Quote: However science can and frequently rips the Old Testament apart with stone cold, hard facts. I'd like to see some of these facts (Honestly).
This idiot posted this to stir up shit and I'll leave it at that just like the rest of you should.
For religion to claim that a "god" or "intelligent being" created the universe is just closed-minded. And even IF there was a "god" who put the big bang into motion, it does NOT mean we need to worship it/her/him and it DOESN'T mean that anything in the Bible is more than a big bunch of brainwashing hooey. It also does NOT mean there's a heaven or a hell. I prefer to remain open minded about where we came from until and unless science finds a cause (quantum physics is awesome).
Just in relation to your "what if" scenario: Very true. It's a concept of humanity as to how to interpret "God".
Crimson wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 22:47 For religion to claim that a "god" or "intelligent being" created the universe is just closed-minded. And even IF there was a "god" who put the big bang into motion, it does NOT mean we need to worship it/her/him and it DOES mean that anything in the Bible is more than a big bunch of brainwashing hooey. It also does NOT mean there's a heaven or a hell. I prefer to remain open minded about where we came from until and unless science finds a cause (quantum physics is awesome). How the fuck is that being closed-minded? I choose to believe in something and disagree with other things. So? If that's the case then EVERYBODY is closed minded to some extent. I'm not denying that there IS a possibility that there's no God or no Heaven and Hell. However, I choose to believe differently. Just as you choose to believe that there's nothing. Believing in nothing is still believing in something... a principle, an idea, a thought. If we're going to play those semantics, then you're closed-minded in saying that I'm closed-minded. I think you're wrong, therefore, your opinion isn't absolute and thusly closed-minded. Quit playing these games. You think you're right. I think I'm right. Neither of us can prove each other wrong, so leave it at that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, so to tell me I'm wrong (or closed-minded) gets you nowhere because you have no factual evidence supporting your claim as I don't have any factual evidence supporting my claim.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 00:00 Quit playing these games. You think you're right. I think I'm right. Neither of us can prove each other wrong, so leave it at that. God can neither be proven nor disproven, so to tell me I'm wrong (or closed-minded) gets you nowhere because you have no factual evidence supporting your claim as I don't have any factual evidence supporting my claim. Blazer wrote There's no winning the "argument", and no amount of pasting what you believe or referencing scientific materials is going to sway the other person one bit, so all that happens is everyone flames each other to death and gets pissed off. There are exceptions to the rule of course, and I have seen calm intelligent discussion on opposing sides...but one thing that I have never seen is someones mind changed due to the discussion.
warranto wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 16:01 Quote: Have you ever known scientifically, of anyone, animal or any living thing to be resurrected and not after being "dead" for a few seconds or minutes? I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. People to this day are still being raised from the dead. it IS a fact. There are stories all over the internet, and heck, even videos if you search hard enough.
Crimson wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 22:47 For religion to claim that a "god" or "intelligent being" created the universe is just closed-minded. And even IF there was a "god" who put the big bang into motion, it does NOT mean we need to worship it/her/him and it DOES mean that anything in the Bible is more than a big bunch of brainwashing hooey. It also does NOT mean there's a heaven or a hell. I prefer to remain open minded about where we came from until and unless science finds a cause (quantum physics is awesome). Psuedo-intellectual bullshit isn't going to get you anywhere.
I'm not a "pseudo" intellectual, thank you very much.
Crimson wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 22:47 For religion to claim that a "god" or "intelligent being" created the universe is just closed-minded. Implying everyone following a religion is "close-minded" doesn't really help your argument. Crimson wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 22:47 And even IF there was a "god" who put the big bang into motion, it does NOT mean we need to worship it/her/him and it DOES mean that anything in the Bible is more than a big bunch of brainwashing hooey. Can you back that up at all? I'm an atheist. Fire away.
Oh no! I need to give myself up to a higher power! I can't save myself! Lol, I found a pamphlet about it lying around on the ground in the U.S. while I was on vacation. I laughed. kk?
I said "DOES" when I meant "DOESN'T". Corrected.
icedog90 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 00:26 warranto wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 16:01 Quote: Have you ever known scientifically, of anyone, animal or any living thing to be resurrected and not after being "dead" for a few seconds or minutes? I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. People to this day are still being raised from the dead. it IS a fact. There are stories all over the internet, and heck, even videos if you search hard enough. I already stated that we do not want to know of people that have been "dead" for seconds or minutes, because that argument goes along the lines that say:- because the heart stops doesnt mean you are dead. When all body functions stop, thats really when you are dead. the heart pumps blood that carries the oxygen that goes to the brain.......blah blah blah, its all medical. However ther is NO-ONE that has ever brought anyone BACK FROM BEING DEAD. It does take a genius to understand and accept this, even the village idiot comprehends that his pet mouse is dead. otherwise every grave will be getting dug up and everyone coming back to us. The person that has crowned and understands better than most is BLAZER. We can discuss all day and no-one will change their minds. Its a totally useless discussion. Stick with your faith until you see your younger brother dead at 27, followed on a few years later by his Son, my nephew 15. Then tell me there is a God working for a better need and we will still argue otherwise. Ask me if I believe in God and you will get another different concept. We shall see when my time comes if I was right.
puddle_splasher wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 06:01 icedog90 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 00:26 warranto wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 16:01 Quote: Have you ever known scientifically, of anyone, animal or any living thing to be resurrected and not after being "dead" for a few seconds or minutes? I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. People to this day are still being raised from the dead. it IS a fact. There are stories all over the internet, and heck, even videos if you search hard enough. I alreadyu stated that we do not want to know of people that have been "dead" for seconds or minutes, because that argument goes along the lines that say:- because the heart stops doesnt mean you are dead. When all body functions stop, thats really when you are dead. the heart pumps blood that carries the oxygen that goes to the brain.......blah blah blah, its all medical. However ther is NO-ONE that has ever brought anyone BACK FROM BEING DEAD. It does take a genius to understand and accept this, even the village idiot comprehends that his pet mouse is dead. otherwise every grave will be getting dug up and everyone coming back to us. The person that has crowned and understands better than most is BLAZER. We can discuss all day and no-one will change their minds. Its a totally useless discussion. Stick with your faith until you see your younger brother dead at 27, followed on a few years later by his Son, my nephew 15. Then tell me there is a God working for a better need and we will still argue otherwise. Ask me if I believe in God and you will get another different concept. We shall see when my time comes if I was right. Cryonics poses an interesting twist to that way of thinking though. I'm not an expert on the matter, but doesn't the body lose all activity when deep-frozen? Sure, we can't revert the process yet, but it shouldn't be impossible.
puddle_splasher wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 04:01 Stick with your faith until you see your younger brother dead at 27, followed on a few years later by his Son, my nephew 15. Then tell me there is a God working for a better need and we will still argue otherwise. Ask me if I believe in God and you will get another different concept. We shall see when my time comes if I was right. LOL. Yes, I'm laughing at you. One of those people who thinks God doesn't exist because something bad happened to him. Pathetic. You're going to claim that something doesn't exist, simply based on the fact that "he let something [that you didn't like] happen"? Oh my goodness, how much more pathetic can you get? Why should an unfortunate thing such as death prove one way or the other as to God's existance. All that proves is that he won't be there at your beck and call. I mean, grow up. Oh but wait, "why would God let things happen if he really exists?", right? That'sa religious concept. Something HUMANS thought up. That doesn't mean that it is true. It may be, and perhaps there is a reason something that bad happened, but it doesn't mean it's a fact. Perhaps God simply doesn't care... but that doesn't mean that there is no God, just one that doesn't care. Quote: However ther is NO-ONE that has ever brought anyone BACK FROM BEING DEAD. It does take a genius to understand and accept this, even the village idiot comprehends that his pet mouse is dead. otherwise every grave will be getting dug up and everyone coming back to us. I already gave you one example.
glyde51 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 02:56 Oh no! I need to give myself up to a higher power! I can't save myself! Lol, I found a pamphlet about it lying around on the ground in the U.S. while I was on vacation. I laughed. kk? Why is it that we're mocked because we believe in something we can't see? Do you not have faith that you will have a house tomorrow? You don't know if that'll be true until the day ends. It's a physical impossibility unless you have some sinister plan to burn down the house or have it destroyed by some other means. Why is that so much easier to believe in than a higher being? Simply because you've had a roof over your head for your entire life? That doesn't mean anything when tomorrow comes and your house suddenly goes up in flames. Yet, you still believe that you're going to be in your bed tomorrow night in the comfort of your own home. The fact is, you believe in something that you can't see. I believe in something that I can't see. The only difference is what I can't see is a little bit more life-changing. Disagree with my beliefs? Fine, but don't dare mock me because I believe in something.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:17 Why is it that we're mocked because we believe in something we can't see? Do you not have faith that you will have a house tomorrow? You don't know if that'll be true until the day ends. It's a physical impossibility unless you have some sinister plan to burn down the house or have it destroyed by some other means. Why is that so much easier to believe in than a higher being? Simply because you've had a roof over your head for your entire life? That doesn't mean anything when tomorrow comes and your house suddenly goes up in flames. Yet, you still believe that you're going to be in your bed tomorrow night in the comfort of your own home. The fact is, you believe in something that you can't see. I believe in something that I can't see. The only difference is what I can't see is a little bit more life-changing. Disagree with my beliefs? Fine, but don't dare mock me because I believe in something. Faith and belief are two vastly differing concepts that get routinely used in place of each other. Faith is an epistemological conundrum because it defines objectively that which is not known or further; knowable. Belief is a concept similar to desire, or more appropriately: hope. Consider belief to be "hopeful necessity", which encompasses both adjectives fully. When someone says they have faith in something, they are by association encompassing belief through that faith. For if you can make the jump that a certain god is (Biblical or not), you must also have the hope that such a god exists. However, it is possible to believe that a god is, but not be so arrogant as to suggest that any concept of such a god is knowable through faith. That is why I say that I believe that God exists, albeit God is unknowable so I don't pretend to have faith in any component of Him.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:17 glyde51 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 02:56 Oh no! I need to give myself up to a higher power! I can't save myself! Lol, I found a pamphlet about it lying around on the ground in the U.S. while I was on vacation. I laughed. kk? Why is it that we're mocked because we believe in something we can't see? Do you not have faith that you will have a house tomorrow? You don't know if that'll be true until the day ends. It's a physical impossibility unless you have some sinister plan to burn down the house or have it destroyed by some other means. Why is that so much easier to believe in than a higher being? Simply because you've had a roof over your head for your entire life? That doesn't mean anything when tomorrow comes and your house suddenly goes up in flames. Yet, you still believe that you're going to be in your bed tomorrow night in the comfort of your own home. The fact is, you believe in something that you can't see. I believe in something that I can't see. The only difference is what I can't see is a little bit more life-changing. Disagree with my beliefs? Fine, but don't dare mock me because I believe in something. What? I was laughing because it said I couldn't save myself, and in order to save myself (from an unknown problem) I'd have to give myself up to a higher power. I'm not laughing because it said a "higher power" or something. Misreading things for the win.
puddle_splasher wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 03:01 I already stated that we do not want to know of people that have been "dead" for seconds or minutes, because that argument goes along the lines that say:- because the heart stops doesnt mean you are dead. When all body functions stop, thats really when you are dead. the heart pumps blood that carries the oxygen that goes to the brain.......blah blah blah, its all medical. However ther is NO-ONE that has ever brought anyone BACK FROM BEING DEAD. It does take a genius to understand and accept this, even the village idiot comprehends that his pet mouse is dead. otherwise every grave will be getting dug up and everyone coming back to us. The person that has crowned and understands better than most is BLAZER. We can discuss all day and no-one will change their minds. Its a totally useless discussion. Stick with your faith until you see your younger brother dead at 27, followed on a few years later by his Son, my nephew 15. Then tell me there is a God working for a better need and we will still argue otherwise. Ask me if I believe in God and you will get another different concept. We shall see when my time comes if I was right. I'm afraid you're one of the "worse" arguers/debaters. I was also talking about people who have been dead for hours, or days. You're getting way ahead of yourself and fighting something that isn't even there in this thread. The only person who is trying to change people's minds here in this topic is the starter. He (or she) hasn't posted ONE reply, and you're running around saying that everyone is trying to change another's mind. Please, knock it off and wake up. We're only defending anything that has to do with Christianity, ourselves, and anything else that has been defended in here.
Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:26 However, it is possible to believe that a god is, but not be so arrogant as to suggest that any concept of such a god is knowable through faith. That is why I say that I believe that God exists, albeit God is unknowable so I don't pretend to have faith in any component of Him. Well, to me, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. While I don't know this to be true, and cannot further be proven, this is what I accept as truth.
I'm pretty anti religic. its just not right, most religions have done so many bad things. Priests raping kids, wars and all that stuff. and I don't believe things I cannot see, touch or feel .
Religion is cheap. Religion is easy. It gives a simpliestic answer to the near unanswerable. In response to Hydra's sample Athiest/Theist coversation: The evidence backing up the religious, creationist answer is no more concrete than the big bang theory. True, I cannot explain how the world came to be, but "The guy up there did it" is just too simple of an answer. Religion was created by man, taking Christianity as an example (Because it's widespread), The bible was written and published by men. The gospels were men. Their stories were about men. The prophets were men. Jesus is believed to be the son of god, but he was on earth in the form of man. Religion is an institution created by man. So it's absolutely teaming of human error. I cannot--and will not--spend my life muttering into the sky hoping for things to go my way. History tells us (Or at least, it tells me) that more harm from good comes from the institution of religion. Therefore I avoid it.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:35 Javaxcx wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:26 However, it is possible to believe that a god is, but not be so arrogant as to suggest that any concept of such a god is knowable through faith. That is why I say that I believe that God exists, albeit God is unknowable so I don't pretend to have faith in any component of Him. Well, to me, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. While I don't know this to be true, and cannot further be proven, this is what I accept as truth. It's entirely possible to accept something as truth and admit it unprovable. You accept it as truth because you believe it to be true; not because you are as arrogant as to say it is objectively true and of that there is no question. Faith is a stubborn mistriss, and would do even the most devout believers good to be rid of it.
pulverizer wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:35 I'm pretty anti religic. its just not right, most religions have done so many bad things. Priests raping kids, wars and all that stuff. and I don't believe things I cannot see, touch or feel . Religions are created by man and are prone to corruption due to that fact. Don't refuse to put faith or belief into a higher power simply because man has corrupted every aspect of it. It doesn't mean that the idea is corrupt, just the result of man's follies. As for not believing in things you cannot see... you do all the time. Do you not put trust in others? You can't see, touch, or feel people's true intentions. You don't know if they're out to get you or not, yet you still put trust in them.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 08:44 Do you not put trust in others? You can't see, touch, or feel people's true intentions. You don't know if they're out to get you or not, yet you still put trust in them. Well, personally I put trust exclusively in people who have proved trustworthy before, such as close friends and family. People who I've had past experiences with, which make me reasonable sure of their intentions. Which renders your arguement ineffective, since relgions don't have an equivilent for past experiences, except for "I was raised a (Insert relgion here)", which is a stupid reason to believe in anything. Or "I once had (Insert random 'miricle' here) happen to me!", which usually gets giant holes punched in it. And you can "feel" a person's intentions, in a way. Can't you tell when someone is lying, or when someone means you harm? Trust isn't "given" to anyone or "put" anywhere. It's earned.
pulverizer wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 09:35 I don't believe things I cannot see, touch or feel . Ugh.. too easy. I almost can't help myself. Let's see here... things you can not see, touch, or feel: The fact that your parents are truly your own parents; Molecules; The mind ( I don't mean the brain, but rather the consciousness); The Ozone layer; Space; Other planets; Radio waves; Wireless internet signals; Electricity; Data being written to a hard drive; ok, that's enough for now.
Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:53 Well, personally I put trust exclusively in people who have proved trustworthy before, such as close friends and family. People who I've had past experiences with, which make me reasonable sure of their intentions. Which renders your arguement ineffective... Again with my argument with glyde, you're only relying on what you know from past experiences. That has no bearing if tomorrow someone goes behind your back and ruins any and all trust that you had in them. Simply because you trusted them before doesn't mean they'll keep being trustworthy. You, however, believe that they will.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 08:58 Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 11:53 Well, personally I put trust exclusively in people who have proved trustworthy before, such as close friends and family. People who I've had past experiences with, which make me reasonable sure of their intentions. Which renders your arguement ineffective... Again with my argument with glyde, you're only relying on what you know from past experiences. That has no bearing if tomorrow someone goes behind your back and ruins any and all trust that you had in them. Simply because you trusted them before doesn't mean they'll keep being trustworthy. You, however, believe that they will. Shit happens. If someone does that, I stop trusting them, since my past experiences with them and now muddied with backstabbery. But basically, yeah. People who have been trustworthy in the past have a tendency to keep being trustworthy. I don't see anything wrong with that.
warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 08:54 pulverizer wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 09:35 I don't believe things I cannot see, touch or feel . Ugh.. too easy. I almost can't help myself. Let's see here... things you can not see, touch, or feel: The fact that your parents are truly your own parents; Molecules; The mind ( I don't mean the brain, but rather the consciousness); The Ozone layer; Space; Other planets; Radio waves; Wireless internet signals; Electricity; Data being written to a hard drive; ok, that's enough for now. Human senses are far from perfect, but all these things can be captured, utilized, measured, controlled, or a combonation of the above. God is not a measureable quantity.
True, but with the things I listed, you still "cannot see, touch or feel" them. Besides, in order for what you say to be true, you have to either do all that data calculation yourself, or trust that you are being told the truth... something else that you "cannot see, touch or feel".
History has proven things like: -DNA testing for parental testing -Electron microscopes -Those brain-activity-measure-doohickies -Telescopes -Radios -Wireless internet routers -Electricity -Hard drives To hold truth almost all the time. The same cannot be said for God.
I think you can "feel" thrust. but what is thrust? I'd never tell anyone my creditcard number. not even my best friend, if you know what I mean. and what I ment with I don't believe in things I cannot see/feel etc, is like "god".
While this is a great argument, what is the point? Can anyone tell me what they hope to accomplish at the end of this topic?
Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 10:22 History has proven things like: -DNA testing for parental testing -Electron microscopes -Those brain-activity-measure-doohickies -Telescopes -Radios -Wireless internet routers -Electricity -Hard drives To hold truth almost all the time. The same cannot be said for God. Oh? You mean youre going to believe what someone said, in some book? YOU have not proven it, therefore all you can do it take the word of someone else, who could very much be lying in some sort of grand scheme. DNA is only available as proof, if you believe the person interpreting the results of an experiment, that you did not do, is correct. the measurement of brain activity in no way proves a conciousness exists. It just measures... brain activity. Telescopes prove nothing, other than you can see what the telescope tells you to see. You didn't follow it through the production stage, so you have no way of knowing if what you say is true. It could very well be a large-scale lie in order to get you to believe something is a certain way. Radios also prove nothing. You have no way of knowing if it is "radio waves" that are transmitting the voice, or some sort of magic. You must rely on what someone else told you that things are they way THEY say they are. Once again, you have not proven that electricity exists. You are chosing to believe what someone else told you about it's existance. For all you know, it could, once again, be magic that makes things run. Hard drives are simply a device that we are told is used to store data. We don't actually know if data is being written to it. We simply choose to believe what someone else told us about it. For all you know, it could be little creatures that can only carry small things, and those creatures are what transport the "data" to our screen. Quote: and what I ment with I don't believe in things I cannot see/feel etc, is like "god". Sorry, that excuse doesn't work. Modifying your reasoning to create exceptions, just to make yourself right, in no way gives your argument credibility. In fact, most people who do that are considered to be dillusional, and often end up requiring psychological help. It would be the same thing as using the following as a defence against murder. You: "I killed that guy, but it wasn't murder." Judge: "Why?" You: "Because that guy is exempt from being murdered, because I say so. Only if someone else was killed would it be murder!"
runewood wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 10:55 While this is a great argument, what is the point? Can anyone tell me what they hope to accomplish at the end of this topic? (Double post, I know) I can't speak for others, but what I'm hoping is that people will stop using such awful arguments when trying to prove their reasoning. I could care less who believes in God, or not; just stop with arguments that are so fallacious.
warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 12:59 runewood wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 10:55 While this is a great argument, what is the point? Can anyone tell me what they hope to accomplish at the end of this topic? (Double post, I know) I can't speak for others, but what I'm hoping is that people will stop using such awful arguments when trying to prove their reasoning. I could care less who believes in God, or not; just stop with arguments that are so fallacious. Yeah, that's pretty much my same intention.
But thier reasoning cant be proven wrong and nor can yours. Its like is star wars a good movie, is cake good, ect. It cant be proven one way or the other. So even if u argue with with for years nothing will change.
warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 09:56 Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 10:22 History has proven things like: -DNA testing for parental testing -Electron microscopes -Those brain-activity-measure-doohickies -Telescopes -Radios -Wireless internet routers -Electricity -Hard drives To hold truth almost all the time. The same cannot be said for God. Oh? You mean youre going to believe what someone said, in some book? YOU have not proven it, therefore all you can do it take the word of someone else, who could very much be lying in some sort of grand scheme. DNA is only available as proof, if you believe the person interpreting the results of an experiment, that you did not do, is correct. the measurement of brain activity in no way proves a conciousness exists. It just measures... brain activity. Telescopes prove nothing, other than you can see what the telescope tells you to see. You didn't follow it through the production stage, so you have no way of knowing if what you say is true. It could very well be a large-scale lie in order to get you to believe something is a certain way. Radios also prove nothing. You have no way of knowing if it is "radio waves" that are transmitting the voice, or some sort of magic. You must rely on what someone else told you that things are they way THEY say they are. Once again, you have not proven that electricity exists. You are chosing to believe what someone else told you about it's existance. For all you know, it could, once again, be magic that makes things run. Hard drives are simply a device that we are told is used to store data. We don't actually know if data is being written to it. We simply choose to believe what someone else told us about it. For all you know, it could be little creatures that can only carry small things, and those creatures are what transport the "data" to our screen. If you'll notice, I said that history has proved these things to be true. While I may not be an expert on the way radio waves are supposed to function, I know that when I turn on my radio and tune to a certain frequency, I hear my favorite radio station. I know this, because it has happened every time I turn it on, without fail. The same with the other things. I know electricity exists, because when I flip the switch in my room a light comes on. Is that switch connected to magic? Are my parents getting a monthly Magic bill? I don't visually survey my hard drive when I install Renegade on it, but I know it's been installed and by whatever means, Renegade's data has been stored on my hard drive. I don't pretend to be an expert in any of these things (Especially the electron microscopes and DNA testing), but I believe they work, because up until now they've worked. God is a different story. God moves in mysterious ways. God helps those whom he/she chooses. You cannot compare the two at all. All these (modern) technologies that you listed are in measureable quantities and above all, they're consistant. These are two qualities that religions as a whole lack. So is what I'm saying that I'll become a believer when someone can bottle God? Yes. Not when I touch it, or I see it, or I feel it, but when you can put it in a labratory and examine it and pick it apart. The day preists and other religious leaders stop shrugging their shoulders whenever you ask them something that isn't a default bible-answered question is the day I become a holy-roller.
[quote title=warranto wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 19:01] I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. [quote] If you cannot witness the book that is filled with words, then HOW CAN IT TELL YOU HIS NAME WAS JESUS? therefore what you say and see is a lie, or a made up phalacy. It is but a dream, a story, its but a thought in your interpretation of a misconceived idea. Have you looked up, yet again "Joshua Of NaZareth" or are you scared to read and see both sides of the coin/story?
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 08:35 Well, to me, God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. While I don't know this to be true, and cannot further be proven, this is what I accept as truth. Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Thus is the paradox that disproves the combined omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of this so-called God. Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 08:40 Religion is cheap. Religion is easy. It gives a simpliestic answer to the near unanswerable. In response to Hydra's sample Athiest/Theist coversation: The evidence backing up the religious, creationist answer is no more concrete than the big bang theory. True, I cannot explain how the world came to be, but "The guy up there did it" is just too simple of an answer. Religion was created by man, taking Christianity as an example (Because it's widespread), The bible was written and published by men. The gospels were men. Their stories were about men. The prophets were men. Jesus is believed to be the son of god, but he was on earth in the form of man. Religion is an institution created by man. So it's absolutely teaming of human error. I cannot--and will not--spend my life muttering into the sky hoping for things to go my way. History tells us (Or at least, it tells me) that more harm from good comes from the institution of religion. Therefore I avoid it. Dover, that is awesome. I doubt it would sway any religious people into disbelief but it is exactly how I feel about religion.
Crimson wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 17:27 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? The irony of the paradox you've described is that it is as guilty of defining God by human standards as those who scream Biblical phrases at abortion parties. The bolded section is the loose thread. The concept of "evil" seems to be an unwritten definition. I suggest to you that it is possible that what we deem "evil" in nothing but a sensual means to an ends. It is utterly possible that pain, to God, is not bad or evil at all but as wholesome as apple pie. It is arrogence to say that our definition of evil is the same as God's (whatever it may be), and thus to judge HIM by our standards is more or less a joke.
Crimson wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 17:27 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Thus is the paradox that disproves the combined omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of this so-called God. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't he desire to have no "evil", be able to prevent it, yet restrain Himself? Is it because that's not your view on how a god should act? If so, who are you to define that which you cannot measure? It's entirely possible that God chooses to let man have free-will, therefore He restrains Himself from preventing man from having that free-will.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 15:32 Crimson wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 17:27 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Thus is the paradox that disproves the combined omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience of this so-called God. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't he desire to have no "evil", be able to prevent it, yet restrain Himself? Is it because that's not your view on how a god should act? If so, who are you to define that which you cannot measure? It's entirely possible that God chooses to let man have free-will, therefore He restrains Himself from preventing man from having that free-will. If such is the case, j_ball, what does God do? Why does he/she exist, if not to guard mankind from evil? If God does nothing, why should mankind worship him/her? Isn't it also entirely possible that God is a human invention, thought up to explain the unexplainable and give the masses some comfort? Edit: Looking back, this sounds a bit flimsy. Disregard this post if you'd like...
Crimson wrote on Sat, 26 August 2006 22:47 (quantum physics is awesome). Awesome? The only thing awesome about quantum physics is how it proves even smart people can be idiots. I'll never understand how a whole branch of physics developed around a principle like 0+0=1. The best way to see the flaws in quantum physics is to pick up something and let go of it. If it falls, you just disproved quantum physics. According to quantum physics, gravity doesn't exist. Yeah, I know it's off topic, but I couldn't help myself. Quantum physics is just so... so... stupid.
Nothing you said has anything to do with quantum physics. You shouldn't bash things you don't know about. It's like saying that HTML sucks "because of the apples"...in other words, your arguments make no sense and just show that you don't know what you are arguing about...so what is stupid then?
Quantum physics is premised on the idea that all sub atomic particles are zero dimensional. They are infinitely nothing, yet they are supposed to be the 'building blocks' of reality. How do you build with something that isn't there? In principle, 0+0 equals 1 according to quantum physics. Things that don't have size come together to form size. Things that have no dimension come together to form dimensions. Nothing added to nothing makes something in quantum physics. When applied to reality, the chaotic frenzy stated to exist by quantum theory doesn't allow gravity to exist. The equations that form quantum physics not only can't explain it, they deny it to be possible. Gravity is the easiest force for a person to test for (drop something), yet quantum physics would deny the possibility. It's why string theory even came about. Quantum mechanics is so incapable of explaining things, it needs to be replaced.
All I'm going to say is LOL and suggest you actually read up on quantum physics. I've read many books on the subject and its obvious to me that you have not. Until then I hope you stop saying crazy things like quantum physics says that gravity doesn't exist and other things that are totally false. If anything the true nature of the universe is something that we cannot truly comprehend, and things like quantum mechanics are the closest we can come to explaining things. In short, I'm not a quantum physicist, but science has been a passion of mine for as long as I can remember, and I have read more than my share of books on quantum physics. Most of what you have said is stuff that makes me go "wtf is he talking about". I understand what you are saying, and the meaning you are trying to convey. I'm just saying that the examples you provide are NOT describing quantum physics. Quantum physics does not say that 0+0=1. It would be more accurate to say that a bit could be both a 0 or 1, depending on how (or if) it is measured.
Dover wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 15:14 If you'll notice, I said that history has proved these things to be true. While I may not be an expert on the way radio waves are supposed to function, I know that when I turn on my radio and tune to a certain frequency, I hear my favorite radio station. I know this, because it has happened every time I turn it on, without fail. But why (or how) does the box the sound come out of get that sound? Quote: The same with the other things. I know electricity exists, because when I flip the switch in my room a light comes on. Is that switch connected to magic? Are my parents getting a monthly Magic bill? They could be. Can you prove that electricity is what we are told it is? Quote: I don't visually survey my hard drive when I install Renegade on it, but I know it's been installed and by whatever means, Renegade's data has been stored on my hard drive. I don't pretend to be an expert in any of these things (Especially the electron microscopes and DNA testing), but I believe they work, because up until now they've worked. It has been installed, but how is it stored? They work the way they've worked, yes. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you don't know HOW/WHY they work the way they do. You simply choose to believe what you are told, seemingly on the principle that it does what they say it does. Quote: God is a different story. God moves in mysterious ways. God helps those whom he/she chooses. You cannot compare the two at all. All these (modern) technologies that you listed are in measureable quantities and above all, they're consistant. These are two qualities that religions as a whole lack. Who says God has no "measurable quantities"? (though that would be the wrong term, after all, even humans have no "measurable quantities"). Perhaps we just haven't discovered the means to "measure" him. Quote: So is what I'm saying that I'll become a believer when someone can bottle God? Yes. Not when I touch it, or I see it, or I feel it, but when you can put it in a labratory and examine it and pick it apart. The day preists and other religious leaders stop shrugging their shoulders whenever you ask them something that isn't a default bible-answered question is the day I become a holy-roller. So, are you saying that because the means to "measure" it are not currently available, you say it does not exist? (Careful how you answer that) Quote: If you cannot witness the book that is filled with words, then HOW CAN IT TELL YOU HIS NAME WAS JESUS? therefore what you say and see is a lie, or a made up phalacy. It is but a dream, a story, its but a thought in your interpretation of a misconceived idea. Err... witness the book? All I have to do is pick it up and read it to tell you that his name was Jesus... Quote: Have you looked up, yet again "Joshua Of NaZareth" or are you scared to read and see both sides of the coin/story? err.. perhaps you can direct me to a specific link? After 10 pages on Google, all I found was that it's another name for Jesus. I fail to see what that has to do with the resurrection (or lack thereof) of someone.
j_ball430 wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 15:32 Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't he desire to have no "evil", be able to prevent it, yet restrain Himself? Is it because that's not your view on how a god should act? If so, who are you to define that which you cannot measure? It's entirely possible that God chooses to let man have free-will, therefore He restrains Himself from preventing man from having that free-will. He's your god, not mine.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8545585184878490822 &q=michael+tsarion This is a few hours long, but its interesting.
Is this all a project for you and your Church? Are you getting a badge for demonstrating a willingness to discuss religion? Are you getting a furher badge for imposing on us your interpretation, just as all Jehovahs witnesses and mormons do? Nothing here is being proven, merely ripped apart slowly but surely like a Jack-Russel with a huge bone. Yet still you have not answerewd a simple question or are you avoiding it. You say that you believe in a book that you are not allowed to see? therefore the book could be full of blank pages and still you believe in it?
warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 But why (or how) does the box the sound come out of get that sound? Through some process a radio-wave expert could tell you more about. Although it's true that I'm being told something and I believe it, and I can't say for sure if radio waves exist or not, but for whatever reason, when I turn on my radio I hear good music. I know this and take this to be fact, because it has happened every time I turn on my radio. How can you argue with that? I hear the music. Everyone else who walks into my room hears the music. The effect is consistant with all radios within a mile of mine. Consistancy. Even religious people can't agree on how God works, or doesn't work. warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 They could be. Can you prove that electricity is what we are told it is? See above. warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 It has been installed, but how is it stored? See above. warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 They work the way they've worked, yes. But that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that you don't know HOW/WHY they work the way they do. You simply choose to believe what you are told, seemingly on the principle that it does what they say it does. If I had the desire to, I could probably study up on how all these things work. Maybe even learn first hand (Hopefully not with the electricity), but that's not the important part. HOW/WHY is irrelevant. The fact is that they do. All the time. CONSITANCY. It makes no difference if it's called "electricity" or "magic". Those are just words. Labels. In Bulgarian, it's called "Tok", but it refers to the same thing. warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 Who says God has no "measurable quantities"? (though that would be the wrong term, after all, even humans have no "measurable quantities"). Perhaps we just haven't discovered the means to "measure" him. Humans have measurable quantities. We live, we die. We have a weight and height. We occupy a certain amount of space at one given point in time. We can bench press a certain amount of weight. We can measure how large our muscles are. How many words per minute we type, etc. The list goes on. You cannot measure God. God does not live or die. Have a height and weight, occupy space or time, have any limit on what he/she bench presses, has no muscles to measure, and doesn't type. What means could you possibley use to measure God? warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 So, are you saying that because the means to "measure" it are not currently available, you say it does not exist? (Careful how you answer that) Currently availible is one thing, but God can never be measured. By nature, God is immeasurable because he/she "Exists somewhere out there", and Jesus "is everywhere", like Santa Clause knowing when you're sleeping and when you're awake. I'm not saying that a means of measuring God is not currently availible. I'm saying that God, by nature, is immeasureable. warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 18:43 Err... witness the book? All I have to do is pick it up and read it to tell you that his name was Jesus... I've read lots of things in my life not, and I've learned that not everything I've read is true. Even works of non-fiction have been falsified. How do you know his name was Jesus? It could have been Bob or Tom or Joe or Dover or Warranto. How do you know?
Quote: Is this all a project for you and your Church? Are you getting a badge for demonstrating a willingness to discuss religion? Are you getting a furher badge for imposing on us your interpretation, just as all Jehovahs witnesses and mormons do? Nothing here is being proven, merely ripped apart slowly but surely like a Jack-Russel with a huge bone. You started the topic.... Quote: Yet still you have not answerewd a simple question or are you avoiding it. You say that you believe in a book that you are not allowed to see? therefore the book could be full of blank pages and still you believe in it? Actually ask a question, and I will attempt to answer it. I can see the book whenever I want. (Looks over to bible, opens it) Oh? It has pages with words that I can actually see! Quote: The effect is consistant with all radios within a mile of mine. Consistancy. If consistancy is all that matters, people have been quite consistant in the belief that God exists. Far longer than people have been telling us radio waves exist. Quote: HOW/WHY is irrelevant. Sorry, but you're wrong here. How and why are the most important factors of understanding the truth of something. Why do you think people believed that rain was caused directly by a supreme being for so long? No one bothered to answer the why or how for themselves... they just decieded to believe the why and how that someone else of authority told them. Quote: umans have measurable quantities. We live, we die. We have a weight and height. We occupy a certain amount of space at one given point in time. We can bench press a certain amount of weight. We can measure how large our muscles are. How many words per minute we type, etc. The list goes on. Those are aspects of the human. Not the human itself. If you want to use the aspects of something to prove it's measurability, we could use the universe itself to "measure" God. The only problem is, we can not readily identify what God is reponsible for in order to measure it. The human, itself can not be measured. We are not just chemicals making up a body. There are still a multitude of unkowns that prevent us from measuring ourselves. Apply this to your next statement as well. Quote: I've read lots of things in my life not, and I've learned that not everything I've read is true. Even works of non-fiction have been falsified. How do you know his name was Jesus? It could have been Bob or Tom or Joe or Dover or Warranto. How do you know? I don't. But then again, how do you know that the person named "George Washington", actually had that name? How do you know that ANY historical figure actually had the name it did. If you question one historical text, you have to question them all.
puddle_splasher Is this all a project for you and your Church? So we can't defend our beliefs (and ourselves) without having some alterior motive besides getting you idiots to stop trying to disprove that of which you cannot? puddle_splasher Are you getting a badge for demonstrating a willingness to discuss religion? Again, it's merely defending our beliefs. It's what you're doing in here, too, else you wouldn't be trying to disprove us. puddle_splasher Are you getting a furher badge for imposing on us your interpretation, just as all Jehovahs witnesses and mormons do? Read above. puddle_splasher Nothing here is being proven, merely ripped apart slowly but surely like a Jack-Russel with a huge bone. Nothing's being disproven, either. puddle_splasher Yet still you have not answerewd a simple question or are you avoiding it. What one? The one about raising dead? I think icedog mentioned it, but you just haven't responded. It's answering your question whether or not you choose to respond to it. puddle_splasher You say that you believe in a book that you are not allowed to see? therefore the book could be full of blank pages and still you believe in it? Umm, I can see, touch, caress, kiss, lick, eat, and even smell my Bible. It's very much a physical object that is obtainable. You can do the same thing. You can go to any store like Target, go to the book section, and you'll probably see a Bible. Go ahead, pick it up, open it, read it. Maybe you'll learn something.
warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 05:39 people have been quite consistant in the belief that God exists. Far longer than people have been telling us radio waves exist. Is that some kind of joke? There are a million and a half religions all with their own idea of how God works, and they defend it to the death. It's truely a rare thing to get two random people together and have them agree on religion. The very fact that we're argueing about this now is proof that religion isn't consistant. Meantioning all the wars fought and attrocities commited because of religions would be overkill. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 05:39 Sorry, but you're wrong here. How and why are the most important factors of understanding the truth of something. Why do you think people believed that rain was caused directly by a supreme being for so long? No one bothered to answer the why or how for themselves... they just decieded to believe the why and how that someone else of authority told them. You can't compare the rain and radios. Radios are made by man. They're a tool constructed from raw materials for a purpose. Their inventor (a man), and constructor (also a man), would be considered an authority on how the radio works. If you can't believe them, who can you believe? warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 05:39 Those are aspects of the human. Not the human itself. If you want to use the aspects of something to prove it's measurability, we could use the universe itself to "measure" God. The only problem is, we can not readily identify what God is reponsible for in order to measure it. I'll believe it when it happens. How do we use the Universe to measure God? I used to have a pretty crazy imagination when I was younger, but I can't even begin to think of how someone would measure God, let alone using the Universe. At any rate, humans having measureable aspects is more than you can say for God. You can't even find God, much less measure him/her. How are you going to point at something and say "There, that right there. That's God." warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 05:39 The human, itself can not be measured. We are not just chemicals making up a body. There are still a multitude of unkowns that prevent us from measuring ourselves. No, we're not just chemicals. There's a spark there in a live body that's missing in a dead body. Conciousness, personality. That's what you mean, right? Who says that can't be measured? There are personality tests and other mountains of garbage like that. Dating websites and "See-which-career-is-right-for-you" tests are based on being able to measure personality. It may not be perfect, or even accurate in some cases, but it's a measurement nonetheless. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 05:39 I don't. But then again, how do you know that the person named "George Washington", actually had that name? How do you know that ANY historical figure actually had the name it did. If you question one historical text, you have to question them all. The bible has been translated and retranslated more times than either you or I can fathom. I'm sure that there aren't two words next to each other that have been kept the same. No other historical text can boast this, giving the bible a wider margin of error than any other historical text. If the bible itself did not exist, was never written, all copies were destroyed, or whatever, modern Christianity would not exist. Does that mean that them modern Christian God would not exist? I say he/she would not.
Quote: Is that some kind of joke? There are a million and a half religions all with their own idea of how God works, and they defend it to the death. It's truely a rare thing to get two random people together and have them agree on religion. The very fact that we're argueing about this now is proof that religion isn't consistant. Meantioning all the wars fought and attrocities commited because of religions would be overkill. Ugh.. as I said... they ALL believe that God exists. I mean, how many different types of lightbulbs are their? How many different types of electrical current? How many different types of computer processors? IF you're going to argue the particulars of a subject, then NOTHING is consistent. I mean, radio waves have a near infinite type of amplitude and frequency. Quote: You can't compare the rain and radios. Radios are made by man. They're a tool constructed from raw materials for a purpose. Their inventor (a man), and constructor (also a man), would be considered an authority on how the radio works. If you can't believe them, who can you believe? I'm not comparing ancient beliefs of rain and current beliefs of radio, I'm comparing the source of the belief as to how they are. BOTH deal with someone telling someone else how they work, and that recieving person simply believing it at face value. Quote: At any rate, humans having measureable aspects is more than you can say for God. You can't even find God, much less measure him/her. How are you going to point at something and say "There, that right there. That's God." And that proves his lack of existance... how? Quote: No, we're not just chemicals. There's a spark there in a live body that's missing in a dead body. Conciousness, personality. That's what you mean, right? Who says that can't be measured? There are personality tests and other mountains of garbage like that. Dating websites and "See-which-career-is-right-for-you" tests are based on being able to measure personality. It may not be perfect, or even accurate in some cases, but it's a measurement nonetheless. Once again, you're measuring the particularities of a human, not humanity itself. Quote: The bible has been translated and retranslated more times than either you or I can fathom. I'm sure that there aren't two words next to each other that have been kept the same. No other historical text can boast this, giving the bible a wider margin of error than any other historical text. The bible is also considered to be the most accurately and carefully translated text. No other historical text can boast that either. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ (Link speaks to how accuracy was a focal point) If you can't trust the accruacy of the bible, you can't trust the accuracy of ANY translated historical text. Quote: If the bible itself did not exist, was never written, all copies were destroyed, or whatever, modern Christianity would not exist. Does that mean that them modern Christian God would not exist? I say he/she would not. Not quite. The Christian interpretation of God would not exist. The lack of an interpretation does not disprove the existance of anything.
[quote title=warranto wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 07:01I do. His name was Jesus. I know this because a book, filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself, tells me so. [quote] The above is what you said. My question was:- If you are not able to witness for yourself, a book filled with words, then how can you claim to know what is in it? Afterall that is what you said. Perhaps you meant to say that you HAVE seen and witnessed a book filled with words, but that is not what you wrote. Now before we go any further, it should be known that I do not attend church or do any religious things, but I do believe in "A Supreme Being", now if people want to call that person GOD then who am I to say otherwise. God has many names "Jehovah" is but one name for him but I imagine that you knew that. You say that I didnt reply to "Cryogenics"? I have never heard of anyone being deep frozen on purpose and being thawed out after a considerable period of time and being brought back to life. Here is another thought, bear in mind that we have "Born again Christians", people that have seen the light. Is it not possible that this was how Jesus was brought back from the dead (or outside world of disbelievers) and came into a new world, (of believers) one with the light that knowledge brings. It may all sound figurative, because thats what it is. So for everyone else, figuratively speaking, they may die, fall by the wayside, be led astray, fall upon hardship in life. Only to be born again, after finding Faith in any religion. To see the light in a different way, to see the new world and be born again. Thus the parable may be interpreted differently, But thats all this is, interpretations. No amount of discussion can change that. Thats what faith is all about, especially if it brings comfort.
My mistake, I was speaking in a dialect foreign to you called "legalese" To witness something written in law means to see it actually being written. (Specifically, a signature). Applying that to what I wrote, "filled with words that I am not able to witness for myself" means someone wrote the words, but I was not able to see them write it. Quote: Is it not possible that this was how Jesus was brought back from the dead (or outside world of disbelievers) and came into a new world, (of believers) one with the light that knowledge brings. Except that when you take into account that Jesus had been crucified, and then stabbed with a spear and left hanging to bleed out, it's hard to imagine "death" meaning anything other than what it says.
warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 Ugh.. as I said... they ALL believe that God exists. I mean, how many different types of lightbulbs are their? How many different types of electrical current? How many different types of computer processors? IF you're going to argue the particulars of a subject, then NOTHING is consistent. I mean, radio waves have a near infinite type of amplitude and frequency. No, they don't all believe God exists. I don't. The buddhaist belief doesn't believe. Some religions belive in many Gods, which the Christian faith does not. Some religions believe in one god which is a God different from the Christian God. All lightbulbs function the same way. All computer processors compute the same information. All radio waves have the same, consitant shape. There is nothing about religion that's consistant. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 I'm not comparing ancient beliefs of rain and current beliefs of radio, I'm comparing the source of the belief as to how they are. BOTH deal with someone telling someone else how they work, and that recieving person simply believing it at face value. I'd think that radio's inventor (Whoever he/she may be) or constructor (again, whoever he/she may be) will be more of an authority on how the radio works than an ancient holy man is an authority on how rain works. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 And that proves his lack of existance... how? It doesn't, but it makes proving his existance quite a bit harder. And if you can't prove his existance, what do you have to begin with? You, Warranto, can't disprove the existance of the invisible purple flying unicorn, but that doesn't mean that the invisible purple flying unicorn exists. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 Once again, you're measuring the particularities of a human, not humanity itself. How else do you measure something? You measure how big, how wide, how many, what color, it's mass, etc. I say again, God has no particlarities to measure. None of those things I just meantioned apply. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 The bible is also considered to be the most accurately and carefully translated text. No other historical text can boast that either. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ (Link speaks to how accuracy was a focal point) If you can't trust the accruacy of the bible, you can't trust the accuracy of ANY translated historical text. Perhaps it was a bad idea to bring up how well the bible has been translated, since I don't know much about it. In any case, you're probably right here. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 07:31 Not quite. The Christian interpretation of God would not exist. The lack of an interpretation does not disprove the existance of anything. That's my point. God has never moved beyond an idea, a theory. This, partly, accounts for God's lack of measureablity. How do you measure an idea?
Quote: No, they don't all believe God exists. I don't. The buddhaist belief doesn't believe. Some religions belive in many Gods, which the Christian faith does not. Some religions believe in one god which is a God different from the Christian God. All lightbulbs function the same way. All computer processors compute the same information. All radio waves have the same, consitant shape. My mistake, I should included that one. ONE exception out of them all. But if you want to talk about "exceptions".. not all light bulbs function the same way. Continuing without that exception, the number of Gods doesn't matter. The idea God exists is still the same. Quote: I'd think that radio's inventor (Whoever he/she may be) or constructor (again, whoever he/she may be) will be more of an authority on how the radio works than an ancient holy man is an authority on how rain works. IF the inventor knows, what makes you think he'd actually tell you the truth regarding it? You have no choice but to believe him regarding that aspect. Quote: It doesn't, but it makes proving his existance quite a bit harder. That's nice... it was established many threads ago that you can not prove the existance of him. However, you can not disprove his existance either. Quote: How else do you measure something? You measure how big, how wide, how many, what color, it's mass, etc. So, humanity is "simply" the sum of its parts? Well, so much for the consciousness (yet to be measured).. I guess that the thought process is ONLY a chemical reaction. Quote: That's my point. God has never moved beyond an idea, a theory. This, partly, accounts for God's lack of measureablity. How do you measure an idea? Kind of like the THEORY of evolution, no?
runewood wrote on Sun, 27 August 2006 14:48 But thier reasoning cant be proven wrong and nor can yours. It certainly can be proven incorrect and fallacious when the whole premise of the arguments is based on logical fallacies. All we're doing is pointing out the logical fallacies in them and asking you all to defend your positions without contradicting yourselves and without negating your entire arguments. Dover There is nothing about religion that's consistant. "Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal - these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace." -Boondock Saints How can you say that when so many religions have so much in common? Many of them believe in a higher power, whether it's one power or many powers; many of them have moral codes to which its followers should adhere--it goes against just about every religion to steal from your neighbor, lie to your neighbor, and kill your neighbor (except Islam; they're allowed to kill infidels (I wonder how many atheists are ready to jump up and defend Islam now that I said that...)). So many religions have certain rituals they practice during which they try to grow closer to their deity: Christians pray and have baptisms and confirmations; Muslims pray five times a day, worship in mosques, etc.; Buddhists meditate to remove their thoughts from reality in an effort to reach Nirvana; Hindus worship whatever god they choose and perform rituals specific to that god. Again, I ask, how can you say that religion is inconsistent?
The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? You tell us this crazy story of an immaculate conception and a big imaginary friend who grants us our wishes if we ask but only if he wants to because he has a plan for you from the moment you're born until the day you die, but oh yeah, you have free will even though "God" has a plan for you. You tell us this crazy story about this imaginary dude and challenge US to disprove his existence? Sounds like a huge COP OUT to me, theists! The burden of proof is on YOU, not ME. I don't have to disprove "God"'s existence to affirm my decision to not believe in this "God" character. If you want me to believe and participate in your rituals, you need to convince me that he exists. And in the nearly 27 years I've been here, everyone has failed. The funniest part is that you all come down to the argument that basically says "You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists." What the fuck kind of retarded garbage is that? "God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Be good or you'll get coal in your stocking/go to hell!
Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:23 e simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. Why does it have to be logical? A lot of things aren't logical. Love is an example. Love isn't logical. Sure, we can explain it with chemical reactions and brain functions, but it's still not logical. How can something so irrational be logical? You can't choose who you love. You can't decide that you can only love this type of person. Sure, you can try and convince yourself of it, but true love cannot be forced.
You will find that psycological conditions and emotions do follow some form of logic. The mind is a complex organ, but it is not free some the constraints put upon it by causality.
Javaxcx wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:51 You will find that psycological conditions and emotions do follow some form of logic. The mind is a complex organ, but it is not free some the constraints put upon it by causality. As does the idea of a higher power.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:23 The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? You tell us this crazy story of an immaculate conception and a big imaginary friend who grants us our wishes if we ask but only if he wants to because he has a plan for you from the moment you're born until the day you die, but oh yeah, you have free will even though "God" has a plan for you. You tell us this crazy story about this imaginary dude and challenge US to disprove his existence? Sounds like a huge COP OUT to me, theists! The burden of proof is on YOU, not ME. I don't have to disprove "God"'s existence to affirm my decision to not believe in this "God" character. If you want me to believe and participate in your rituals, you need to convince me that he exists. And in the nearly 27 years I've been here, everyone has failed. The funniest part is that you all come down to the argument that basically says "You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists." What the fuck kind of retarded garbage is that? "God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Be good or you'll get coal in your stocking/go to hell! We're not (or, rather, I'm not) trying to place any burden on you to disprove it. That is, unless you're going to come and say "I KNOW he does not exist". If you know it, then you will be able to prove it. The same goes with people who claim to KNOW that God exists. And, to point it out again, God /= religion. Claiming that God does not exist on the basis of one religion "getting it wrong", as you claim, has no bering on the overall existance or nonexistance of God. I could care less whether or not you choose to believe in God, or to follow a particular religion. Just don't go claiming you "KNOW" the answer, because I will challenge you to prove your knowledge every time. "You can't explain how we got here, therefore God exists."? I have never once claimed that. Anything remotely resembling that was when I stated that the idea of the universe coming into existance is just as likely to be explained as attributable to God, as the only other alternatives, spontaneous creation or non-creation (has simply always existed). Quote: "God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist!
Oye...another one of these threads. I'll break this down as much as possible: Athiests think there is no God. No one will ever convince them otherwise, it's pointless to try. Monothiests, the light bulbs in Warrano's arguement if you will, will always believe there is a sole God. No one will ever convince them otherwise, it's pointless to try.
If you're pointing to us, nobody here is trying to convince another. The topic starter hasn't replied at all.
gbull wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 13:26 Monothiests, the light bulbs in Warrano's arguement if you will, will always believe there is a sole God. No one will ever convince them otherwise, it's pointless to try. Sorry, couldn't help it... See, when you believe in God, the lights come on! ok, bad joke. Don't use this as an arguement for anything... Edit: Quote: The topic starter hasn't replied at all. Meh, probably just someone who joined for the sole purpose of amusing him/herself while we get riled up over the topic.
warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:13 Quote: "God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist! You know damned well that I am referring to the modern day version of "Santa Claus", the fat jolly guy who can deliver presents around the world in one night and flies in a sleigh, and will fill your stocking with coal if you misbehave during the year. That story is no more or less ridiculous than the story of a god who sends you to an imaginary hell or heaven when you die.
Quote: The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? You tell us this crazy story of an immaculate conception and a big imaginary friend who grants us our wishes if we ask but only if he wants to because he has a plan for you from the moment you're born until the day you die, but oh yeah, you have free will even though "God" has a plan for you. Well the burden of proof is on you considering you're saying God doesn't exist. When you call someone a liar, aren't you expected to prove that they're lying? When you say we went to war for oil, aren't you supposed to prove it? Or do we just make bullshit accusations and expect the other party to make up for it?
You are the one with this strange story about a mystical conscious being who created the world for us. Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story! On the same token, there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Now you must provide evidence that there isn't one. Why should I have to prove that there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage? You're the one calling me a liar, now you have to prove it!
I agree with you in the sense that you have a unicorn in your garage... Mostly because I don't care enough to disagree. Why should you have to prove it to be false? Because if you were ever interested in a true discussion of dieties and whether or not they exist, you'd give reasons we could discuss without having to resort to childish games like "flying spaghetti monster"
Crimson The burden of proof is NOT on Atheists! We simply do not believe in this particular something that there is no logical evidence for the existence of. The burden of proof is on YOU who believe. Why do you all keep trying to pin it on us to DISPROVE the existence of "God"? As Warranto said, you place the burden of proof on yourself when you claim "I ABSOLUTELY KNOW GOD DOES NOT EXIST." Besides, we've already given our logical reasoning behind our belief in the existence of god (none of this could have suddenly created itself out of nothing; some initial cause had to make it all happen), yet all you have been able to do so far is attack our logic rather than come up with alternatives of your own (of course, I don't mean you specifically, Crimson). You all base your arguments on fallacious, circular reasoning ("How can you believe in a book, written 2000 years ago, meant to persuade and control the masses? I'm going to believe in another book written 500 years ago meant to persuade and control masses TO BELIEVE DIFFERENT THINGS! MY ARGUMENT SO MUCH BETTER!!!"), while you have yet to punch holes in any of our arguments. Simply saying "YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO!!" won't do much to discredit any of our arguments (which, so far, have been pretty much based on agnosticism as opposed to Christianity). We've already given our logical evidence for our belief in a higher power; now it's your turn to give us your logical evidence of HOW YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW there is no such higher power instead of simply attacking us with the same fallacious arguments. Quote: Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story! That's exactly what I'm talking about. Right there. "I DON'T HAVE TO DISCREDIT YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG ANYWAY BECAUSE I SAY SO" There's got to be a name for that kind of logical fallacy, isn't there If we're so wrong, then give us an alternative and explain your reasoning for it, and we'll see if it can hold up when put to the logic test.
I still don't get it, I guess. I don't believe there's a "God". I don't know why I have to prove he doesn't exist. If you want me to believe in "God", I need proof. If someone tells me that that I can turn this radio on an adjust an antenna and I'll receive music from waves in the air, I can turn on the radio and get music and believe them. If someone tells me that if I turn on a light bulb, then light waves will come from the bulb and bounce off nearby objects and hit receptors in my eyeball, and I turn on a light and can see things around me, I believe in the existence of light waves. But, if someone tells me that there's a holy being in the sky (or wherever you say he is) that I can see NO trace of evidence for, then I'm just not going to believe that "he" exists. I won't say that I know for a fact that there is no "God", but it ranks low on the probability charts. Really, really low. The problem is that I'm stuck with two sets of people: 1) Those of you who believe in "God" AND one of the religions that worships "him". 2) Those of you who believe no religion has it right and all forms of worship are bullshit, but you believe in a conscious being who created us. When I argue against one, the other one attacks me. And you guys can't even see it, or maybe you thrive on it to continue to look like you're getting somewhere.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:09 warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 12:13 Quote: "God" is just a grown-up version of Santa Claus, a concept invented by man as a way to control people en masse. Only one problem with your arguement. Santa Clause does, or rather did, exist! You know damned well that I am referring to the modern day version of "Santa Claus", the fat jolly guy who can deliver presents around the world in one night and flies in a sleigh, and will fill your stocking with coal if you misbehave during the year. That story is no more or less ridiculous than the story of a god who sends you to an imaginary hell or heaven when you die. And the modern day version is a perversion of the "real" Santa Clause. But, I'll take your exclusion of the story (as I was permitted one of my own when dealing with Buddism). The difference here is that there is real evidence to prove that a person, magical or not, named Santa Clause does not exist. All you have to do, is look at everyone who went without presents this year. However, as has been stated by both sides repeatedly, there is no proof as to the existance of God. We possess the ability to "Know" that Santa Clause, in his current inagination, is not real. We do not have that luxury with the idea of God. Quote: You are the one with this strange story about a mystical conscious being who created the world for us. Why do I have to prove that's false? I'm not the one making up a story! True, but you are the one claiming you "know" it's false.
Crimson wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 15:08 If someone tells me that that I can turn this radio on an adjust an antenna and I'll receive music from waves in the air, I can turn on the radio and get music and believe them. If someone tells me that if I turn on a light bulb, then light waves will come from the bulb and bounce off nearby objects and hit receptors in my eyeball, and I turn on a light and can see things around me, I believe in the existence of light waves. Those were never in question. What was in question, related to those examples is the why/how. Sure, you turn it on and get music; that can be easily observed. Now, HOW do you get the music to the radio? We are told radio waves, but must rely on "the experts" who tell us that. Sure, you can turn on a light bulb and get light. Now, HOW does it light up? We are told electricity, but must rely on "the experts" who tell us that.
warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 14:15 True, but you are the one claiming you "know" it's false. No I'm not.
warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 My mistake, I should included that one. ONE exception out of them all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions One exception? I think not. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 But if you want to talk about "exceptions".. not all light bulbs function the same way. I've never met a light bulb who's function wasn't to create light. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 Continuing without that exception, the number of Gods doesn't matter. The idea God exists is still the same. But the details matter. The gods of the Roman and Greek myths are remarkably similar to men, both in their bodies and in their actions. The Christian god has no physical form, "moves in mysterious ways", "Is the one true god", and is omnipotent/omniciant. Scientology doesn't have a God. Pagan Gods each have differant functions and limitations. Who is right? A lot of these religions claim the exact opposite of each other. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 IF the inventor knows, what makes you think he'd actually tell you the truth regarding it? You have no choice but to believe him regarding that aspect. Fine. I guess I'm forced to admit that there is a slight possibility that there's a worldwide conspiricy involving the true functionality of the radio. I don't believe it, but it's possible. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 That's nice... it was established many threads ago that you can not prove the existance of him. However, you can not disprove his existance either. Excuse me, then. I'm relatively new to the Politics subforum. But as Crimson said in a reply above mine, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the atheists, like I hinted at in my Invisible Purple Flying Unicorn rant above. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 So, humanity is "simply" the sum of its parts? Well, so much for the consciousness (yet to be measured).. I guess that the thought process is ONLY a chemical reaction. It's nice to romanticize humanity and glue glitter onto individual thought and personality, but yeah. It's a chemical reaction, and here's some proof to back it up. When people have thought processes, certain chemical reactions are present. When people don't have thought processes, certain chemical reactiosn are absent. warranto wrote on Mon, 28 August 2006 09:58 Kind of like the THEORY of evolution, no? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution Too bad that theory has soon measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it, eh?
If you're not then I apologise. I guess I misinterpreted some of your more deliberate comments about making things up.
Quote: One exception? I think not. I see nothing in that link that suggests other religions do not believe in God. Quote: I've never met a light bulb who's function wasn't to create light. Ugh.. read what I write. the FUNCTION is not in question. the WHY/HOW it does what it does, is. Quote: Scientology doesn't have a God. Oh, really? Quote: Does Scientology have a concept of God? Most definitely. Scientology affirms the existence of a Supreme Being, although its dogma is unique and does not include the worship of one. http://www.scientology.org/en_US/news-media/faq/pg015.html Quote: But the details matter. Nope, the details don't. All the details do is dictate how one is different from the other. They all (I know, I know) believe in God. Quote: Fine. I guess I'm forced to admit that there is a slight possibility that there's a worldwide conspiricy involving the true functionality of the radio. I don't believe it, but it's possible. But, if you have no proof, why believe? Quote: But as Crimson said in a reply above mine, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the atheists, It does once the athiest states that he/she "knows" the answer. Quote: When people have thought processes, certain chemical reactions are present. When people don't have thought processes, certain chemical reactiosn are absent. Is that ALL it is though? Science has yet to prove even that. True that chemicals are part of the equations, but is it all the equation? Quote: Too bad that theory has soon measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it, eh? Too bad it's still a theory, huh? And one that is not as of yet "measureable, touchable, feelable, tasteable, concrete proof behind it," And remember, the idea that is may be provable sometime in the future has no bearing on it being real or not. It's whether or not it's provable "now", correct? After all, that's your arguement against the lack of proof of God, right? No measurable proof at this time?
I give up. Have your damn war and kill eachother so I can have peace.