Question about atheists

This is a discussion on Question about atheists within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; You still have disproved the apparition. It would be interesting if you looked into it because I have of yet ...

  1. #121
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    You still have disproved the apparition. It would be interesting if you looked into it because I have of yet found a rational explanation except for talk that it is a UFO
    The problem you face is the success of science.

    If we lived in a world where as many planes were powered by prayre as by turbine engines, where religion was as good at offering up predictions as science, if science's window for explaining something was relatively small (ie. if something couldn't be explained in say 2 weeks it never would be)

    Then any unexplained phenomena could be reasonably attributed to supernatural origin, unfortuneately for you we don't live in that world, planes built to supernatural specifications do not fly, and supernatural predictions invariably fail (end of the world anyone?).

    Because of this, evidence for something supernatural has to be pretty impressive, it doesn't merely have to be unexplained it has to be fundamentally unexplainable. Fleeting glimpses of "something" that can be interpretted willy-nilly and that look suspiciously like tricks of light doesn't cut it.

    50 feet high burning letters, that spell out the solution to quantum gravity, can be observed indefinatey to break almost every law of physics and induce a physiologically measureable feeling of happyness and well-being in anyone who observed said message, would cut it.

    Given the success in explaining the other Mary mass sightings, it seems reasonable to suggest that this one like all the others has an explanation, the fact that seismic activity correlates well with the phenomena also seems to be a remarkable coincidence.

    Why would God choose a sign, that looks so dubious? Why not the burning letters?

  2. #122
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    Because of this, evidence for something supernatural has to be pretty impressive, it doesn't merely have to be unexplained it has to be fundamentally unexplainable. Fleeting glimpses of "something" that can be interpretted willy-nilly and that look suspiciously like tricks of light doesn't cut it
    She stayed up there once for 18 hours.

    50 feet high burning letters, that spell out the solution to quantum gravity, can be observed indefinatey to break almost every law of physics and induce a physiologically measureable feeling of happyness and well-being in anyone who observed said message, would cut it.
    Why do you even assume that there is a solution? Can you prove even the existance of a solution? Why even assume that the system can be completely modeled using mathematics as we know it?

    Given the success in explaining the other Mary mass sightings, it seems reasonable to suggest that this one like all the others has an explanation, the fact that seismic activity correlates well with the phenomena also seems to be a remarkable coincidence.
    What does any correlation with seismic activity have to do with the apparition? I'd hardly call that a success.

    Why would God choose a sign, that looks so dubious? Why not the burning letters?
    I don't think God is in the signs business. However I'm not sure what you are asking for. In 2000 years there was never evidence of an apparition like this. Sure you had the disciples who saw Jesus, but never multiple photographs with the apparition seen by millions. The church was build on a vision of Mary where she said that she would return in 50 years.

  3. #123
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    If we lived in a world where as many planes were powered by prayre as by turbine engines, where religion was as good at offering up predictions as science, if science's window for explaining something was relatively small (ie. if something couldn't be explained in say 2 weeks it never would be)

    Then any unexplained phenomena could be reasonably attributed to supernatural origin, unfortuneately for you we don't live in that world, planes built to supernatural specifications do not fly, and supernatural predictions invariably fail (end of the world anyone?).
    If you think the purpose of religion is to compete with science, or to try to break the laws of physics, then your entire idea of religion is flawed.

    If I look at a painting, and try to find the meaning within, does it negate the meaning if you can tell me how the artist created it? Would it only be art if it came into being by some hypermagical origin?

    You people seem to simply reiterate arguments that religion only can exist in the areas science can't explain. This is plain foolish, religion isn't an attempt to explain how the universe works, religion is an attempt to find meaning in the universe. If you looked at a painting, with no knowledge at all about paints, you might find it amazing that something like that could exist. But, if you truly appreciate the art, you find it no less amazing when you learn exactly how it was created.

    The fact that the painting was created with a brush and paint doesn't lessen the art.

  4. #124
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    She stayed up there once for 18 hours.
    18 hours isn't enough time to study a phenomena.

    Why do you even assume that there is a solution? Can you prove even the existance of a solution?know it?
    Fine then not quantum gravity, something else equally unsolved.

    Why even assume that the system can be completely modeled using mathematics as we
    The only way a system could be unmodelable, would be if it was magic.

    Everything non-magic can be modeled, in theory you could model something with 100% accuracy, in practice you can't because in many instances you have to simplify things to make them analytically solveable.

    What does any correlation with seismic activity have to do with the apparition? I'd hardly call that a success
    Its not meant to be, its just somewhat coincidental don't you think?

    I don't think God is in the signs business.
    Then what is this mary malark, about?

    However I'm not sure what you are asking for. In 2000 years there was never evidence of an apparition like this.
    There have been plenty of supposed sightings of mary this is just another one.

    Sure you had the disciples who saw Jesus, but never multiple photographs with the apparition seen by millions.
    But i don't think its an apparition at all, it looks to me like an amorphous blob of light, you see thats the point its open to interpretation.

    And no, i don't know how it was created, assuming those photos aren't fakes, but its not enough to indicate supernatural, because there is nothing to suggest its -unexplainable- as i said, because science is so successfull at explaining things, (even the most remarkable ghost stories that seem pretty convincing on first glance can be explained away) evidence of supernatural has to be a lot better than this.

    The church was build on a vision of Mary where she said that she would return in 50 years.
    Pah that sounds exactly like all the other mary sigthings that have been debunked: myth.
    Last edited by Clyde; 08-10-2003 at 12:02 PM.

  5. #125
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    If you think the purpose of religion is to compete with science, or to try to break the laws of physics, then your entire idea of religion is flawed.
    But if God were to perform miracles, or if the soul existed, then they would be breaking the laws of physics.

    If I look at a painting, and try to find the meaning within, does it negate the meaning if you can tell me how the artist created it? Would it only be art if it came into being by some hypermagical origin?
    Say you don't know anything about the painting, you look at it, you find "meaning" in it somehow..... you know, i don't even understand what means here, if i look at a painting and it makes me feel sad or happy, or makes me thing about something, is that finding meaning in it?

    You can do all that without adding on definitive claims behind this "meaning".

    You can just look at the universe, look at life, and find it amazing just like the painting, you don't have to say its "meaningfull" because there IS a God, and he DOES this, those are definitive claims.

    You people seem to simply reiterate arguments that religion only can exist in the areas science can't explain. This is plain foolish, religion isn't an attempt to explain how the universe works
    But it still makes definitive claims, it makes claims over the nature of reality, it doesn't just offer a way of thinking about things or a guide to life it actually says "the universe is like this" - that is why its not compatible with science, because science makes exactly the same kind of claim.

    religion is an attempt to find meaning in the universe.
    "Meaning", this word keeps coming up, if what you mean by it is that religion is trying to find the significance of humanity in the universe, trying to find out what makes humanity special, then it's looking something that's not there. What's more if anything was going to show that, it would be science, if humanity was somehow special, if our existance was somehow "meaningfull" on a universal scale then science would show it. But at the moment it looks pretty certain that of itself its not, not in that sense, we as human beings are not particularly significant, in fact we are spectacularly insignificant as Carl Sagan pointed out when he said:

    "We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering"

    Humanities existance does not come with some kind of cosmic "meaning" attached, BUT that doesn't matter. Thats right its totally irrelevent, you can find wonder, contentment, satisfaction, everything in short that makes life worth living, without needing cosmic "meaning".

    The only way for a religion not to clash with science is for it not to make definitive claims, leave science to sort out whats real and whats not, and focus instead on aiding humanity come to terms with how the world really is, and how to go about living life, instead of inventing Gods, or souls or afterlives.

    That would be a compatible religion.

    If you looked at a painting, with no knowledge at all about paints, you might find it amazing that something like that could exist. But, if you truly appreciate the art, you find it no less amazing when you learn exactly how it was created.
    Thats exactly right, and thats exactly why you don't have to make stuff up like Gods or souls or afterlives, to make the universe amazing. The universe is like the art, its amazing by itself.

    The fact that the painting was created with a brush and paint doesn't lessen the art.
    Couldn't agree more, the fact that evolution is a blind physical process does not lesson human experience.

  6. #126
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7
    Wo..too many posts since the last time - i was away these days..
    I haven't read all of them. I am going to ansewr to the next posts after my last one...
    Here we go then!:

    About if the Orthodiox Christian theologists say that the age of universe is 6000.
    That's just rediculus. All Greek theologists know that Greek's history starts at 9000-7000 B.C and they never say that the usiverse was created at 6000. I just take Greece because most Greeks are baptized Orthodocx Christians. I don't know who are these simple-minded guys who say these rediculous things, but they are wrong. I have spoken to many theologists and no one has said something like this.

    >I was a Christian at one point. Don't assume things you know nothing about.
    Ok, then i have to say that you were extremely strong to say that prayer is an easy thing to do. I mean... that's fantastic! I wish i could say the same ( P.S: When we say about prayer, we do mean prayer; we don't mean that we tell our prayer and at the same time we think what we will it for lanch )

    Also, would you mind telling me the age you were when you left Christianity and the reason?

    >You have no way of knowing how they felt.
    I know that they were saved . And about the war on Iraq, if you don't know what happened, i 'll tell you; many innocent people were killed, many American soldiers were killed and more Iraqy soldiers were also killed, for... <it's not the right time to speak about reasons>

    >Oh, and if you take the stance that some Christians are taking that the whole adam and eve thing is just an allegory and didn't really happen, then why are we being punished for them eating the apple if it didn't even happen?

    >Incidently you do know the apple stands for knowledge right? Think about that for a minute, knoweldge = sin. Does that sound reasonable?

    To the first one: Well, to be a Christian you have to believe that it did happen. Eating the apple?? What apple? This is to both now: You both said for apple. Well, probbably the same theologists who say the the universe was created in 6000 B.C (!), say that Adam and Eve ate an apple. Bible does not write about an apple.

    So, Clyde, forget that apple stands for knowledge.
    And, that tree was not name the "tree of knowledge", but the "tree of knowledge, of good and evil" - *that's a bad translation of the name to English*

    Clyde, let's leave Koran and Islum for another discussion. If i agree or disagree with what you said, i 'll discuss it in a thread about Koran.

    About the perfetness.
    Here is the question, what everyone think that "is hidden" behind the word perfectness". With the perfetness i mean: The really great analogies and balance that charactirieze our body, the extreme armony of all our functions ( functions of life ) and the way all these things co operate to keep us alive, the fact that we were imperishable/indestructible, we were not valnurable to death, the fact that we have logic and the power to think and always be able to choose the right from the wrong. About the last one, i 'll expand with next paragraphs/topic:

    >Yes Satan is another amusing aside: If God knows everything, why did he make Satan an angel?

    If He did what you suggested, we would not have free will. I 'll try to make this a little more understandable. I think that it would be good to invistigate the following, to come to the answer: Why did God create the "tree of knowledge, good and evil" in the garden of Edem? If he had not created this, Adam and Even would have not sin and all the ensuing things would have not happen.
    He created the tree for the exact reason of free will. If God had not created this, humans would have been to the garden of Edem, either they wanted it either the did not want this. So, to make Adam and Eve free to choose whatever they wanted, he had created that tree. If we did not want to stay there, we could eat from the tree and leave. So, God made us to be the master of our selves and of our acts. That shows us how perfetc the God is. He was not selfish to keep us there if we want to leave. But he gave us the chance to do whatever we want.
    Here's an example: We have 2 different men who owns 2 dogs, one each one. The first man keeps his dig on the leash. The second man, does not hold his dog from the leash and he has him free to go wherever he wants.
    The firts dog is not free to go wherever he wants. He does not have free will. Either if he wants to stay with his master, either if he doesn't, he is obliged to stay with him. However, the second dog, is free to go wherever he wants, he has free will, and if he doesn't want to stay with his master, he is free to leave.
    I think that example makes things very clear. The same thing appeals with God, the tree and us humans. So, these is one of the best - or even the best - signs of free will our God gave us.

    So, to topic of Satan now, God did not created all those angels and humans according to what choises they will follow later in their life. He created everybody to be the master of our acts, and let us alone ( well.. not exactly.. he is next to us in our entire lifetime ) to choose whatever we want.
    Assume that God gets A material and B material to make the spirits( the same appeals for humans ). To make all the spirits, the only thing he watches is to mix these too mateials so that he can make the spirit. Not what the spirit after its creation will choose to do.

    You have asked we He did not created us to choose only the good between the good and the bad ( since we were perfect ). This is a bit relevant to the above things. Well, why should everybody choose to do the good thing? If everybody was created to do only the good, as a robod programmed to follow blindly the orders of his creator, we would not have free will. You are free to choose whatever you want. However you will then tell me that, then we won't be perfect ( basicly what i have just said was another part of free will ). Well, i don't thing - as i said at the beginning, that perfectness relies on this thing, because he gave us the power to choose, and we can always choose the right thing if we want to. Since God, did gave us the power to choose the good between the good and the bad, there was no need for Him to create as like robots to choose the good thingand never never the bad, because then he would not give us free will.

    I mean... this is so great! Do you see in what armony all these things are connected!?

    >Even if you consider it a fairly relaxed punishment (!!!!??) it still doesn't alter my point: Is it fair for God to punish you for actions taken by someone else? Is that fair?

    It's not the evil panishmant you are talking about. When you have faith to God, you 'll see that the pain is not that difficult to be overcome. Now, about the acts of our ancectors. If you consider that you can also "go to Paradise", that God is by your side every second, that you can even reach a level which is only "few steps away from the level of God" etc, you'll see that you "are not the man who is being punished for the acts of others". You still have the love of God, and do whatever you want.
    We were born in a world where the unjust and liy rules. However, aaaaall these things will change after the finall Judge, and if you really wanted to do the right and did it, you will go to Paradise, and everything will be as initially was. So, it's up to you, in this world, to do the rigth and not eat from the tree of knowledge, good and evil and "go to Paradise", or do the wrong, eat from that tree and "miss the Paradise".

    >Is it ok to make my children crawl through glass, to test their love for me?
    The difficulty is to resist in all the tempteation, which means do the right. However, you can have the help of God, and achieve it. If you want to stay with God, you have to follow some rules, the rules of ethic. If you don't want to do ethical things you can leave. I know it's difficult to do the ethic things, but you have help. That's all. If God did not give these rules.. now the society would have done what it does, and say that this is what God wants. But now it doesn't say this( ? ). If you did not follow these rules, your freedom would have taken some part of my freedom. However, now your freedom stops at the point where my freddom starts.
    So, all these rules are for our good and to make this world a good place to live.

    >If he's God, why can't he make people feel closer to him without making their lives crap?
    Since you are closer to God, you would have not feel that your life is crap ( which really is not ). God, "sees" a man without a house and a man with 3 houses with the same eye.

    >God let thousands of people die, but saved one random guy.
    First of all, this guy was not the only one who prayed and be saved, but many others do so.
    Now, I am not the man who will say if it's time for a person to leave us or if it's not. I don't even know the names of those men, and i 'll say that thing? I just said about the particular man, because i saw him in the news and i still remember him.

    >Don't you believe in good luck? If you don't, how can you believe in bad luck?
    of course i believe in good and bad luck.

    >How can you possibly say that when there are NUMEROUS different sects of Christianity all of whom have different enterpretations?
    Well, you are talking to an Orthodox. So, go read the Orthodox and not the Romecatholic version. ( if you can find this out )

    >If you believe the bible is literally true word for word
    Another huge topic: Bible is not true word by word. For example, At the biginning, it writes that "God said, let there be light". However, he did not say anything, because, simply, there was nothing to hear him. So, it would be more rigth to wright "God wanted to be created the light".
    So, as you see, all the things that the bible says are written in a simplier form, so that it can be understood by the humans. So, according to this, all the stuff that is written is the Bible is both wrong and right. Right for the meaning, point, truth etc. and wrong for the way it is presented. But this is just to be understood better from all the men.

    However, where does bible says that the world was created in 6000 B.C. ? ( also, notice what a year means, but you can post the quote which says this )

    >Your point is irrelevent
    What? When Govtcheez said this ( not exactly ) and many others here did, of course it is relevant and it gives the answer. When you say that human came from a living microorganicm with probably one cail, you don't say where did this microorganism came from. And even if came from anothere microorganism, that microorganism does need a cause, because only DNA is known to produse DNA, science has never proved that something alive can be created from somethin non alive, so the whole argumant collapse. ( if you still disagree, because you might say that human came from something else, if you can say what this is , say it; however i think that after what i have said, you won't find anything. i 'll wait to hear you )

    >*1)*Are you now agreeing that we all have a common ancestor?*2)* We were not created as individual species as it claims we were in the bible?
    1) No
    2) Yes

    >Since atheists are no more likely to do bad things than theists the point is mute.
    Oh.. forget that one. You don't seem to get me.

    >LOL have you read the bible?
    Eeeer.... i was going to ask you exactly the same thing.

    P.S:
    1) Clyde, i have said too much. Don't make a comment about each line. Just about the points, to make this easier for both of us.

    2)nvoigt could you tell me how do you find all the things i 've said? Do you agree?

  7. #127
    Cheesy Poofs! PJYelton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    1,728
    I don't have much time at the moment but I will say this: AProg, add up the years from Adam to Jesus, its real easy to do in the bible. The bible says the entire lineage with all the so-and-so begat so-and-so. You will see that the bible says there is only 4000 years between Adam and Jesus, meaning humans have only been on the earth for 6000 years. And please, for the last time, show us links or proof that theologists are saying what you are saying. We can show MANY MANY places where they do say it is only 6000 years old, and if you say that nobody believes that, then SHOW us these people!

    And does it really matter if it was an apple or some other fruit?

  8. #128
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    About if the Orthodiox Christian theologists say that the age of universe is 6000.
    That's just rediculus
    Yes it is, and its one of the many reasons the bible cannot be literally true.

    Here is the question, what everyone think that "is hidden" behind the word perfectness". With the perfetness i mean: The really great analogies and balance that charactirieze our body, the extreme armony of all our functions ( functions of life ) and the way all these things co operate to keep us alive, the fact that we were imperishable/indestructible, we were not valnurable to death, the fact that we have logic and the power to think and always be able to choose the right from the wrong. About the last one, i 'll expand with next paragraphs/topic:
    We aren't indestructable Aprog, if God made us perfect to start with why did he make us crap on Earth?

    Why do we get old Aprog? Why do we age? If we were built perfectly surely once we hit 25 we would just stay like that, why does our body and our mind deteriorate? Perfection? Don't make me laugh.

    I can very easily imagine a humanity that is better - better physically, better mentally, better socially, therefore humanity clearly cannot be perfect, and correspondingly that God could have done a better job.

    If He did what you suggested, we would not have free will.
    God could have made us able to choose, but make us so that our nature was such that we simply didn't do "evil" things. We can still have choice, its just something we don't choose to do.

    I 'll try to make this a little more understandable.
    You will fail.

    I think that it would be good to invistigate the following, to come to the answer: Why did God create the "tree of knowledge, good and evil" in the garden of Edem? If he had not created this, Adam and Even would have not sin and all the ensuing things would have not happen.
    True.

    He created the tree for the exact reason of free will. If God had not created this, humans would have been to the garden of Edem, either they wanted it either the did not want this. So, to make Adam and Eve free to choose whatever they wanted, he had created that tree.
    ......what on Earth are you talking about?

    If we did not want to stay there, we could eat from the tree and leave.
    You are suggesting that we willfully left paradise? Then God made us stupid.

    So, God made us to be the master of our selves and of our acts. That shows us how perfetc the God is.
    What that he made us so stupid that we chose, Earth with all its suffering, pain and death, over paradise? Oh yea he sounds perfect.

    He was not selfish to keep us there if we want to leave. But he gave us the chance to do whatever we want.
    So you maintain that mankind CHOSE to leave paradise, and come to Earth, and die?

    Yea cause that makes perfect sense.

    Here's an example: We have 2 different men who owns 2 dogs, one each one. The first man keeps his dig on the leash. The second man, does not hold his dog from the leash and he has him free to go wherever he wants.

    The first dog is not free to go wherever he wants. He does not have free will. Either if he wants to stay with his master, either if he doesn't, he is obliged to stay with him. However, the second dog, is free to go wherever he wants, he has free will, and if he doesn't want to stay with his master, he is free to leave.
    I think that example makes things very clear. The same thing appeals with God, the tree and us humans. So, these is one of the best - or even the best - signs of free will our God gave us.
    Yes yes yes, we have free will (except we clearly can't) but it doesn't solve the problem of evil does it? Because if God were perfect, human beings would never choose to do bad things.

    The fact that you believe we have free will and you presumeably believe that there are certain choices where everyone will make the same choice, means that God could have made us with free will but with a nature that meant we never chose to do evil.

    Think of your dog analogy, one dog has no free will, kept on the leash, two other dogs are let free, one of them is a bad, he chases cats he craps everywhere, he barks at children, etc. etc.

    The other dog is a good dog, he is perfectly behaved, they BOTH have free will. Why didn't God make man good dogs?


    So, to topic of Satan now, God did not created all those angels and humans according to what choises they will follow later in their life. He created everybody to be the master of our acts, and let us alone ( well.. not exactly.. he is next to us in our entire lifetime ) to choose whatever we want.
    Point me to the paragraph in the bible the says angels have free will.

    Assume that God gets A material and B material to make the spirits( the same appeals for humans ). To make all the spirits, the only thing he watches is to mix these too mateials so that he can make the spirit. Not what the spirit after its creation will choose to do.
    That makes him stupid. He could have chosen to look into the future and see whether his creations would turn out bad like Satan either he was too stupid to do that which means can't be omniscient, or he couldn't do that which means he isn't omnipotent, or he didn't want to that, which means he isn't omnibenevolent. You pick.

    You have asked we He did not created us to choose only the good between the good and the bad ( since we were perfect ). This is a bit relevant to the above things. Well, why should everybody choose to do the good thing? If everybody was created to do only the good, as a robod programmed to follow blindly the orders of his creator, we would not have free will.
    If you offered people the choice between a million dollars and a kick in nuts which would they choose? The million dollars. Do they have free will? -according to you yes. Therefore it is possible for people to have free will and yet still favour a particular choice in a particular instance, just as God has made it in our nature to choose million dollars over kicks in the nuts he could have made it in our nature to choose good over evil, why didn't he?

    It's not the evil panishmant you are talking about.
    Is right to punish someone at all, in anyway whatsoever, for something they have no control over, like the actions of another person?

    When you have faith to God, you 'll see that the pain is not that difficult to be overcome.
    For God sake, that's a stupid thing to say, only someone who had never felt real pain (and was particularly dense) could make such a statement.

    Now, about the acts of our ancectors. If you consider that you can also "go to Paradise", that God is by your side every second, that you can even reach a level which is only "few steps away from the level of God" etc, you'll see that you "are not the man who is being punished for the acts of others".
    The bible says that God punishes the children and the grandchildren and the great grandchildren of sinners, read the ten commandements.

    The difficulty is to resist in all the tempteation, which means do the right. However, you can have the help of God, and achieve it. If you want to stay with God, you have to follow some rules, the rules of ethic. If you don't want to do ethical things you can leave. I know it's difficult to do the ethic things, but you have help. That's all. If God did not give these rules.. now the society would have done what it does, and say that this is what God wants. But now it doesn't say this( ? ). If you did not follow these rules, your freedom would have taken some part of my freedom. However, now your freedom stops at the point where my freddom starts.
    So, all these rules are for our good and to make this world a good place to live.
    You didn't answer my question, is it ok to make my children crawl through glass to see if they will continue to love me afterwards?

    Since you are closer to God, you would have not feel that your life is crap ( which really is not ). God, "sees" a man without a house and a man with 3 houses with the same eye.

    Compare a religious person who's disease ridden and in agony with a religous person whos healthy. Who is happier Aprog?

    If God puts misery on the Earth to bring people closer to him, he's a bastard, because he could make people closer to him by just clicking his metaphorical fingers.

    of course i believe in good and bad luck
    Then why do you believe that the guy who surviived was saved by God and wasn't just lucky?

    Well, you are talking to an Orthodox. So, go read the Orthodox and not the Romecatholic version. ( if you can find this out
    Right because obviously YOUR version is the right one.....

    Another huge topic: Bible is not true word by word. For example, At the biginning, it writes that "God said, let there be light". However, he did not say anything, because, simply, there was nothing to hear him. So, it would be more rigth to wright "God wanted to be created the light".
    So, as you see, all the things that the bible says are written in a simplier form, so that it can be understood by the humans. So, according to this, all the stuff that is written is the Bible is both wrong and right. Right for the meaning, point, truth etc. and wrong for the way it is presented. But this is just to be understood better from all the men.
    Right so theres lots of room for interpretation like i said before and you disagreed, you now agree?

    When you say that human came from a living microorganicm with probably one cail, you don't say where did this microorganism came from.
    Abiogenesis.

    And even if came from anothere microorganism, that microorganism does need a cause, because only DNA is known to produse DNA,
    I can make DNA in the lab, out of decidely unalive chemicals.

    science has never proved that something alive can be created from somethin non alive, s
    Science doesn't need to "prove" anything, it need only point out that there is an easy solution that has evidence supporting it, that does need the addition of "magic" to explain it.

    o the whole argumant collapse. ( if you still disagree, because you might say that human came from something else, if you can say what this is , say it; however i think that after what i have said, you won't find anything. i 'll wait to hear you )
    Evolution has nothing to do with where the first organism came from, if you wanted to you could say God made the first micro organism, it would be sticking in "magic" when you dont need to put any in, but atleast it wouldnt be denying evolution which is just ignorant. (of course you would have to accept that the story of creation is not true, but hey you don't think the bible is literally true anyway, so no problem right?)

    1) No
    2) Yes
    Those answers are COMPLETELY contradictory, if species were created separately clearly they didnt have evolve from a common ancestor did they!?

    Eeeer.... i was going to ask you exactly the same thing
    You think the morality in the bible is the "best", even when it says you can beat your slaves? When it says you should punish people children for their parents mistakes?

    Maybe we have a different idea of what the basis for social ethics should be.

    P.S:
    1) Clyde, i have said too much. Don't make a comment about each line. Just about the points, to make this easier for both of us.
    Too late.

    2)nvoigt could you tell me how do you find all the things i 've said? Do you agree?
    I sure as hell hope not.
    Last edited by Clyde; 08-10-2003 at 01:06 PM.

  9. #129
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    I am an athiest. I believe athiesm is acceptable and so is religion. What ticks me off is athiests that go round imposing their beliefs (or lack thereof) onto others. People are better off with their belief system in place, and you are very unlikely to pursaude them otherwise. Unless a faith is causing unnecessary harm (i.e. faith healers who claim they can heal snakebites, but really they cannot, resulting in death), then leave religious people be.

    *Brian tries to hide hypocritical signiture*

  10. #130
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    What ticks me off is athiests that go round imposing their beliefs (or lack thereof) onto others.
    I don't see belief in God as any different to any other kind of belief, what is education if its not "imposing" beliefs onto others, i'm just trying to play a part of that process.

    Plus im just arguing with peoples logic, their reasoning, and i think its good to do that about everything, not just religion i think people should have their reasoning challenged on everything.

    "Beliefs" are just ideas, and people's ideas should be challenged not left to fester.

    People are better off with their belief system in place, and you are very unlikely to pursaude them otherwise
    My experiences with people who have lost their faith on the basis of critical analysis seems to indicate otherwise.

    And anyway i think irrationality is fundamentally damaging to human society, and should be fought at every possible occasion.

    Unless a faith is causing unnecessary harm (i.e. faith healers who claim they can heal snakebites, but really they cannot, resulting in death), then leave religious people be.
    Religion does cause harm, Northern Ireland, Israel, 9/11, witch burnings, Spanish Inquisition, intereference in science's development and education to name but a few.
    Last edited by Clyde; 08-10-2003 at 01:56 PM.

  11. #131
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    Originally posted by Clyde
    But if God were to perform miracles, or if the soul existed, then they would be breaking the laws of physics.
    Why? Why can't God *use* the laws of physics to accomplish his miracles? We humans accomplish wonders, and we do it without breaking the laws of the universe. If God works miracles, then physics is the brush and palette with which he paints -- miracles are affirmations and applications of the laws of the universe, not negations.

    But it still makes definitive claims, it makes claims over the nature of reality, it doesn't just offer a way of thinking about things or a guide to life it actually says "the universe is like this"
    Simply because people often formulate religions incorrectly doesn't mean that religion as a whole is flawed. I could build a car that won't run, but that doesn't mean the concept of automobiles is disproven. A true religion is not about answers, it's about finding the right questions to ask.

    "Meaning", this word keeps coming up, if what you mean by it is that religion is trying to find the significance of humanity in the universe, trying to find out what makes humanity special, then it's looking something that's not there.
    Why isn't it there? Because you declare it isn't?

    What's more if anything was going to show that, it would be science, if humanity was somehow special, if our existance was somehow "meaningfull" on a universal scale then science would show it.
    How? Science isn't about finding meaning. Science can't examine a painting and conclusively tell what the painter was expressing, what feelings he had, what feelings he tried to invoke, why he painted it.

    But at the moment it looks pretty certain that of itself its not, not in that sense, we as human beings are not particularly significant, in fact we are spectacularly insignificant as Carl Sagan pointed out when he said:

    "We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering"
    So? So humanity is only a part of a vastly larger whole. This doesn't mean that there is no purpose for humanity, or meaning in the universe. Simply because the note is not the song doesn't make it useless or pointless.

    Humanities existance does not come with some kind of cosmic "meaning" attached, BUT that doesn't matter. Thats right its totally irrelevent, you can find wonder, contentment, satisfaction, everything in short that makes life worth living, without needing cosmic "meaning".
    And if I find wonder, contentment, satisfaction, and everything that makes life worth living, perhaps that is only the manifestation
    of this cosmic "meaning" you disagree with.

    Couldn't agree more, the fact that evolution is a blind physical process does not lesson human experience.
    The fact that the dyes which absorb and reflect light are blind physiochemical processes also does not lessen the importance of the painter.

  12. #132
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    Edit:

    Cat,

    I don't want to upset you, and i think i might if we continue. So, I withdraw.
    Last edited by Clyde; 08-10-2003 at 03:35 PM.

  13. #133
    Cat
    Cat is offline
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,571
    I highly doubt you could say anything I haven't said myself. I was once very strongly an atheist. I only saw religion as antithetical to science. But I later came to see how the apparent paradox resolves; the two lines of inquiry are different and complementary. Both are necessary, each complements the other and each is necessary.

  14. #134
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    The only way a system could be unmodelable, would be if it was magic.
    See, your already assuming that the paranormal does not exist.

    Its not meant to be, its just somewhat coincidental don't you think?
    I have not read about seismic activity at any of the apparitions. There was some talk about magnetic fields affecting the brain, but this was only on speculation based upon a buzzing noice. This was at Fatima though and not Zeitun where we have photographic evidence.

    Then what is this mary malark, about?
    Well a few signs now and then All I know is that God will give you the signs needed to believe in him if you trust that he will.

    There have been plenty of supposed sightings of mary this is just another one.
    Yes, I know. There have been few with photographic evidence and witnessed by millions though. We also have photographs from medegorje from I guess a tourist, but the the proof is less credible.

    But i don't think its an apparition at all, it looks to me like an amorphous blob of light, you see thats the point its open to interpretation.
    I believe this is mainly because the light comming off of her was so intense. You can see the entire church light up. http://carmenspage.homestead.com/viginnclock.html The people witnessing it did reconize the figure as Mary, so this indicates that the photograph is a bit less detailed.

    And no, i don't know how it was created, assuming those photos aren't fakes, but its not enough to indicate supernatural, because there is nothing to suggest its -unexplainable- as i said, because science is so successfull at explaining things
    Perhaps, but unless if you can give a possible scientific explanation, then the assumption that it is supernatural is valid.

  15. #135
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    2,220
    Originally posted by Clyde
    Edit:

    Cat,

    I don't want to upset you, and i think i might if we continue. So, I withdraw.
    that's what I said to her but then she hit me.

    something about a fridge

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Alice....
    By Lurker in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 06-20-2005, 03:51 PM
  2. Debugging question
    By o_0 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 06:51 PM
  3. Question about pointers #2
    By maxhavoc in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 06-21-2004, 01:52 PM
  4. Question...
    By TechWins in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-28-2003, 10:47 PM
  5. Question, question!
    By oskilian in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-24-2001, 01:47 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21