.
Printable View
.
>When God made us, we were perfect. He gave us the pontential - logic - to choose between many things. However, many people use this power for bad purposes.
If god is perfect and he made us perfect, then even with free will we would not have chosen to disobey god. The fact that adam and eve chose to disobey god is proof that they were imperfect to being with!
>Also, you asked if altzhaimer brings people closer to God....
So a person slowly losing their mind brings them closer to god?
>An example which says to much; a man in the Twince , in 11th of September, praid to God to help him get out of the building, and he managed to leave the builting - without even understanding how he achieved it.
Sure, and all those other thousands of people who prayed to god for help werent worth saving?
Do atheists not say the flag salute, or do they just cut out the part that goes "...one nation under God"?
are all atheists american?Quote:
Originally posted by gcn_zelda
Do atheists not say the flag salute, or do they just cut out the part that goes "...one nation under God"?
are all atheists patriotic?
does left over pizza really taste good the next week?
wow turn your back for one second...
Much typing to do.
No didaskalos i do not agree with you, when i said i had addressed it earlier i meant that I had already covered it in a previous post, look back at page 2.Quote:
Before answering to anything, Clyde i want you to answer what i asked you. - ( i think that when we say address we mean that we agree )
didaskalos my best friend at university who I have known for 7 years was raised a strict Muslim he memorised the entire Quran word for word, my girlfriend was brought up a Muslim in Pakistan by fundamentalists, the 14 year old girl from Pakistan i've been talking to about evolution for the past few days is a Muslim.Quote:
First of all, the reason for talking about Allah was to show you that now, we are speaking only about Christianity, not about other religions - because many say that their God controlls the mind of the people.
Anyway, what you said is wrong.
And that was a problems that the theologists of Islam were trying to explain, and try to give an answer for many years. The problem that, since Allah controlls the will/behaviour of people, why at the "Final Judge" he will judge all the people as responsible for their own acts?. That's true
You are wrong, they believe in free will. Try asking one.
Never mind, I don't think you grasp the point I am making, its is complex and may be beyond the language barrier.Quote:
No. It's clear: Everybody can do whatever he wants, not whatever the God wants. And what we will choose some day between many other choices, is the future, which in fact doesn't exist at all - at least for now.
ex. Next morning, you'll have to choose something between many other choises. When this time comes, you will think and make your choise. That's all. But God, knows from today what you will choose, but he is not the one who chooses that.
If God had made us perfect people never would have used it for "bad purposes", God made us flawed.Quote:
1) Our nature include free will
2) Can't you see what i said to you previously? When God made us, we were perfect. He gave us the pontential - logic - to choose between many things. However, many people use this power for bad purposes.
Can you imagine a world with choice where only good people exist? Just imagine it, a world with no war, no torture, no rape, no starvation, no disease, but where people still choose they merely choose not to do all those things.
Just as people today (according to you) have free will and yet they never choose to do certain things so too people in a perfect world would have free will and not choose to do bad things.
But we don't live in a perfect world and human beings are not and never were perfect, because they weren't created by a perfect creator.
Yes Satan is another amusing aside: If God knows everything, why did he make Satan an angel? Why didn't he go "Hmmm Satan, nope, he'll go bad, i'll make Charles an angel instead"Quote:
As you know, Satan, was at first an angel as all the others.
Did God screw up?
Free will is still not an answer because God could have made us with free will but without an agressive sadistic side to our nature.Quote:
This say too much about the free will that we have from God., and that it's not God's fault that so many people do bad things( since he gave us free will ).
I can imagine a humanity with choice, with free will but without pain. If God were what you believe him to be, our humanity would be like that.Quote:
God let us think freely and choose whatever you want. God did not give us catastrophical nature, many of us make catastrophical choises
Its not a real punishment? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ pain isn't a real punishment.Quote:
First of all it's not a real panishement. It would be a reall punishement, if after the deth our soul wouldn't leave any more, or, if after the death everybody of us went to hell.
But things aren't like this. We can also "leave in the Paradise", as Adam and Eve used to. We can also become Saints, which, of course, is not God, but it is something like a God. There is a term in my language, but i don't know how do you say it in English.
You see up till this point i thought there was a chance for a reasonable debate, where we could make atleast SOME headway, but.... just think about what you've just said.
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? Do you think an God who was omnibenevolent (entirely good) would do such a thing?
You are merely repeating bible stories without thinking about them, if God was PERFECT, then man would not have been flawed, and he would not have sinned. He would have CHOSEN not to sin.Quote:
Humans learned the evil, an they did that sin. They had all the conforts, and they did not do what God told them. So, they showd that, they didn't deserve all these things God made for them.
*--->*Also, God asked them the reason for eating that "fruit". So they had the chance to apology. But instead of apologing, one said that it was the womans fault and the other it was the snake's fault. They did not regret for their act.
Think of it like this, do you ever choose to eat rocks? You have the choice but you just don't choose it do you, in fact in all likelyhood you choose to avoid high levels of pain, most people do, its in our nature. If things can be in our nature and patently they can, then why did God give us a nature that would predetermine us to sin?
Incidently you do know the apple stands for knowledge right? Think about that for a minute, knoweldge = sin. Does that sound reasonable?
Is it ok to make my children crawl through glass, to test their love for me?Quote:
It's like the english phrase:
A friend in need is a friend indeed
Or, in my coumrty, exept from something like this, we also have:
The good captain(of a ship) appears in the storm.
These two phrases give the answer.
What basis do you have for claiming their strenght comes from God, and not from them?Quote:
Also, you should know that God never let us helpless, and gives us strength to overcome all of our problems.
Do you know how many tamptations face all those priests who decide to go to a desert for example, although they are alone? However, they get so much strength from the God, that they are the happiests persons in the world
Have you read the book of Job?Quote:
Also, you asked if altzhaimer brings people closer to God.
I 'll make this a little more generall, and ask you this:
Which kind of person do you think, will come closer to God, more easiy; a man with all the conforts, many money, three houses, five cars, and at launch a table with all the kinds of food?, OR a poor man who has very little money, his house was recently destoied by an eartquake, and doesn't know if he 'll find anything to eat today?
Yes, i know these are extrime examples, but the say my point.
Edit:
Additionally, are you suggesting its ok for God to make people's lives crap so that they will be closer to him? If he's God, why can't he make people feel closer to him without making their lives crap? He can? Yes I thought he could, so once again God is making people live's miserable for kicks.
Think about how ridiculous that is, God let thousands of people die, but saved one random guy.Quote:
quick note: An example which says to much; a man in the Twince , in 11th of September, praid to God to help him get out of the building, and he managed to leave the builting - without even understanding how he achieved it.
Do you think he was the only one who prayed?
Don't you believe in good luck? If you don't, how can you believe in bad luck?
I suggest you read the history books.Quote:
Also, i am not going to tell more than the following about if church would controll the science. I am not going to say about an "if".
Personally, as a Christian, i tell you that our faith encourages research. It doesn't contoll it and our faith doesn't say anywhere that researches should stop. Full Stop
How can you possibly say that when there are NUMEROUS different sects of Christianity all of whom have different enterpretations?Quote:
Also, you said about interpretation of the Bible. Go buy a bible, and i don't think that you 'll find a very nig problem about the interpritation
Is the bible all literal, or is it metaphorical, which bits are literal which bits are not.
If you believe the bible is literally true word for word, then you believe the universe is 6000 years old. Because it documents creation up to Jesus, and you can add up the dates. Whats more you don't beleive in evolution because it states God created all species separately.
Your point is irrelevent, evolution makes no claim over the origin of the first microorganism, thats abiogensis which is comes under astrobiology which is *drum role* a science.Quote:
No buddy. There is no scientific proof that life did ( or ever could ) evolved into existence from non-living matter. Only DNA is known to produce DNA.
A living thing was never produced from anything other than another living thing.
So, that living micro-organism with the one cail you said about ( even if human came from this ), definetely needs a creator.
I am very clear here, and so i can claim - as theologists say- that Christianity doesn't come in conrtast with science.
Are you now agreeing that we all have a common ancestor? We were not created as individual species as it claims we were in the bible?
Since atheists are no more likely to do bad things than theists the point is mute.Quote:
So, for an atheist, what's the big deal in doing bad things? ( that was my point - the deal )
LOL have you read the bible?Quote:
Well... it's the way everybody sees this. Yeah, ethic by its own doesn't have anything to do with religion, but Christianity has the best/perfect ethic. ( this is not selfish )
Perspective-
Good point. Do Patriotic, American athiests say the flag salute. By the way, pizza tastes good after 3.77 days, sir.
Huzza!
and Clyde, lots of words there :P
Dawkins rocks:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...981412,00.html
I suspect it won't take off, but it would be a great if it did, are you a bright?
Any development? Anything uncovered? I guess "NO".
>>I'm just wondering. If you don't believe in a God, what do you guys/girls believe?
Explanation from my point of view for gcn_zelda again:
You can not believe anything just because you don't have explanation.
1. Long time ago I heard two pair words: Religious-Hypocrite & Non Religions-Hypocrite.
2. One thing I found in last 27 years is that truth is beyond the question of belief.
Such as (examples are in a broad sense):
Situation A. I'm standing right in front of you; you need not to believe it, do you? You are seeing me, this is true.
Situation B. I'm standing behind the wall, you are not sure.. You are confused.. But you have some sort of evidence ... now you may or may not believe.
So.. where there is a chance of not being true.. you have a choice to (will) believe.
I smelt the word believe as dark, suspicion, confusion, lie.. Truth is even much brighter than sunshine.
Occam's Razor approach: Consider the choices and select the one that is the simplest, because simple explanation is almost always the best.
Note on Holy Books: I do believe (because I'm in dark or confused, not sure) the guys (not girls ) who wrote the books were the most brilliant of that times. But because of the evolution or ... in this 21st century, I guess there are lots of brilliants around the world to understand their ideology to make people discipline (for peaceful life). I think they did that because wanted to guide people for a peaceful life. Their motivation was positive (though they created imaginary Superman, which was a lie).
I find the evidence on this http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ site convincing enough to believe. You have photographic evidence and many eye witness evidence from people of different faiths.
Sorry, I was mistaken. I actually thought Atheists claim that no God exists.Quote:
Firstly, atheism in general doesnt claim anything
Take the first logic class you find. It will teach you that if you make a statement, you have to back it up. It's not for the other side to shoot it down.Quote:
yeah, atheists don't have to prove anything.
The ones who have to prove their beliefs is the believers.
I don't think it's flawed. Maybe different. I think we have the same base here:Quote:
No! I can't believe that nvoigt because you're smart, genuinely intelligent and evidently not overly indocrinated, you are influenced by social view points which is skewing the way you're thinking about this topic but i genuinely think you could come around if i or someone else could explain with more clarity why your reasoning is flawed.
Evolution is what happened. Most religious theories and books have flaws. They were translated several times and have been written a long time ago. This way, even if they were right at the time written, flaws are to be suspected. My conclusion is that I cannot come to a conclusion. Your conclusion is as the evidence is flawed, there is no God.
Take another example:
Joe Farmer was abducted by aliens. Their Ufo landed on top of his barn, taking four cows and him to a planet called yobana where they did various experiments. This is flawed, no evidence whatsoever, probably a made up story. My conclusion is, that this bull$$$$ is not enough to decide if there is life outside of the space we know. Your conclusion would be that as the story is total bull$$$$ and Joe Farmer was drunk at best, there is no life outside of our galaxy.
No facts, no decision on my part. And I guess we already agreed above that we don't have proof for anything. We don't even know if my decision to sit here and answer isn't God's way to play Sims on a saturday afternoon.
I don't think it's likely or reasonable. I just don't think it's totally impossible either.
I don't know if thats right nvoigt, they simply do not see any reason to believe he exists.Quote:
Sorry, I was mistaken. I actually thought Atheists claim that no God exists
Just like with my invisible kangaroo i can't say he doesn't exist, i can say there is no reason to believe he does, which makes believeing in him crazy.
Ok, with you so far :)Quote:
I don't think it's flawed. Maybe different. I think we have the same base here:
Evolution is what happened. Most religious theories and books have flaws.
Fair enough.Quote:
They were translated several times and have been written a long time ago. This way, even if they were right at the time written, flaws are to be suspected.
No but don't you see my conclusions is not flawed, because i'm not concluding "therefore there is no God" (with the exception of my little hypothesis below) , i'm concluding "there is nothing that indicates a God", and that believing in something that has no basis is crazy.Quote:
My conclusion is that I cannot come to a conclusion. Your conclusion is as the evidence is flawed, there is no God.
We are lead back to Santa Claus, or invisible kangroos, or materialising elephants, or any of the infinite number of hypothetical possibilities. It is as reasonable to believe in God, as in them.
Ok.Quote:
Take another example:
Ok so we agree that the tale is nonsense (for whatever reasons), but you see, i would not conclude that therefore there was no life outside of our galaxy.Quote:
Joe Farmer was abducted by aliens. Their Ufo landed on top of his barn, taking four cows and him to a planet called yobana where they did various experiments. This is flawed, no evidence whatsoever, probably a made up story. My conclusion is, that this bull$$$$ is not enough to decide if there is life outside of the space we know. Your conclusion would be that as the story is total bull$$$$ and Joe Farmer was drunk at best, there is no life outside of our galaxy.
If that story was the ONLY thing that pointed to outside life, if there was nothing else at all, no reason whatsoever to believe that there was extraterestrial life other than our farmer's story (which in the example i'm presumeing is supposed to be nonsense) then you are right, i wouldn't believe ETs existed, it would be the same as our invisible kangaroos, santa claus, etc. etc.
But there are reasons to believe in ET life, our understanding of the origin of life on Earth points to the possibility of life forming else where. We know life can form spontaneously, and in a universe with more suns than there are grains of sand on Earth that makes the possiblity of ET life plausable.
You see thats the difference, we have basis for suspecting there might be ET life, irrespective of a few crack-pot stories.
Belief in God, has no line of reasoning like the one above supporting it, it is truly a belief based on nothing, its a random guess at a property of the universe, and as such is completely insane.
Indeed.Quote:
No facts, no decision on my part. And I guess we already agreed above that we don't have proof for anything. We don't even know if my decision to sit here and answer isn't God's way to play Sims on a saturday afternoon.
Well interestingly i wonder whether it is actually possible to disprove the idea of a an omnipotent, omnibenvolent, omniscient God.Quote:
I don't think it's likely or reasonable. I just don't think it's totally impossible either.
Given that i can prove i experience, and my experience is not all it could be, does that not disprove God? (this is just the problem of evil and human imperfection, but it occured to me, that you don't need to assume that your experiences are based on anything real for it to apply, which means that if the problem of evil is logically sound and i think it is, then it constitutes absolute refutation of the God of Christianty, Judaism, and Islam).
But that is just an aside, i know you can't prove anything because you can't prove your senses are real. So can never say anything with absolute certainty, that doesn't mean however we should believe everything is equally likely.
I don't believe that God is 100% impossible, i believe that the chance of God existing is so spectacularly improbable that its as good as believing its impossible.
Well, I don't!!!Quote:
Originally posted by okinrus
I find the evidence on this http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ site convincing enough to believe. You have photographic evidence and many eye witness evidence from people of different faiths.
Terminator 3 looks much more realistic :D
Here's my view (for the 1000th time):
I take a scientific religious approach to everything. I believe that there is a God and that the created everything (however, not as it is today). Instead, he created the universe as science sees it. Along with the universe, he created laws to govern the place (the rules of science, physics, etc.). Although he has absolute control over everything, he doesn't like to changes things. Instead, he likes to let his system run. Then, when things need to be done, he can do them (ala Jesus, miracles, etc).
Fits well for me and keeps me happy.
Well it was good enough to convince the "Report of General information and complaints" http://members.aol.com/bjw1106/marian7.htmQuote:
Well, I don't!!! Terminator 3 looks much more realistic
Also at the time that this was happening, high end effects such as what is seen in terminator were impoosible. It is also impossible to have been a photographic botch because she was seen by thousands of muslims and christians.
Clyde are you going to respond to my post or not? Is that an invisible kangraroo? Give us your skeptical interpretation. Otherwise, you are dismissing evidence only because of your disbelief in the supernatural.
Well, i don't actually have realone on my PC, I'll have to down load it, but the picture is so fake it could teach Pamella Anderson a lesson or two.
>>I take a scientific religious approach to everything <<
scientific religious? what is that? you cant use both terms at the same time together. If you use science, you have no reason to believe that god created the universe. using scientific approach would help you to conduct studies on explaining what the "big bang" was, how it happenend etc..... and if you are using religion and religious beliefs, then you have to "assume" that a god created this universe.
This and most of your other statements were well said Clyde.Quote:
No but don't you see my conclusions is not flawed, because i'm not concluding "therefore there is no God" (with the exception of my little hypothesis below) , i'm concluding "there is nothing that indicates a God", and that believing in something that has no basis is crazy.
EDIT: and I like the things you say Clyde because they seem truly objective.
I wonder why god has to be personified and described as a being. What if god is or was just an automaton that is ultimately responsible for our existance, but not by choice or rational decision making. There aren't words to describe it, but what if this 'thing' is so infinitely complex that it is responsible for the 'creation' (again, loss of words) of energy? It seems logical to assume that whatever is responsible for energy is also responsible for us.
That's impossible by current scientific thinking. Given the "singularity" model for the big bang, the events (if any) which preceded the Big Bang cannot leave any evidence in this universe. You cannot look "behind" the Big Bang because, by definition, it would be impossible for any piece of information to survive.Quote:
Originally posted by Ben_Robotics
>>I take a scientific religious approach to everything <<
using scientific approach would help you to conduct studies on explaining what the "big bang" was, how it happenend etc.....
So, we're left in a case where, not only is there no data, there can never be data.
Further, I don't think "scientific religious" is an oxymoron. Religion as an abstract doesn't have to impinge on the domain of science, and science cannot impinge upon the domain of religion.
I think the major problem is that religions are ill-formed. They try to be all-encompassing, so they try to "muscle in" on science, morality, etc. But simply because most religions are ill-formed, and stretch beyond the theological doesn't mean religion in general can't coexist with science, morality, etc. and not interfere with them.
well said, I think you are also onto something. I'm glad we're finally getting people that have objective views.
That's a fair point, but then what kind of religion could exist that didn't muscle in on science?Quote:
I think the major problem is that religions are ill-formed. They try to be all-encompassing, so they try to "muscle in" on science, morality, etc. But simply because most religions are ill-formed, and stretch beyond the theological doesn't mean religion in general can't coexist with science, morality, etc. and not interfere with them.
Presumeably such a religion would not make any claims over any phenomena after the big bang.
So God answering prayers and performing miracles? Human beings having a soul?
You would have to lose all those because they are tangible claims over things that are actually supposed to happen in the physical universe, that's science's field.
I think the question of the existence of a soul is also outside of the scientific arena. Science can only deal with hypotheses which are disprovable -- questions of spirituality can't be disproven. Science, for example, could never disprove the existence of a soul.
All of those things you mention (the origin of the universe, souls, god answering prayers and performing miracles) could never be disproven by science; they're perfectly acceptable topics for religions to discuss.
Atheism is also a form of religion. It is well-formed; it simply asserts that nothing exists except that which is logically proveable or scientifically verifiable. Atheism, itself, is not scientific in basis; it makes assertations about the existence or nonexistence of things outside of the realm of science. Atheists must take the nonexistence of god on faith, just as a theist would take the existence of god.
The true absence of religion would be agnosticism, which is essentially the absence of any belief or disbelief in spiritual matters.
For me, choosing atheism over the Christianity I was raised with was a form of self-liberation. I am satisfied being aware that I can never truly know every detail about the way the universe works or how life evolved. I consider it better than closing my mind and accepting a dillusionary myth that contradicts other such myths as a fundamental truth and then using that as a foundation for an outdated system of morality that restricts the natural range of human expression because it is considered a sin or heresy.
If Christianity is supposed to be a religion based on tolerance and love of all people, it seems to be failing continuously. The Christian Right has created needless divisiveness by pushing their religious views on the rest of the population. President George W. Bush, who has tried his hardest to cater to the Christian fundamentalists without upsetting more moderate voters too much, has said he will work to prevent any state from allowing a legally sanctioned homosexual marriage; why should the government interfere in two law-abiding, loving citizens' lives if they have a different sexual orientation? Other concerns include the Religious Right's attempts at affecting science education at public schools. Even more moderate, more mainstream Christians in this country sometimes have a misunderstanding of atheists and other non-Christians.
I don't have anything against those who choose to believe in their religion, but I would like them to be understanding of those who choose to believe in no religion or god and who would like to see society be more accepting and nonjudgmental of the differences all people have.
When I say atheism, I simply mean the lack of a belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing being or beings. I don't include in my definition anything about the need only for scientifically verifiable proof. I prefer to call myself nonreligious: I don't hold rigorously to any religion, philosophy, or absolute belief system, but I am open to explore different world outlooks even if I choose not to believe them as truth. In many matters, one can only hold an opinion or belief based on, well, belief, not science. Politics is a good example.Quote:
Atheism is also a form of religion. It is well-formed; it simply asserts that nothing exists except that which is logically proveable or scientifically verifiable. Atheism, itself, is not scientific in basis; it makes assertations about the existence or nonexistence of things outside of the realm of science. Atheists must take the nonexistence of god on faith, just as a theist would take the existence of god.
If science explained consciousness, explained everything about human experience, would it not have explained away the soul? It would not directly have disproved it, it would merely have removed any reason to believe it exists.Quote:
I think the question of the existence of a soul is also outside of the scientific arena. Science can only deal with hypotheses which are disprovable -- questions of spirituality can't be disproven. Science, for example, could never disprove the existence of a soul.
But miracles can be "disproved", because science can offer up naturalistic explanations: its a miracle he sat by this stone where dead religious person X once sat and he was cured, MIRACLE FROM GOD, science can say uhh... no its because there was this in the air that did that to his blood chemistry that did..... etc. etc. etc.Quote:
All of those things you mention (the origin of the universe, souls, god answering prayers and performing miracles) could never be disproven by science; they're perfectly acceptable topics for religions to discuss.
I don't think it does you know, i'm quite happy to accept there may be aspects to the universe we can never discover, there might not be, but there might be.Quote:
Atheism is also a form of religion. It is well-formed; it simply asserts that nothing exists except that which is logically proveable or scientifically verifiable.
I wouldn't call atheism a religion at all, its simply the lack of any religious convictions, i simply believe in things that have some form justification behind them. It applies no more to God than to anything else.
No i don't think it does, it merely says it is unreasonably to believe in something that is no reason to believe in. - A bit a trueism eh?Quote:
Atheism, itself, is not scientific in basis; it makes assertations about the existence or nonexistence of things outside of the realm of science.
But its not faith. Its not faith NOT to believe in invisible kangaroos, its not faith NOT to believe you are about to crushed to death by a materialising elephant.Quote:
Atheists must take the nonexistence of god on faith, just as a theist would take the existence of god.
The only logical way of deducing reality is to go on what there is evidence for because there are an infinite number of possible realities that there is no evidence against, and if you followed that reasoning you would live in a complete fantasy land.
Right in that sense then I am agnostic then, and I'm agnostic about invisible kangaroos too, they "could" exist, but the likelyhood is infinitesably small. The reason i use the term atheist and not agnostic is because agnostic implies that I think the chance that God exists is reasonably high.Quote:
The true absence of religion would be agnosticism, which is essentially the absence of any belief or disbelief in spiritual matters.
I don't think the chance of God existing is reasonably high, because i don't think there is any reason to believe in God, which means he is as likely to exist as any of the other infinite number of possible characteristics (invisible kangaroos et al).
>The true absence of religion would be agnosticism, which is essentially the absence of any belief or disbelief in spiritual matters.
Another common misconception (I once thought so too). Agnosticism is not an in-between for atheism and theism. Better than try to explain it myself, just read here
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Farmer was abducted by aliens. Their Ufo landed on top of his barn, taking four cows and him to a planet called yobana where they did various experiments. This is flawed, no evidence whatsoever, probably a made up story. My conclusion is, that this bull$$$$ is not enough to decide if there is life outside of the space we know. Your conclusion would be that as the story is total bull$$$$ and Joe Farmer was drunk at best, there is no life outside of our galaxy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were the cows ok?
It all depends. Does cheese eat pizza?
Indeed.
I guess it does yes, in the ovenQuote:
Originally posted by gcn_zelda
It all depends. Does cheese eat pizza?
Indeed.
That was a very interesting read, but unless i'm mistaken it seems to imply that the every belief i hold about everything is agnostic.Quote:
Another common misconception (I once thought so too). Agnosticism is not an in-between for atheism and theism. Better than try to explain it myself, just read here
It says:
Well, i cannot claim to know for "sure", whether my arm exists.Quote:
So, if a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist, then they may properly use the term "agnostic" to describe themselves
Because there is no such thing as absolute proof for anything based on the senses, does that mean we are all agnostic regarding every belief we have?
In which case surely it's a pointless definition?
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.
Faith is the inner sight possessed by the soul. It is not blind belief.Quote:
But its not faith. Its not faith NOT to believe in invisible kangaroos, its not faith NOT to believe you are about to crushed to death by a materialising elephant.
>>That's impossible by current scientific thinking. Given the "singularity" model for the big bang, the events (if any) which preceded the Big Bang cannot leave any evidence in this universe. You cannot look "behind" the Big Bang because, by definition, it would be impossible for any piece of information to survive.<<
thats exactly what i mean. we dont know how the big bang really happened but if we were to explain how this world was created, then we would either have to rely on either a scietific explanation or a religious assumption but not both at the same time.
cheers.
These arguments are flawed -- religion does not (or should not) try to explain HOW an event happens. Religion focuses on WHY. Science is a tool for understanding the mechanisms. Religion is devoted to understanding the meaning behind the actions.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
If science explained consciousness, explained everything about human experience, would it not have explained away the soul? It would not directly have disproved it, it would merely have removed any reason to believe it exists.
But miracles can be "disproved", because science can offer up naturalistic explanations: its a miracle he sat by this stone where dead religious person X once sat and he was cured, MIRACLE FROM GOD, science can say uhh... no its because there was this in the air that did that to his blood chemistry that did..... etc. etc. etc.
For example, you can very scientifically examine one of Van Gogh's paintings. You can determine how the artist created it -- what paints he used, what brushes, what material he painted upon. You can quantify how he used various types of dyes to control the absorption and reflection of incident light. All that falls in the realm of science.
The appreciation of the art, however, is the analog of religion. Not how the painting was done, but rather why. The artist's motivation, the meaning that he put into the painting, the reason he painted what he did.
Religion is found in seeking of the purpose of the events, not the mechanism. Knowing how the tools work doesn't cheapen the motivation. Understanding how our brains work doesn't make them any less marvelous, nor does understanding the chemical nature behind a miracle make it any less done by design.
If god exists, and I am not saying anything one way or the other, then the very scientific laws we are discovering, the subtle interactions of chemicals under the electromagnetic force, are the tools he uses. And just as it is up to science to understand how the tools work, it's up to religion to attempt to answer why.
Not so. In that scenario, science could tell us how it happened. It couldn't tell us the meaning behind it.Quote:
Originally posted by Ben_Robotics
thats exactly what i mean. we dont know how the big bang really happened but if we were to explain how this world was created, then we would either have to rely on either a scietific explanation or a religious assumption but not both at the same time.
cheers. [/B]
Of course, atheists don't believe there IS a meaning behind the events, or a directed purpose of a creator. It's as valid a point of view as any other, but I don't think it's superior.
Exactly my point!Quote:
Originally posted by Cat
That's impossible by current scientific thinking. Given the "singularity" model for the big bang, the events (if any) which preceded the Big Bang cannot leave any evidence in this universe. You cannot look "behind" the Big Bang because, by definition, it would be impossible for any piece of information to survive.
So, we're left in a case where, not only is there no data, there can never be data.
Further, I don't think "scientific religious" is an oxymoron. Religion as an abstract doesn't have to impinge on the domain of science, and science cannot impinge upon the domain of religion.
I think the major problem is that religions are ill-formed. They try to be all-encompassing, so they try to "muscle in" on science, morality, etc. But simply because most religions are ill-formed, and stretch beyond the theological doesn't mean religion in general can't coexist with science, morality, etc. and not interfere with them.
Furthermore, a miracle is undefinable in its essence. If it were explainable, then it wouldn't be a miracle.
>So, if a person cannot claim to know, or know for sure, if any gods exist
I think his definition may be a little strong for practical purposes.
If you take "cannot claim to know" as the definition, its more applicable. Although no one can know anything absolutely, there is reason to believe things are true because of the overwhelming evidence that suggests they are true. And I think in that case one can rightfully make the claim to "know" something is true, eventhough they may not be absolutely sure. Then one wouldnt be agnostic about everything.
>These arguments are flawed -- religion does not (or should not) try to explain HOW an event happens. Religion focuses on WHY. Science is a tool for understanding the mechanisms. Religion is devoted to understanding the meaning behind the actions.
Your missing the point. If you go by the premise that it is irrational to belive anything that doest have evidence suggesting it, then what reason would there be to believe in a soul if science could figure out everything about consciousness? None.
The only "evidence" for the soul is the mystery surrounding the brain and human consciousness. But science is slowly unraveling the mystery. And when we get to the point that everything can be explained, what reason would there be to believe in a soul?
Because there's more to who we are than just what we are made of and how we work. It doesn't matter how much "mystery" there is. Whether we know the whole of every mechanism of our body, or none of them, is irrelevant from the religious standpoint.Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
Your missing the point. If you go by the premise that it is irrational to belive anything that doest have evidence suggesting it, then what reason would there be to believe in a soul if science could figure out everything about consciousness? None.
The only "evidence" for the soul is the mystery surrounding the brain and human consciousness. But science is slowly unraveling the mystery. And when we get to the point that everything can be explained, what reason would there be to believe in a soul?
From a religious standpoint, how we exist is not as important as why we exist. The mechanics of life is not as important as the meaning of life.
Religion is not about filling gaps in our understanding of the universe, it's about finding meaning and purpose.
Cat:
>>>
That's impossible by current scientific thinking. Given the "singularity" model for the big bang, the events (if any) which preceded the Big Bang cannot leave any evidence in this universe. You cannot look "behind" the Big Bang because, by definition, it would be impossible for any piece of information to survive.
<<<
If you want your mind boggled somewhat, check out Membrane Theory, (more colloquially 'M' theory). Not only does it produce a model for the origin of the big bang, it also describes the "membrane multiverse" which exists outside of the universe. It's radical stuff.
>Because there's more to who we are than just what we are made of and how we work.
Thats your opinion, but science is starting to show that that isnt the case.
>Religion is not about filling gaps in our understanding of the universe, it's about finding meaning and purpose.
Thats fine with me. Religion can do that without claiming supernatural beings exist. But they dont and thats the problem. Furthermore as science explains more and more about the natural world, the necessity for religion wanes, and is already gone in my opinion.
What is the basis of this statement?Quote:
Because there's more to who we are than just what we are made of and how we work.
I don't think it is irrelevent, when people had no understanding of how/why (in many instances i think how and why are the same question) things happened the idea of a God was much more plausible, thus when they saw a meteor they concluded it was a sign from God. Now that science has offered up an alternative explanation most people recognise that meteors aren't actually signs from God.Quote:
It doesn't matter how much "mystery" there is. Whether we know the whole of every mechanism of our body, or none of them, is irrelevant from the religious standpoint.
Likewise if/when science uncovers a naturalistic basis for the human mind surely the concept of the soul will be cast aside in the same way as the hypothesis that meteors are signs from God was.
But then religion is making a fanstastic mistake, it is assuming there must BE a meaning to life. Science does not by definition assume that there isn't, but its findings do seem to make a mockery of the idea.Quote:
From a religious standpoint, how we exist is not as important as why we exist. The mechanics of life is not as important as the meaning of life.
I can accept that, and religion COULD do that without entering science's real, it could offer a guide to life, how to feel fulfilled, how to go about feeling happy, without making specific claims over supposed real phenomena that have no basis.Quote:
Religion is not about filling gaps in our understanding of the universe, it's about finding meaning and purpose.
Consider buddism, subtract belief in reincarnation, subtract belief in some kind of mystical soul, subtract all beliefs other than the guide to life part, and you are left with a religion that would truly be compatable with science. And what i think will be similar to the religions of the future.
This is an interesting topic, and i think it leads to the root of why i don't really consider myself agnostic.Quote:
I think his definition may be a little strong for practical purposes.
If you take "cannot claim to know" as the definition, its more applicable. Although no one can know anything absolutely, there is reason to believe things are true because of the overwhelming evidence that suggests they are true. And I think in that case one can rightfully make the claim to "know" something is true, eventhough they may not be absolutely sure. Then one wouldnt be agnostic about everything
If you accept that 'absolute' certainty does not exist, then when people claim they are certain of something or that they "know" something presumeably they mean that in their eyes the chance of the alternative is too small to consider reasonably likely.
Well in that case the same reasoning can apply to the non-existance of God; if you accept there is no basis to divine belief, then belief in God becomes little more than a random guess, as such the chances of the guess being right are in my eyes too small to consider reasonably likely.
Have you got any links Adrian? i'mthink i read about it in Hawking's last book, but that was ages ago, and i only have a vague recollection.Quote:
If you want your mind boggled somewhat, check out Membrane Theory, (more colloquially 'M' theory). Not only does it produce a model for the origin of the big bang, it also describes the "membrane multiverse" which exists outside of the universe. It's radical stuff.
The problem you face is the success of science.Quote:
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
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?
She stayed up there once for 18 hours.Quote:
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
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?Quote:
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.
What does any correlation with seismic activity have to do with the apparition? I'd hardly call that a success.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Why would God choose a sign, that looks so dubious? Why not the burning letters?
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.Quote:
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 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.
18 hours isn't enough time to study a phenomena.Quote:
She stayed up there once for 18 hours.
Fine then not quantum gravity, something else equally unsolved.Quote:
Why do you even assume that there is a solution? Can you prove even the existance of a solution?know it?
The only way a system could be unmodelable, would be if it was magic.Quote:
Why even assume that the system can be completely modeled using mathematics as we
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.
Its not meant to be, its just somewhat coincidental don't you think?Quote:
What does any correlation with seismic activity have to do with the apparition? I'd hardly call that a success
Then what is this mary malark, about?Quote:
I don't think God is in the signs business.
There have been plenty of supposed sightings of mary this is just another one.Quote:
However I'm not sure what you are asking for. In 2000 years there was never evidence of an apparition like this.
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.Quote:
Sure you had the disciples who saw Jesus, but never multiple photographs with the apparition seen by millions.
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.
Pah that sounds exactly like all the other mary sigthings that have been debunked: myth.Quote:
The church was build on a vision of Mary where she said that she would return in 50 years.
But if God were to perform miracles, or if the soul existed, then they would be breaking the laws of physics.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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 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.
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.Quote:
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
"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:Quote:
religion is an attempt to find meaning in the universe.
"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.
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.Quote:
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.
Couldn't agree more, the fact that evolution is a blind physical process does not lesson human experience.Quote:
The fact that the painting was created with a brush and paint doesn't lessen the art.
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?
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?
Yes it is, and its one of the many reasons the bible cannot be literally true.Quote:
About if the Orthodiox Christian theologists say that the age of universe is 6000.
That's just rediculus
We aren't indestructable Aprog, if God made us perfect to start with why did he make us crap on Earth?Quote:
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:
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.
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.Quote:
If He did what you suggested, we would not have free will.
You will fail.Quote:
I 'll try to make this a little more understandable.
True.Quote:
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.
......what on Earth are you talking about?Quote:
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.
You are suggesting that we willfully left paradise? Then God made us stupid.Quote:
If we did not want to stay there, we could eat from the tree and leave.
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.Quote:
So, God made us to be the master of our selves and of our acts. That shows us how perfetc the God is.
So you maintain that mankind CHOSE to leave paradise, and come to Earth, and die?Quote:
He was not selfish to keep us there if we want to leave. But he gave us the chance to do whatever we want.
Yea cause that makes perfect sense.
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.Quote:
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.
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?
Point me to the paragraph in the bible the says angels have free will.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Is right to punish someone at all, in anyway whatsoever, for something they have no control over, like the actions of another person?Quote:
It's not the evil panishmant you are talking about.
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.Quote:
When you have faith to God, you 'll see that the pain is not that difficult to be overcome.
The bible says that God punishes the children and the grandchildren and the great grandchildren of sinners, read the ten commandements.Quote:
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 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?Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Then why do you believe that the guy who surviived was saved by God and wasn't just lucky?Quote:
of course i believe in good and bad luck
Right because obviously YOUR version is the right one..... :rolleyes:Quote:
Well, you are talking to an Orthodox. So, go read the Orthodox and not the Romecatholic version. ( if you can find this out
Right so theres lots of room for interpretation like i said before and you disagreed, you now agree?Quote:
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.
Abiogenesis.Quote:
When you say that human came from a living microorganicm with probably one cail, you don't say where did this microorganism came from.
I can make DNA in the lab, out of decidely unalive chemicals.Quote:
And even if came from anothere microorganism, that microorganism does need a cause, because only DNA is known to produse DNA,
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.Quote:
science has never proved that something alive can be created from somethin non alive, s
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?)Quote:
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 )
Those answers are COMPLETELY contradictory, if species were created separately clearly they didnt have evolve from a common ancestor did they!?Quote:
1) No
2) Yes
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?Quote:
Eeeer.... i was going to ask you exactly the same thing
Maybe we have a different idea of what the basis for social ethics should be.
Too late.Quote:
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.
I sure as hell hope not.Quote:
2)nvoigt could you tell me how do you find all the things i 've said? Do you agree?
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*
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.Quote:
What ticks me off is athiests that go round imposing their beliefs (or lack thereof) onto others.
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.
My experiences with people who have lost their faith on the basis of critical analysis seems to indicate otherwise.Quote:
People are better off with their belief system in place, and you are very unlikely to pursaude them otherwise
And anyway i think irrationality is fundamentally damaging to human society, and should be fought at every possible occasion.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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"
Why isn't it there? Because you declare it isn't?Quote:
"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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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"
And if I find wonder, contentment, satisfaction, and everything that makes life worth living, perhaps that is only the manifestationQuote:
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".
of this cosmic "meaning" you disagree with.
The fact that the dyes which absorb and reflect light are blind physiochemical processes also does not lessen the importance of the painter.Quote:
Couldn't agree more, the fact that evolution is a blind physical process does not lesson human experience.
Edit:
Cat,
I don't want to upset you, and i think i might if we continue. So, I withdraw.
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.
See, your already assuming that the paranormal does not exist.Quote:
The only way a system could be unmodelable, would be if it was magic.
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.Quote:
Its not meant to be, its just somewhat coincidental don't you think?
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.Quote:
Then what is this mary malark, about?
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.Quote:
There have been plenty of supposed sightings of mary this is just another one.
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.Quote:
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.
Perhaps, but unless if you can give a possible scientific explanation, then the assumption that it is supernatural is valid.Quote:
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
that's what I said to her but then she hit me.Quote:
Originally posted by Clyde
Edit:
Cat,
I don't want to upset you, and i think i might if we continue. So, I withdraw.
something about a fridge
>See, your already assuming that the paranormal does not exist.
Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.
>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.
If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.
>Perhaps, but unless if you can give a possible scientific explanation, then the assumption that it is supernatural is valid.
Lack of an explanation doesnt mean that it makes sense to make up anything and believe it is true. Many things that people once thought were supernatural later turned out to have a scientific explanation.
The point I'm making is that Clyde is rejecting Zeitoun just because he believes that the paranormal does not exist.Quote:
Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.
I think it's best to at least trust God that he will give you a sign. This is a little better than most agnostics and probably better than having complete blind faith. However if the seers at medjugorje are correct, we will have an everlasting sign.Quote:
If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.
And many scientists thought that atoms were indivisible. You cannot play the game both ways. We cannot even know for certain using science that our TV's exists much less God. Yet generally atheism works mainly on the principle that believers have no evidence. We do have evidence but people have been conditioned not to believe.Quote:
Lack of an explanation doesnt mean that it makes sense to make up anything and believe it is true. Many things that people once thought were supernatural later turned out to have a scientific explanation.
This sounds like philosophy, but then again philosophy covers much of the same ground as religion. As I understand it, philosophy is all about figuring out why things are as they are and how things could be or should be. If you begin pondering how society could order itself to be more equitable to the individuals who compose it, then you've begun a thread of philosophical thought. If you ponder whether there can be such a thing as absolute proof, you've again made a philosophical thought.Quote:
Clyde:
Consider buddism, subtract belief in reincarnation, subtract belief in some kind of mystical soul, subtract all beliefs other than the guide to life part, and you are left with a religion that would truly be compatable with science. And what i think will be similar to the religions of the future.
I guess Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and most other religions could be studied philosophically, but I don't think "because God/Jesus/some prophet said so" is a very convincing argument in philosophy.
And if the most important questions cannot have verifiable answers, should we give up on even considering them? There are questions that science, by its nature, will never be able to answer, should we simply ignore them?Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
Thats the only logical thing to do since there is no verifyable evidence that is does.
Why should god care if you believe he exists? Further, as with many things, it's not as important where you end up, but how you get there. Nobody can, or should, force you to seek spiritual answers; the door is always open, but nobody will throw you through it.Quote:
If god wants me to believe in him hes gonna have to give me a completely unambiguous sign.
Yes, christianity is well outside of philosphy and science. I don't think religion should impose over science. Justin makes a pretty good case for not trusting philosophy completely.Quote:
I guess Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and most other religions could be studied philosophically, but I don't think "because God/Jesus/some prophet said so" is a very convincing argument in philosophy.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html
>I think it's best to at least trust God that he will give you a sign
That would require that i believe he exists, which I dont. That is probably why its so easy for some people to believe oil smudges or carvings in a tree or inexplicable light are signs of the virgin mary because they want to believe and are looking for anything that they think could be a sign.
>This is a little better than most agnostics and probably better than having complete blind faith.
>And many scientists thought that atoms were indivisible. You cannot play the game both ways
There is a difference. Scientists thought that because that is the only thing that made sense at that time given the knowledge they had. They had no notion of electrons and such. Also there may have been evidence that at first consideration suggested that atoms were indivisible.
>We cannot even know for certain using science that our TV's exists much less God. Yet generally atheism works mainly on the principle that believers have no evidence. We do have evidence but people have been conditioned not to believe
As Clyde has repeatedly said, its not about certainty, its about probability. Given the information at hand, what is the most likely to be true.
Believers dont have evidence. Believers have things they chose to use as evidence to support their beliefs. That so-called apparition certainly isnt evidence for the existence of god or the virgin mary or whatnot. It was just light. Believers' bias led them to see it as the virgin mary. The interpretation of the light is completely subjective, therefore cannot be used as evidence for anything.
>And if the most important questions cannot have verifiable answers, should we give up on even considering them? There are questions that science, by its nature, will never be able to answer, should we simply ignore them?
The problem I have is how people go about finding answers to those questions. In my opinion, if science cant ever answer a question (just because it cant answer it at present doesnt mean it never will) then the question doesnt deserved to be asked. Like our good friend the invisible kangaroo. Science will never be able to determine if there are invisible kangaroos sitting on top of my monitor. Given the fact that the nature of the question makes it unanswerable (by rational means), the question doesnt deserve consideration.
If in your search for meaning you ask questions that are inherently unanswerable, then the question doesnt deserve consideration. Any so-called answers found by non-rational means are just self-delusions are dubious at best.
So a question like "who am I?" is something we should never ask ourselves? Science is a very narrow and limited look at the universe. Art, beauty, purpose, etc. are well outside of its bounds.Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
If in your search for meaning you ask questions that are inherently unanswerable, then the question doesnt deserve consideration.
And yes, most of the really important questions (like "who am I?") cannot be answered. But it's the journey and not the destination -- simply because we cannot ever truly arrive at an answer doesn't mean the pursuit of that answer isn't rewarding in its own right.
It's like self-improvement. You'll never be perfect, but aren't you better off for moving closer to that ideal? Sure, you'll never reach it, but you're still better off than when you started.
Similarly, a journey of introspection (perhaps beginning with "who am I?") will never end, but you will grow as a person as you struggle to understand.
Exactly my view.Quote:
Originally posted by Cat
...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.
As for your beauty isn't a scientific process, psychologists have already found that universal beauty is directly related to the symmetry of the face. The more symmetrical, the more beautiful the person is considered.
It does not require that you believe that he exists for certain. I suppose that you have to look for a sign to see it. It's not too much different than anything else. But odd paterns on a tree are entirely different than light seemingly taking the form of the virgin Mary on the route where she fled from Herod. On top of that, she predicted 50 years ago and in another visionary site that she would return to egypt. I'm suprised that you don't find inexplicable light a sign. We believe in so many things only because they reflect light yet you do not believe in something that is the source of light.Quote:
That would require that i believe he exists, which I dont. That is probably why its so easy for some people to believe oil smudges or carvings in a tree or inexplicable light are signs of the virgin mary because they want to believe and are looking for anything that they think could be a sign.
It is most likely that the apparition was the Virgin Mary. This of course does not mean that we should throw out our theories of evolution by any means.Quote:
As Clyde has repeatedly said, its not about certainty, its about probability. Given the information at hand, what is the most likely to be true.
>So a question like "who am I?" is something we should never ask ourselves?
I dont think "who am I?" cannot be answered through science (although you might not like the answer).
>And yes, most of the really important questions (like "who am I?") cannot be answered. But it's the journey and not the destination -- simply because we cannot ever truly arrive at an answer doesn't mean the pursuit of that answer isn't rewarding in its own right.
I think that is the ultimate goal of science, determining who we are. It is obvious that science searches for the answer to the question "how", but as Clyde said earlier, "how" and "why" might actually be the same question. The big difference is the process science and religion goes about finding
>It is most likely that the apparition was the Virgin Mary. This of course does not mean that we should throw out our theories of evolution by any means.
Science has repeatedly disproven supernatural causes for unexplained events. So it is not most likely the virgin mary, it is most likely a natural phenomenon.
Only if you presuppose that there is no deeper meaning in the universe. If you presuppose that there are only sounds and no music, only paint and no art, then there IS no why, and all questions become "how". If you assume the whole is no more than the sum of its parts, then questions of "why" are pointless.Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
I think that is the ultimate goal of science, determining who we are. It is obvious that science searches for the answer to the question "how", but as Clyde said earlier, "how" and "why" might actually be the same question.
In such a world, life is only a cruel farce; we're puppets who don't even realize we're slaves to meaningless causality.
i like pizza
People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.Quote:
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.
>People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.
Yes, but people like osama bin laden wouldnt be able to line up millions of people willing to fly those planes into those buildings. Religion is the tool he uses to convince millions that the west is the enemy and everyone remotely associated with the west must die. Without religion his message would fall on deaf ears.
>Only if you presuppose that there is no deeper meaning in the universe....
In such a world, life is only a cruel farce
Why must you believe that there is some "deeper meaning" to our existence for life to be meaninful?
> we're puppets who don't even realize we're slaves to meaningless causality.
if that is what science determines, I can live with that.
Im sure i could because i can see the errors in your stance.Quote:
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.
But tell me, if i did somehow manage to convince you (hypothetically) that there was no "meaning" would it upset you?
What i want to know, is would you want to know if you were wrong?
Well science is the continuation of natural philosophy, and i have no issue with "good" philosophy, like Descartes premise of absolute doubt.Quote:
This sounds like philosophy, but then again philosophy covers much of the same ground as religion. As I understand it, philosophy is all about figuring out why things are as they are and how things could be or should be. If you begin pondering how society could order itself to be more equitable to the individuals who compose it, then you've begun a thread of philosophical thought. If you ponder whether there can be such a thing as absolute proof, you've again made a philosophical thought.
There is plenty of philosophy I dislike (including theology - which i guess could be considered a facet) mostly becuse the philosophers work on the premise that the way things look/feel must be the way they are.
I don't buy the argument that "if there were no religion they would just use something else".Quote:
People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.
It seems to imply there must be x amount of conflict/pain/violence in the world (which is crazy), and that by removing one causative agent another will spring up.
If there no religion the Northern Ireland conflict simply would not exist, it wouldn't replaced by anything its cause like the others are specifically related to religion.
Do you really think that Bin Laden would have been anything other than a buisnessman if he were not raised into Islam?Quote:
People using religion as a easy explanation cause harm. I don't think you will find the place in Bible or Quoran where it says "and crash a plane unto the unbelievers so they may die in thousands". That's simply not in there. Fanatics and idiots will always find a reason to kill. If it weren't for religion, they would kill for pink cows or world peace.
A world without religion would be a better world than one with it, because all the conflicts and brutality done as a result of religiously held beliefs or religiously inspired governments would drop away. That doesn't mean all conflict would end, of course it wouldn't, but some of it would.
me too. I used to order it with "meatball" but then I moved from NY to Florida and they didn't know what I was talking about. It took a while to finally figure out that they just called it "ground beef" when you order it as a topping. Another thing, Florida seems to like pineapple chunks on their pizza. WHAT THE!!!!!! That's nasty.Quote:
Originally posted by Silvercord
i like pizza
Also, when I ordered it here in Florida I asked for "two pies" to which I got pure silence. "Pies?" they asked? "We don't sell pie". What kind of a world do we live in where people don't know that a pizza IS a pie?!?!?!
Those who have nothing to lose are the most dangerous people. For instance, if you are rich, are you going to be a terrorist? How come Osama isn't the one crashing the planes? It's because he has something to lose. He is VERY wealthy.Quote:
Originally posted by *ClownPimp*
Yes, but people like osama bin laden wouldnt be able to line up millions of people willing to fly those planes into those buildings. Religion is the tool he uses to convince millions that the west is the enemy and everyone remotely associated with the west must die. Without religion his message would fall on deaf ears.
Now, if someone were to say, here's how you can get revenge on all those who have the money that should be yours, that is going to be motive right there. "It will help your people get the money that belongs to them." You're a martyr for your people, a hero. No religion there.
As for no Osama without Islam, do you really think that there wouldn't have been someone else like him?
The root of the problem if twofold. First, the unequal distribution of wealth causes a lot of friction. Those who crash the planes aren't exactly Bill Gates when it comes to money. Second, Americans have forced their culture onto this society. Some places have accepted it, others have not. We did this in ignorance and it has hurt us greatliy.
But thats not what the suicide bombers think or rather its not the only thing driving them theres another aspect, you should read the interviews by some of the fanatics, these people believe that the instant the die they are magically transported to a paradise where 72 beautiful virgins awaits them.Quote:
Now, if someone were to say, here's how you can get revenge on all those who have the money that should be yours, that is going to be motive right there. "It will help your people get the money that belongs to them." You're a martyr for your people, a hero. No religion there.
Death doesn't matter one iota, because they are not losing anything, thats what makes religious fanatics the MOST dangerous kind - they do not fear death.
Are you suggesting its coincidental thats he is a raving fanatic?Quote:
As for no Osama without Islam, do you really think that there wouldn't have been someone else like him?
The 9/11 would never ever have happened without religion, 1) Without religious xenophobis hatred of other non-muslims the attacks would not have targetted civilians, and 2) Religious terrorists unlike purely political terrorists are unconcerned about sacrificing their own lives.
Religion is not the cause but it can act as the catalyst.
I agree with regards to the attacks on America religion is not the causative agent, but i think it makes things a lot worse.Quote:
The root of the problem if twofold. First, the unequal distribution of wealth causes a lot of friction. Those who crash the planes aren't exactly Bill Gates when it comes to money. Second, Americans have forced their culture onto this society. Some places have accepted it, others have not. We did this in ignorance and it has hurt us greatliy.
About your 2, 3, 4 paragraphs and perfectness:
But, as I have already told you, now we are not perfect. Of course and we are not perfect, since we die etc. However, what we were talking about is if God created us perfect. And yes, we were created perfect. There is no need in telling me that now we are not perfect, since I agree with you.
>You are suggesting that we willfully left paradise? Then God made us stupid
When you don’t follow the rules of your master, that means that you don’t want him. God warned us that if we eat from the tree we will die. However, we disobey Him.
>So you maintain that mankind CHOSE to leave paradise, and come to Earth, and die?
They disobey God, and they choosen not to apology.
When you live in a house, and there is the rule “Keep this house clean” and you dirty that house, then you go to another house.
>The other dog is a good dog, he is perfectly behaved, they BOTH have free will. Why didn't God make man good dogs?
It’s the same question you asked me ( Why did God create Satan and not John ) and I anwered to you.
Anyway, one more comment: Say you believe in A. And you choose your friends. You want your friends to believe in whatever they want. You just want to have friends. So, you choose both people who believe in A and other people who believe in B.
However if you choosed only the people who believed n A, you would not like free will. If you did like free will you would have choosen both people who agree with you and the others who disagree with you.
The same appeals with God and humans. If He was going to “like” all the people who follow Him and destroy the others, he would not like free will.
>Point me to the paragraph in the bible the says angels have free will.
Well, since some left from the God, they were free to stay with Him or leave.
>he could have made it in our nature to choose good over evil, why didn't he?
I think I said too much about this. In case you have missed this part of the paragraph, I post it again:
>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.Quote:
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.
And only one who does not has faith to God will keep his self busy on such a thing, and not how he will save himself. All these things are temporary. Wait untill you die.
And also, believe me, as many of the prophesies of the Bible have already happened, you will be very surprised when God will “ask” you for reasons for all you sins.
>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?
I just told you what the difficulty is ( resist to temptations ) just to make it sure that we are talking for the same thing. Well we, humans, may find them difficult, but these are the laws of ethic; and as I know, God said that it is not difficult. I ‘ll try to find this quote from the Bible.
>Compare a religious person who's disease ridden and in agony with a religous person whos healthy. Who is happier Aprog?
If both of them do the good and the feel sorry for their acts etc, the will be the same happy.
>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.
I again tell you that all these are temporary, if you are close to God and have faith you will be very happy and no misery, and you have “to be ethical to get closed to Him”. If He just clicked His fingers, all the murderers, theefs and people who do only bad things will be closed to Him and now our word would be more worst. I hope you understand the reason, buddy.
>Right so theres lots of room for interpretation like i said before and you disagreed, you now agree?
I just told you that the way of presenting the facts is just in a simplified form to be understood from all people. That’s all.
>Abiogenesis.
Expand a bit more on this explanation.
>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.
Science doesn’t need to explain the facts with “magic”. And, yes, you have to proof that living can be produced from non-living if you wanted to explain the origin of human ( if you believe that he came from something nonliving ).
Also.. I haven’t seen your explanation to the question how humans were created.
>Those answers are COMPLETELY contradictory, if species were created separately clearly they didnt have evolve from a common ancestor did they!?
Sure. But I did not say something like that. Go back to the paragraph and see that I never said that.
>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?
I don’t think that you will ever understand this one. I’ll try, but because I want to keep each post small in length, let’s leave it in the end.
Aprog, you simply do not grasp the ideas being discussed. I can continue to deconstruct every point you attempt to make, but given how poor your arguments actually are i don't think its really necessary.
With you a much more important topic, is whether or not other religions are somehow worse than Christianity.
Islam and Muslims in particular get demonised an amazing amount by the Christian right wing idiots. If you do not judge Christianity by the extremists who claim (based on the bible) that the Earth is 6000 years old or who went round butchering every non-Christian they could find (Spanish inquisition, Crusades, etc.), then you should equally not judge Islam by its extremists either.
Quote:
Yes, but people like osama bin laden wouldnt be able to line up millions of people willing to fly those planes into those buildings. Religion is the tool he uses to convince millions that the west is the enemy and everyone remotely associated with the west must die. Without religion his message would fall on deaf ears.
If there is one thing to make a religious thread worse... it's a Hitler comparison :)Quote:
Death doesn't matter one iota, because they are not losing anything, thats what makes religious fanatics the MOST dangerous kind - they do not fear death.
So here we go: Hitler lined up millions of people to kill millions of other people on a scale that dwarves 9/11 by far. Hitler was in no way religious and neither were his henchmen. The feared SS soldiers wore a skull as their sign. Not because they were deadly, but because they were prepared to sacrifice their life. And many did ( what made them a feared but not very effective combat unit, they had so many losses in France that simply disbanding them seemed the most reasonable way ). My point: You don't need religion to grab a weapon and kill someone. People can be indoctrinated with religion or with something else. Fanatics will always be there.
Though this is a very shallow description, I think the Irish would still be ........ed because the english invaded them. That's not about religion.Quote:
If there no religion the Northern Ireland conflict simply would not exist
Show me a religious conflict, and I will show you people behind it craving for power regardless of belief. Take any religously inspired government. It's just another name for tyranny. Earth had it's bunch of tyrants even before christ.Quote:
A world without religion would be a better world than one with it, because all the conflicts and brutality done as a result of religiously held beliefs or religiously inspired governments would drop away.