Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Kenneth Kenstar on April 19, 2008, 02:12:41 pm
-
You might not like me as much after this topic, but, I think intelligent discussion on the things you believe or not believe in is overall healthy and should be encouraged over ignorance.
I will argue this with some good Youtube videos because I am lazy.
[embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/FZFG5PKw504&rel=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" wmode=\"transparent\" width=\"425\" height=\"355\"][/embed]
Okay, that wasn't fair. >_>
But, here, take a look at this next one.
[embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/zDHJ4ztnldQ&rel=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" wmode=\"transparent\" width=\"425\" height=\"355\"][/embed]
If your religious, how can you possibly argue with that last video?
If I question one of your beliefs you respond with It's just what I believe.
However, when one of my beliefs are questioned, I can at least come to either the following conclusion:
* I explain it with evidence to back it up.
or
* I don't know the answer.
And, it's okay I don't know the answer! You know why? Because, my beliefs aren't based on a book written by a backwards society thousands of years ago. It's based on the work of scientists, engineers, and other intelligent people that are trying to reverse the damage caused to our science, government, laws, and society by your religion!
-
[embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/Y4yBvvGi_2A&rel=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" wmode=\"transparent\" width=\"425\" height=\"355\"][/embed]
And...now I'm officially trolling.
-
I agree that cival debate is a good thing but something tells me this won't end too nicely.
-
After watching the videos I have changed my mind and decided sod it.
The first videos is completely ignorant of other factors such as the chemical make up of the peanut butter and they take the new life theory far to litteraly it dosn't say it will form anywhere only under the right conditions and does nothing but demonstrate there intolerance and lack of scientific knowledge.Also simple life HAS been made in a laboratory before from nothing more than a few chemicals that were present during the ancient earth and under the same conditions as the ancient earth.
I didn't watch all of the second video so I can't comment.
The third one can be used the other way round aswell somebody could also say that the bannana has evolved this way because it scatters the seeds more effeciently and humans arn't the only ones that eat bannanas and not all cultures peel the skin off of the bannana.
There is a good video explaining what scientist believe about the origins of life but I can't find it anywhere when I find it I'll post it.
-
EDIT: lol i didn't read the first post
The first and third videos are hilariously stupid. That is all.
-
Not what I was looking for but it was funny so here is some random thingy!
[embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBRxzHU2C5U&rel=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" wmode=\"transparent\" width=\"425\" height=\"355\"][/embed]
Dosn't seem to have worked right so here's the link http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBRxzHU2C5U (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wBRxzHU2C5U)
-
FYI, religious debates never end well around here at all.
DON'T DO IT.
-
they rarely end well anywhere but when it's started it can be hard not to join in the debate.
-
He...hehe..Banana's are so damn perfect.
-
the first video is ridiculous. the theory of abiogenesis, if my memory serves, requires a much greater time period and volume of conducive circumstance before life randomly self-generates. not to mention that if new life existed in a peanut butter jar, you wouldn't know just from looking.
the third video is also ridiculous. it could easily be argued that those features evolved either for other reasons, or to encourage the spreading of banana seeds through the digestion systems of the great apes.
the second video is the worst, because it claims to use critical thinking, and then makes a patent and disgusting mockery of it. but at least it gives content that can be debated.
"So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?" here's a theory. in the biblical accounts jesus stated 'your faith has made you well.' it is easier to have faith that some unseen internal malady may be corrected, than to believe that an external deficiency which you have psychologically adapted to, will be materially reversed. faith is a fickle thing, and as nuanced as any other facet of psychology.
"We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God."
this statement is impossible to prove. i.e. it is a belief.
"If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles."
last sentence is not knowable, only believable. so if someone is intelligent, they automatically believe what you believe, and not only believe it, but believe it is not a belief but a fact? more mental faggotry.
"In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life."
the same has to be done for any theory. just because water is lighter as a solid than as a liquid does not mean water is imaginary. we're always expounding and refining our theories with 'rationalizations.' that's all theories are, giant rationalizations with varying degrees of quality and evidence.
"Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?"
again, because god requires faith on the part of the people praying, and because god leaves the world largely under our control.
"To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God."
no, i built a rather simple hypothesis. spiritual intervention requires a certain degree of faith that is proportional to the amount of human decisions that would have to be overriden to provide the intervention. see how much smarter it sounds when i use scientifically connotative terms? jackass?
"Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?"
because to god, 'spiritual death' i.e. living in 'iniquity' was worse than physical death. and who knows, it's possible.
"Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters?"
i don't know, but again, physical death may be a kind of mercy to this god, considering the scale of temporary physical life to eternal spiritual life. some people think that a shaky financial future is justification for aborting babies. perhaps these executions work on the same principle.
"That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses."
it also makes no sense that the universe is expanding faster and faster, and that some galaxies stay together while rotating at speeds that should tear them apart. In fact, if you think about it, you realize it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these phenomena. (but if you were as smart as you me you would realize it's all imaginary! it makes so much more sense that way. any evidence that contradicts our understanding of the universe is imaginary! if you're intelligent you'll agree.)
"Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"
what exactly is 'anti-scientific?' descriptions of phenomena that you can't explain? since when is something anti-scientific because science can't currently explain it?
"- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.
- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says."
maybe god did, maybe god didn't. how the hell would you prove he didn't? since that is what you are claiming? or are you simply calling it nonsense because you can't imagine how it could happen? how is that scientific? make no mistake, atheism and science have nothing to do with eachother, because science makes no assumptions about god one way or the other.
"These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it?"
i.e. if the universe doesn't behave in a way i understand, it must be imaginary. how remarkably religious.
"Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?"
there's nothing wrong with slavery if it is consensual. as for forced slavery, i dont know if the bible god is a proponent of that. it's possible that society was not ready to give up slavery, and that the bible god did not ask them to be completely perfect, but just mitigated their imperfection. but who knows.
"Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it."
1st, no one is perfect, and if they were, they could not be harmed unless they allowed it. 2nd, just because a victim is not to blame for what happens, doesn't mean no one is to blame. specifically, bad things happen because bad decisions made over the generations are still fucking us all over. evidently god doesn't always exert direct control over the decisions of mortals, so bad things happen because people are stupid and the universe is imbalanced.
"Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it."
prove that they didn't. another stupid question. you might as well ask why you don't know the dietary habits of a man who died a thousand years ago who's body has not been discovered, or was completely destroyed. a. the evidence has been destroyed, b. the evidence has not been discovered, c. jesus had the foresight to avoid burritos evidence for whatever reason, d. any combination of the above. yes i created an excuse, just like newton created an excuse for an apple falling to the ground. (it's a theory)
"Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy."
assuming jesus hasn't appeared to me (for all i know he delivered the pizza), it's not a discrepancy. maybe jesus didn't feel like some jackass jumping around in pajamas shouting i have proof i have proof, hold still for the camera jesus... i would think that a supernatural being doesn't appear because a. they dont want to for whatever reason, b. they can't for whatever reason. there's really so many possibilities. perhaps it violates his principles... or the Prime Directive.
"Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?"
maybe he was speaking figuratively, as he often did? where's that critical thinking you were talking about... you dont seem to be putting it to use.
"And finally, Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization."
here's your convoluted rationalization, jackass; maybe god doesn't force people to stay married if they dont want to stay married. ZOMG SO BIXARRE
"blah blah blah condescending hypocritical oxshit as to why i dont feel obligated to use critical thinking unless it makes me feel smarter than religious ppl"
you've become what you hate.
i'm not a christian and i dont think the bible is 100% or infallible. and the explanations i gave are just theories and possibilities, they could be wrong. but i gave them as examples of why the guy in the 2nd video is abusing the term 'critical thinking' and making a mockery of science and logic. what you said kenny, about saying 'i dont know' that's really the answer that is right more often than any other ;] agnosticism ftw.
-
Well fuck. He. Wait.
tl;dr
-
Also forgot to mention the obvious flaw in that whole banana argument-
This is a cultivated banana that you all know and love it has been selectively grown by humans for thousands of years to suit us.
(http://survivalofthesickestthebook.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/banana.jpg)
and this is a wild banana completely different from the cultivated banana as you can see it's a hard to hold shape and full of seeds.
(http://cairnarvon.rotahall.org/pics/wildbanana2.jpg)
-
And, it's okay I don't know the answer! You know why? Because, my beliefs aren't based on a book written by a backwards society thousands of years ago. It's based on the work of scientists, engineers, and other intelligent people that are trying to reverse the damage caused to our science, government, laws, and society by your religion!
I'm not sure about that... but I would think beliefs is a set of principles one person lives by. It doesn't have to be based on anything, but what a person wants. I'd like to think that most, if not all, intelligent people know this and would stop attacking other people's faith. Of course, I know that many people people who follows the bible, etc can be assholes about their religion... and all I can say to that is: they're doing it wrong.
-
[embed src=\"http://www.youtube.com/v/zDHJ4ztnldQ&rel=1\" type=\"application/x-shockwave-flash\" wmode=\"transparent\" width=\"425\" height=\"355\"][/embed]
If your religious, how can you possibly argue with that last video?
If I question one of your beliefs you respond with It's just what I believe.
However, when one of my beliefs are questioned, I can at least come to either the following conclusion:
* I explain it with evidence to back it up.
or
* I don't know the answer.
And, it's okay I don't know the answer! You know why? Because, my beliefs aren't based on a book written by a backwards society thousands of years ago. It's based on the work of scientists, engineers, and other intelligent people that are trying to reverse the damage caused to our science, government, laws, and society by your religion!
That video is the most moronic thing I have seen in 2008. Llamavore gave a lot of good reasons why it's ridiculous, but I'll give a few more.
It makes vast and baseless assumptions about the nature of people's faith by, for example, assuming an interventionist God.
It makes assumptions about the nature of rationalisations - that they are all weird and irrational, hence always calling them excuses.
It assumes that the faithful should necessarily understand and be able to explain God's actions - since God is a perfect being, and man is, by nature imperfect, it is ridiculous in the extreme to expect the imperfect to comprehend the perfect.
It assumes that the burden of proof definitively lies with other side - you cannot prove the non-existence of god, which is why militant atheism, such as displayed in that video, is a logically untenable position. You can believe that there is no God, but you cannot know that there is no God. Hence, agonsticism is the strongest rational non-deistic position.
Many of the 'answers' provided on the assumption that God is imaginary don't require God to be imaginary at all - he could just as easily be non-interventionist.
It's quite clear to me, as a philosophy student, that either this guy has never been anywhere near a critical thinking class or session, or he is such an unstoppable moron that his own atheistic dogma is entirely clouding his judgement, and any critical thinking he has picked up has been completely mauled by his desire to trick and deceive people into abandoning what may well be rationally and logically consistent beliefs.
I, for example, am a Christian. I have not a single problem answering any of the questions set out, because I am rational about my faith (he seems to assume this is not possible either).
1) Why won't God heal amputees?
Because he's a non-interventionist.
2) Why are there so many starving people in our world?
Because God is non-interventionist?
3) Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?
He doesn't - God didn't write the Bible, man did.
4) Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?
The Bible was written by primitive men, not God. Right answer, wrong rationalisation. On the other hand, who's to say science should be given so much sway? It's not the only course for the rational mind to follow. Sensory scepticism undermines empirical science entirely. Add in Bertrand Russell's 5 minute Universe hypothesis, and you've got no way to prove God create the whole world five minutes ago, dinosaur fossils, science, memories and all...
5) Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?
Again, not his words. See a pattern developing here?
6) Why do bad things happen to good people?
The scale of either his idiocy, ignorance or capacity for deception here is staggering. There have been hundreds upon hundreds of books written on this very topic, debates raging for hundreds of years, and he wants to simplify the question to 30 seconds of his shit-stirring video? It's misguided at best. Regardless, the answer isn't overwhelmingly complex. Free will is the greatest gift God gave us. By not interfering, God gave us the chance to shape the course of our own lives, both in terms of events and how we react to them. God could interfere if he wished, but he won't - to do so would be unfair, and would imbalance the system he has created which lets every man or woman determine his or her own course. God is a meritocrat, as all the best people are. So bad things happen to good people because bad people exist, because we live in a natural world that is bigger than ourselves, because this life is not the only life and all unjust punishments will be redeemed by greater rewards in heaven (if you get there)... There are a lot of answers, I don't have time to go in to all of them, or explain why this guy is such a shit-stirring moron.
7) Why didn't Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence?
Who's to say they didn't? Just because it hasn't yet been found doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist, or never existed.
8) How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?
Who's to say he hasn't? We can never rationally entirely discount any person's religious experience - because we can never get inside their heads. However unlikely it may seem, every so-called nut who claims to have talked to God could be telling the truth (though they would have talked to the Metatron, rather than God himself.) On the other hand, why should he appear to us? One might argue that we've been given all the help we can fairly receive - a personal appearance would be proof. Proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing to us, because our free will would be useless - there's no choice to know something, it's generally self-evident, but faith requires choice.
9) Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
As Llamavore said, maybe it's figurative, like a lot of the Bible (e.g. the creation story and the parables). By sharing bread and wine in Jesus' name, all Christians through all the ages are united in a common action representative of the sacrifice he made to allow man to clean his own soul.
10) Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
Because they aren't perfect, and make mistakes, like everyone, and misjudged their partner? Because people change, no matter what faith they hold? Because God doesn't want you to be unhappy? Because marriage is more of an administrative and state institution now than a religious one? Lots of answers, take your pick.
It's probably coloured by some bad experiences of his own, but the chip on this guy's shoulder is clearly obstructing his vision. I'll be the first to say that organised religion isn't my preference (I believe religion is a relationship between you and God, and no one has the right to tell you how to conduct that relationship), but it hasn't been uniformly destructive and evil. Many people behave better because of religion, just as some behave worse.
Furthermore, this is symptomatic of the sort of idiocy pushed by Richard Dawkins, who totally lost the plot. Philosophy, science and religion are not enemies. They are all compatible, and every moron who furthers the crusade type mentality is an enemy to progress. Science only gives us how - that is the entire scope of its remit. It does not give us why. This is evidenced by the fact that an enormous number of leading scientists of all fields are Christians, or religious, and not uncomfortable at all about interaction between their faith and their work. Galileo was spurred on to his discoveries by his love for God, as was Newton. Einstein himself spoke of how untenable atheism is.
I'm all for rational debate - I'm a philosopher, after all: I'd be a pretty poor one, if I wasn't. But this isn't it. I haven't watched the other two videos, but if they're anything like as non-sensical, blinkered, self-contradictory, hypocritical, illogical, crass and idiotic as the second one, then I can only commend you on undermining the whole purpose of this topic, because there has been no rational debate, just a uniform dconstruction of illogical and unjustified claims. You need two sides to a debate. So far, this is just a demolition.
-
The obvious answer to all of those questions is that God is crazy and evil, a bit like Hitler in the later stages of syphilis. Who was it that said "God is to man as a mean kid with a magnifying glass is to ants"?
One of these days, I'm going to start a theocracy where I can have slaves, eat flesh, drink blood, kill people for really poor reasons, not heal diseases, insist that the world was created at the same time as my country by discounting all other previous civilizations, and all that other Christian stuff.
-
NO
DELETE THIS TOPIC
NOW
-
The obvious answer to all of those questions is that God is crazy and evil, a bit like Hitler in the later stages of syphilis. Who was it that said "God is to man as a mean kid with a magnifying glass is to ants"?
One of these days, I'm going to start a theocracy where I can have slaves, eat flesh, drink blood, kill people for really poor reasons, not heal diseases, insist that the world was created at the same time as my country by discounting all other previous civilizations, and all that other Christian stuff.
I like how other people provided evidence of their own to further their point, and then you just come straight out trolling. Classy, not only did you invoke Godwin's law, you also constructed a one sentence parody.
You must think you're clever.
-
That banana one is stupid. Yer one fruit is easy to eat but what about all the other fruit that aren't. Like a coconut. Why'd god make a coconut? That's like hard as to get into.
But yer. I don't think there's anything wrong with having faith in a god..even if there isn't one. There were only a few religious kids at our school, and there was one guy in particular who me and my mates used to b-ully pretty bad. But now I feel real bad about it cos there's nothing wrong with just having faith in something. It can get you through some hard times. Give you hope at the very least.
That was deep.
-
Llamavore and the infamous...let's make this topic delicious.
You both decided to break down the answers to this video and I'm happy for that.
"So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?" here's a theory. in the biblical accounts jesus stated 'your faith has made you well.' it is easier to have faith that some unseen internal malady may be corrected, than to believe that an external deficiency which you have psychologically adapted to, will be materially reversed. faith is a fickle thing, and as nuanced as any other facet of psychology.
You didn't answer the question! It was a shitty rationalization and ignoring the question at hand!
Why won't God heal amputees, but, other people may receive their own miracles? Could it just be that miracles do not exist and they are logical coincidences?
1) Why won't God heal amputees?
Because he's a non-interventionist.
That's a good argument, but, why is God a non-interventionist when it comes to limbs? In fact, let's roll with this. Why does God intervien only sometimes? Like, say ignore Hurricane Katrina, but definitely let's help this old American woman who can't walk!
I know what you are trying to say, by the way. But, I'm curious why you think your view of God is the right one. It directly opposes with what Llamavore is saying, also. >_>
Hell, really, I could say I have already won this argument because two believers of God just pretty much posted two long answers that directly oppose one another (except a few points).
Also, some of those answers are based on the bible which is kinda interesting.
Wait.
Why the FUCK would you quote the Bible?
Seriously. Who the hell do you think wrote it? God? God didn't write any of that. The book has been manipulated over and over again by either innocent mistranslations, political means, and under the watchful, secretive eye of the Catholics before even the idea that Christians could be protestant existed.
Not only that, but, the book is so old that you can't even make sense out of most of the book. The "Great Flood"? How in the fuck would people in that time know the entire world was flooded, yet, thought the earth was fucking flat and had no idea of the existence of
- Northern and South America
- Antarctica
- England
- Australia
- I'm sure I could list more if I were still in High School
You get the point? By quoting the Bible you are quoting people who didn't know what the fuck to do with a fork on their idea of what the world was.
In fact, the entire Bible is just the prospective of people thousands of years ago, mistranslated countless times, edited by many people for content and you are taking it as though it were literal?
When you guys find a way to release "Bible: The Director's Cut" then maybe I'll actually listen to these quotations. But, it just makes you sound like an idiot to take anything in that book in context at ALL.
Sure, maybe this isn't exactly a fair argument, but, am I wrong in my assumption that the Bible is a very untrustworthy source of information?
Hell, Islam's Quran is at least consistent. It has NOT been edited like the Bible has. So, why the fuck do you quote that book so much?
If you trust that book, it means you have faith, definitely.
But, if you put your faith into something that is very much so inconsistent, what does that make you?
Would you drive a Ford Tempo around and have faith that it would get you across the United States just because you were raised in a family that refused to drive anything BUT Ford Tempos?
Yeah. I know I'm sounding like a troll, but I just made some legitimate arguments and I want you to try to prove me wrong. The only way I'm going to get anything legitimate from people who believe in the Bible is if I piss them off.
Also,
NO
DELETE THIS TOPIC
NOW
lol
-
NO
DELETE THIS TOPIC
NOW
I'm going to not do that, not now anyway. A little exercise is good for both a persons brain and a persons faith.
Now, keep it *clean*. Remember, you shouldn't attack the person who presents their logic or faith, and it's not even nessasary to attack their ideas. Just post your side of this, point out the holes in the other side that you see, and when you feel like your getting pissed off, walk away until you calm down. If you start flaming each other, then I will start pruning this. If it gets too bad, I will shut it down.
-
DrunkWino, I can drive to where you live in 2 hours and take your keyboard and mouse away if you shut down this topic. >_>
-
"You didn't answer the question! It was a shitty rationalization and ignoring the question at hand!"
I did answer the question, kenny. I inferred via the 'jesus quote' that god required a certain amount of faith to intervene, and that it would be harder to have this faith for a more tangible problem. the more evidence there is of a problem the harder it may be to have faith against it, and visual confirmation of a lack of a limb, as well as mental adaptation to the lack of a limb, is additional evidence.
"Why won't God heal amputees, but, other people may receive their own miracles? Could it just be that miracles do not exist and they are logical coincidences?"
from my personal experience it is unlikely that miracles don't exist. it is more likely that they exist than such incredible coincidence occur as the phenomena i have experienced. however i can't extend my personal experience objectively to you, i can't even reproduce it reliably, so while it's a reason for me to believe, it's not much evidence for convincing someone unless they already trust me to be honest.
as i said, a theory as to why a god wouldn't always perform miracles, is stated above. do you have proof that god does not heal (any) amputees?
"Hell, really, I could say I have already won this argument because two believers of God just pretty much posted two long answers that directly oppose one another (except a few points)."
these answers do not oppose eachother. it could easily be said that my theory applies to when god is not non-interventionist, or that god is non-interventionist to the degree that there is a lack of faith in god.
"Also, some of those answers are based on the bible which is kinda interesting.
Wait.
Why the FUCK would you quote the Bible?"
/facepalm
because the questions were based on the bible.
i dont see any answers i made quoting bible that weren't bible related questions. if i missed them feel free to bring them up. as for the faith has made you well quote, the theory is valid with or without a biblical reference to it. perhaps i should say semi interventionist.
as for the bible's credibility, i already said i don't take it all literally, but at the same time some of its literal statements are possibly credible. i'm really only pointing out that anyone who says 'such and such unobserved phenomena is impossible' aren't really backing that statement up.
"it just makes you sound like an idiot to take anything in that book in context at ALL."
so because the bible is uncredible, the referenced egypt, canaan, and rome never existed? you have to be careful with overgeneralized arguments. I take some of it as possible depending on where it is and how much sense it makes relative to everything else i know from science and logic. god is a possibility, plain and simple. even if god doesn't heal all amputees, this wouldn't disprove the existence of miracles. it's really pointless to try to disprove it or prove it. if a phenomena does not occur in a pattern that is subjectable to the scientific method, that phenomena can hardly be verified by anything but personal experience. and personal experience can't really be transferred. this is why they call these things personal beliefs.
-
The only way I'm going to get anything legitimate from people who believe in the Bible is if I piss them off.
Just because someone believe in God doesn't necessarily means that they also trust every word in the Bible. >_> And seriously, are you actually wanting an answer or a way to bash other people's faith? Because as far as I know, the questions have been answered by two other people. What are you trying to prove here?
-
DrunkWino, I can drive to where you live in 2 hours and take your keyboard and mouse away if you shut down this topic. >_>
You can try. What'll end up happening though, is I'll end up getting you drunk, maybe swing on over to UVA and helping you wreck a poor, dumb, stressed out freshman chick. Then, I'll pour more booze in you till ya pass out and then you'll awaken a day or so later on a freight train pulling into Tijuana.
/wouldn't be the first time...
-
I'm just testing/fucking with the religious people on the board. I never really made this topic with any clear intention of direction or discussion. Just to incite the words of the religious, really.
Why? Because I'm deathly afraid of ignorance.
No, I'm not saying the religious are ignorant. Read on.
Ignorant religious types basically just deny anything that could prove them wrong, will make no effort to secure any of the questions they are presented and just blow it off as "the will of God", and then will actually go around preaching to people insisting that anyone not with them is evil.
I don't hate religious people, but, I do hate what I just mentioned above more than a lot of things.
Why?
It's 2008. That's why.
"Philosophy, science and religion are not enemies."
The fuck they aren't.
- Cloning research. We can't do this at ALL. We'd be playing God and that's wrong! Even though cloning can be used as a backbone to cure...pretty much everything...we are still going to be ignorant and say NO to playing God! People are making this research out to be us creating people. No, you fucking idiots. It's used primarily to try to HELP THE PEOPLE WHO EXIST ALREADY!
- Stem Cell research is affected by religion. Did you know that most stem cells are gathered from ADULT LIVING HUMAN BODIES rather than by fetuses? But, no, we are angering God by killing babies! YOU ARE A BABY KILLER IF YOU SUPPORT STEM CELLS. Even though stem cells (just like cloning) are pretty much the closest thing to what you can call a "medical miracle", it's not God's miracle so it's sin!
Gays marrying? Fuck that, religion is way too sacred and wholesome to be fucked with by faggots. Faggotry will ruin America and piss off God!
Muslims? Not in my America! If they don't believe in Jesus, they are obviously terrorists and should not
- Be in America
- Have rights
- Run for President
- Should just get the fuck out
So, see ya later Muhammed Mohammed you fucking sand nigger terrorist!
BTW, did you know Obama is a Muslim? I bet you are scared, so, I'll forward you a copy of my chain letter I'm sending over MySpace and to everyone I can email!
If your religious beliefs are only based solely on that flawed book and not say...personal experience or actual thinking on the matter that doesn't just resolve to making up some bullshit based on a book that is not credible by scientific means...then I feel you are detrimental to our societies' progress.
And, can you actually deny that? A lot of the problems in our society have some twisted way to do with our religious preferences and not just actually taking the time to examine both sides of the coin. Hell, the media even depicts the nonreligious to be godless people who are just crazy thinking God doesn't exist.
We aren't perfect, I know. But, haven't you felt the need to re-examine your own feelings on the book that says to execute people who work on Sundays? That phrase written is supposed to mean as much to you as being good to one another according to the Bible. But, that's a bullshit argument anyway.
Here's two good questions:
Science has established the backbone ideas of
- The Beginning of the Universe
- The Beginning of Earth
- Man appearing many, many years after Earth's appearance (God created the Earth in 7 days, but, gave it a couple million years before putting man on the ground and creating a woman from a rib)
Science has CREATED life in a way that accurately matches many young Earth theories. It's borderline proven at this point.
Why do you still believe in God/your faith?
And
Do you believe in creationism?
Please note that I'm not asking if you have belief in evolution at all.
What'll end up happening though, is I'll end up getting you drunk, maybe swing on over to UVA and helping you wreck a poor, dumb, stressed out freshman chick. Then, I'll pour more booze in you till ya pass out and then you'll awaken a day or so later on a freight train pulling into Tijuana.
God damnit, that might work.
-
I'm just testing/fucking with the religious people on the board. I never really made this topic with any clear intention of direction or discussion. Just to incite the words of the religious, really.
Right, so you made this topic with the pure intention of trolling. You didn't actually want a debate to try to argue a point successfully, or just for the sake of having a debate, you just wanted to piss religious people off. I'm unsure as to how this topic can stay open as long as its clean if it didn't even start that way.
If your religious beliefs are only based solely on that flawed book and not say...personal experience or actual thinking on the matter that doesn't just resolve to making up some oxshit based on a book that is not credible by scientific means...then I feel you are detrimental to our societies' progress.
I've thought about my religious beliefs a lot myself, but...really? Christianity is based on The Bible. Its that simple. So not only do you state that by quoting the source of our beliefs is ignorant, you basically call the Bible a piece of shit. Now I've heard that plenty of times before, I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who have problems with the Bible - nothing new. But to call people who believe in it detrimental to society and progress? I know you've basically screamed it at this point that you believe Christians are backwards, illogical people, but damn.
...
"Detrimental to our societies' progress."?
Seriously, what the hell. You sound like Hitler talking about the Jews. Oh wait, you probably hate Jews too, considering they also believe in God. (Yes, I'm aware I just invoked Godwin's Law...dammit)
Hell, the media even depicts the nonreligious to be godless people who are just crazy thinking God doesn't exist.
Maybe because nonreligious people are godless? You know, doesn't that kind of make sense? Nonreligious...godless...aren't those synonyms? Well, take that back, I'm sure there are plenty of religions out there that don't believe in Gods, but I've never seen such a fine example of circular reasoning. "Depicting nonreligious people as godless people who don't think God exists"...alright, maybe I'm overstepping my boundaries here. I had an atheistic friend who believed God existed but that he was a dick and, thus, considering himself nonreligious. So I'm guessing you have a similar stance.
We aren't perfect, I know. But, haven't you felt the need to re-examine your own feelings on the book that says to execute people who work on Sundays? That phrase written is supposed to mean as much to you as being good to one another according to the Bible. But, that's a oxshit argument anyway.
Glad you were able to admit how weak that argument was, considering you just quoted what you told everyone else was an incredible source.
-
One can believe in a god yet not subscribe to any of the religious edicts surrounding the belief in that god.
-
I guess its time for me to post... cause I'm bored. I'll probably end up giving no further gain to this topic. <_<
About... three years ago, I was extremely religious. I even brought my nubbetry on to these forums. And then it stopped immediately. I hit a brick wall and never recovered. Then I opened my mind (I was ignorant then, and probably am now.) and saw the negatives. That everything has two sides. That right comes with wrong, and vice versa. You simply can't have one or the other. With Christianity, going to church and being caught up in religion comes negative. You become distant in your own world. You think every word on a flawed book is proven fact. And it is flawed. At least its hypocritical.
People say God is all good, he is perfect. I'm sure he's perfect in a sense of his own. He can manipulate anything, and do what he wants. But I don't believe he's all good. He makes mistakes in the Bible. He floods the earth and cries over it, he lets Satan into the Garden and doesn't stop him, he didn't detain Satan before he rebelled en force. Or so the stories go. It seems God cannot control evil, and allows it into our world. He sends his son, abandons him and lets him get killed all for no reason but to make salvation OPTIONAL. Because the option of evil must be in play, there must be something negative.
Why? If God allows evil but doesn't stop it, he isn't omnipotent. These questions and others ultimately drove me from faith. And I never see people open to this subject, and others. Christians never accept this point of view and my own youth group threw me off as misinformed. My point is, if there is God I don't understand him. And if there are two sides to everything, why is God both? Doesn't make sense to me.
-
Kenny i can answer your questions and your arguments but i don't see what the point is if you don't want me to.
"I think intelligent discussion on the things you believe or not believe in is overall healthy and should be encouraged over ignorance."
"I never really made this topic with any clear intention of direction or discussion."
the young earth theory took place over eons. the amount of ignorance it would take to think we have borderline proven that theory is staggering. but that's a tonicular misconception that operates much the same as religion. if you are going to theorize about billions of years, you need more than just a few hundred years evidence. the scale of the theory is so disproportionate to the scale of the evidence behind it that any rational scientist would understand it as impossible to prove and useless. but apparently as long as you are more skeptical than creationists, you don't have to be as skeptical as logic or science would require to have your theory accepted by the (pseudo)scientific community.
as for evil, it is logically impossible for an individual to prevent evil outside of self-control, if there are other individuals in existence. you can't love someone so much that your love forces them to be good.
-
"So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?"
It would invalidate the idea of faith. The idea of religion is that is you are good on this Earth and make it better, you will be rewarded in heaven. Our reward is heaven, not a spontaneous healing. Furthermore, Jesus died for us, which is a greater sacrifice still. Many have turned pain into an offering to God.
"We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God."
So? Neither do priests, bishops, tonices, or anyone. If everyone was given a miracle, the act of believing would be pointless; pretty easy to believe in someone who gives you everything you ask for. Life is, in a way, a test of worthiness, though also a gift.
.
"If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles."
You just admitted there are miracles. If you're being facetious, God performs a miracle where it can't be proved to be a miracle. See above for why.
"In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life."
You have to create a rationalization to try and prove he doesn't exist, and while doing it, you had to admit miracles exist. Care to explain that?
"Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?"
Because God gives everyone infinite care and love; love in general is limitless, we all have boundless potential for love. God's is beyond human explanation. Furthermore, God didn't "do this," WE do this. Does a parent give their child every little thing? No, they'd be spoiled. Now I'm not saying feeding starving children is a little thing, but it can't be helped.
"To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God."
No, not really.
"Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?"
Like?
"Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters?"
Only if you take it literally. Many of the slaughters can be explained in either a metaphorical manner or are more likely the writings of an ancient people living in a violent and warlike world trying to justify their wholesale slaughters.
"That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses."
You're assuming here God thinks the way we do, which He doesn't, and that the Bible is literal, which it isn't.
"Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"
What?
"- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.
- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says."
You're again assuming the Bible is literal. Is Plato's allegory of the cave wrong just because it can't be literally true?
"These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it?"
He didn't write it. He inspired it. And it's only nonesense if you don't care to think about any deeper meaning in the Bible.
"Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?"
WHAT THE HELL? No, he really isn't. If anyone is, the writer was.
"Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it."
Again, no. Bad things happen to bad people too. The true test of a good person is if they remain good in the face of adversity.
"Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it."
No. How would curing people, as the majority of his miracles are, leave behind any evidence?
"Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy."
No I don't, because I don't pray for that. "Blessed are you who will believe without seeing." Getting to meet Jesus would be a truly amazing experience, but not something I pray for.
"Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?"
You are assuming it's literal again. This has been understood by outside groups since Constantine made Christianity the Roman religion.
"And finally, Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization."
No one is perfect. This is a human failure, not God's. The law says not to murder, but people still do. This is hardly the fault of the lawmaker.
This is really and truly the most ignorant, poorly informed, poorly formulated, snide, idiotic, misrepresentative... Thing I have ever heard of or seen. It ignores all the basic precepts of Christianity, misrepresents parts of the Bible, takes the Bible literally when no one but some fringe groups do, and at one point accidentally admits God's existence.
-
"So here is question #1: Why won't God heal amputees?"
It would invalidate the idea of faith. The idea of religion is that is you are good on this Earth and make it better, you will be rewarded in heaven. Our reward is heaven, not a spontaneous healing. Furthermore, Jesus died for us, which is a greater sacrifice still. Many have turned pain into an offering to God.
"We all know that amputated legs do not spontaneously regenerate in response to prayer. Amputees get no miracles from God."
So? Neither do priests, bishops, tonices, or anyone. If everyone was given a miracle, the act of believing would be pointless; pretty easy to believe in someone who gives you everything you ask for. Life is, in a way, a test of worthiness, though also a gift.
.
"If you are an intelligent person, you have to admit that it's an interesting question On the one hand, you believe that God answers prayers and performs miracles. On the other hand, you know that God completely ignores amputees when they pray for miracles."
You just admitted there are miracles. If you're being facetious, God performs a miracle where it can't be proved to be a miracle. See above for why.
"In order to handle it, notice that you have to create some kind of rationalization. You have to invent an excuse on God's behalf to explain this strange fact of life."
You have to create a rationalization to try and prove he doesn't exist, and while doing it, you had to admit miracles exist. Care to explain that?
"Look out at our world and notice that millions of children are dying of starvation. It really is horrific. Why would God be worried about you getting a raise, while at the same time ignoring the prayers of these desperate, innocent little children? It really doesn't make any sense, does it? Why would a loving god do this?"
Because God gives everyone infinite care and love; love in general is limitless, we all have boundless potential for love. God's is beyond human explanation. Furthermore, God didn't "do this," WE do this. Does a parent give their child every little thing? No, they'd be spoiled. Now I'm not saying feeding starving children is a little thing, but it can't be helped.
"To explain it, you have to come up with some sort of very strange excuse for God."
No, not really.
"Third question: Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?"
Like?
"Why would a loving God want us to murder our fellow human beings over such trivial matters?"
Only if you take it literally. Many of the slaughters can be explained in either a metaphorical manner or are more likely the writings of an ancient people living in a violent and warlike world trying to justify their wholesale slaughters.
"That makes no sense, does it? In fact, if you think about it, you realize that it is insane. So you create some kind of rationalization to explain these verses."
You're assuming here God thinks the way we do, which He doesn't, and that the Bible is literal, which it isn't.
"Question #4: Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"
What?
"- God did not create the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago like the Bible says.
- There was never a worldwide flood that covered Mt. Everest like the Bible says.
- Jonah did not live inside a fish's stomach for three days like the Bible says.
- God did not create Adam from a handful of dust like the Bible says."
You're again assuming the Bible is literal. Is Plato's allegory of the cave wrong just because it can't be literally true?
"These stories are all nonsense. Why would an all-knowing God write nonsense? It makes no sense, does it?"
He didn't write it. He inspired it. And it's only nonesense if you don't care to think about any deeper meaning in the Bible.
"Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?"
WHAT THE HELL? No, he really isn't. If anyone is, the writer was.
"Question #6: Why do bad things happen to good people? That makes no sense. You have created an exotic excuse on God's behalf to rationalize it."
Again, no. Bad things happen to bad people too. The true test of a good person is if they remain good in the face of adversity.
"Question #7: Why didn't any of Jesus' miracles in the Bible leave behind any evidence? It's very strange, isn't it? You have created an excuse to rationalize it."
No. How would curing people, as the majority of his miracles are, leave behind any evidence?
"Question #8: How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you? Jesus is all-powerful and timeless, but if you pray for Jesus to appear, nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy."
No I don't, because I don't pray for that. "Blessed are you who will believe without seeing." Getting to meet Jesus would be a truly amazing experience, but not something I pray for.
"Question #9 – Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would al all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?"
You are assuming it's literal again. This has been understood by outside groups since Constantine made Christianity the Roman religion.
"And finally, Question #10 – Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians? Christians get married in front of God and their Christian friends, all of whom are praying to God for the marriage to succeed. And then they say, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." God is all-powerful, so if God has put two people together that should seal the deal, right? Yet Christians get divorced at the same rate as everyone else. To explain this, you have to create some convoluted rationalization."
No one is perfect. This is a human failure, not God's. The law says not to murder, but people still do. This is hardly the fault of the lawmaker.
This is really and truly the most ignorant, poorly informed, poorly formulated, snide, idiotic, misrepresentative... Thing I have ever heard of or seen. It ignores all the basic precepts of Christianity, misrepresents parts of the Bible, takes the Bible literally when no one but some fringe groups do, and at one point accidentally admits God's existence.
Everything I would have said but didn't.
-
I'm just testing/fucking with the religious people on the board. I never really made this topic with any clear intention of direction or discussion. Just to incite the words of the religious, really.
Right, so you made this topic with the pure intention of trolling. You didn't actually want a debate to try to argue a point successfully, or just for the sake of having a debate, you just wanted to piss religious people off. I'm unsure as to how this topic can stay open as long as its clean if it didn't even start that way.
You are taking things out of context. I want an argument for once that just doesn't lead to bullshit from the religious. I don't care what you think of that last statement, because all I usually hear about "God" is that he is either "planning" to do something or he's just too great of a power to do anything.
So, why not get some truth in this topic? I'm not going to soften my opinion if it's my opinion.
I wanted to incite the words of the religious because I want to know what makes you guys tick.
"Detrimental to our societies' progress."?
Seriously, what the hell. You sound like Hitler talking about the Jews. Oh wait, you probably hate Jews too, considering they also believe in God. (Yes, I'm aware I just invoked Godwin's Law...dammit)
Putting things in my mouth isn't going to make God real. OH SNAP
Hell, the media even depicts the nonreligious to be godless people who are just crazy thinking God doesn't exist.
Maybe because nonreligious people are godless? You know, doesn't that kind of make sense? Nonreligious...godless...aren't those synonyms?
I guess I didn't word that in the best way. But, if you actually took the time to recognize that what I wrote was...
Hell, the media even depicts the nonreligious to be godless people who are just crazy thinking God doesn't exist.
Remove this
Hell, the media even depicts the nonreligious just crazy thinking God doesn't exist.
And, the message is still implying that the media displays the nonreligious in an unfair way.
We aren't perfect, I know. But, haven't you felt the need to re-examine your own feelings on the book that says to execute people who work on Sundays? That phrase written is supposed to mean as much to you as being good to one another according to the Bible. But, that's a oxshit argument anyway.
Glad you were able to admit how weak that argument was, considering you just quoted what you told everyone else was an incredible source.
That's kinda the point, ya know. Why else would I quote the book? To make an argument. However, I said it was a bullshit argument because I don't want to waste my time arguing about mistranslated, edited quotes and phrases in a couple thousand year old book.
It's funny you attempt to insult my argument, but, completely ignored my two, simple questions in my last post.
If your game is taking things out of context, ignoring two simple questions, and making fun of an innocent grammar mistake, then ggnore to you.
ggnore, indeed.
-
Kenny i can answer your questions and your arguments but i don't see what the point is if you don't want me to.
I do want you to.
the young earth theory took place over eons. the amount of ignorance it would take to think we have borderline proven that theory is staggering. but that's a tonicular misconception that operates much the same as religion. if you are going to theorize about billions of years, you need more than just a few hundred years evidence. the scale of the theory is so disproportionate to the scale of the evidence behind it that any rational scientist would understand it as impossible to prove and useless. but apparently as long as you are more skeptical than creationists, you don't have to be as skeptical as logic or science would require to have your theory accepted by the (pseudo)scientific community.
as for evil, it is logically impossible for an individual to prevent evil outside of self-control, if there are other individuals in existence. you can't love someone so much that your love forces them to be good.
The Young Earth theories and the origins of life fit specifically into many other established theories as well as being compatible with each other all the way to evolution.
I tried not to bring up evolution, but, the theory of evolution is the same as it has always been. This virtually unchanged theory matches very well with all the other established life origin theories.
While I'm trying not to argue pro-evolution, I am arguing there is very consistent evidence. The "Pseudo"-scientific community uses actual evidence and facts to back up their statements, so, I'm not sure I follow your argument very well.
-
I remind everyone, if you start the "attack the debater," bullshit, there will be pruning in here. It's already started *looks at IronSolider*, so don't do it anymore or I'm going to have to do shit I don't particularly like doing.
Debate points and issues, not each other.
-
BTW
No hard feelings on this topic, please. I'm definitely going to hold my end of that no matter what you say.
-
Kenny i can answer your questions and your arguments but i don't see what the point is if you don't want me to.
I do want you to.
the young earth theory took place over eons. the amount of ignorance it would take to think we have borderline proven that theory is staggering. but that's a tonicular misconception that operates much the same as religion. if you are going to theorize about billions of years, you need more than just a few hundred years evidence. the scale of the theory is so disproportionate to the scale of the evidence behind it that any rational scientist would understand it as impossible to prove and useless. but apparently as long as you are more skeptical than creationists, you don't have to be as skeptical as logic or science would require to have your theory accepted by the (pseudo)scientific community.
as for evil, it is logically impossible for an individual to prevent evil outside of self-control, if there are other individuals in existence. you can't love someone so much that your love forces them to be good.
The Young Earth theories and the origins of life fit specifically into many other established theories as well as being compatible with each other all the way to evolution.
I tried not to bring up evolution, but, the theory of evolution is the same as it has always been. This virtually unchanged theory matches very well with all the other established life origin theories.
While I'm trying not to argue pro-evolution, I am arguing there is very consistent evidence. The "Pseudo"-scientific community uses actual evidence and facts to back up their statements, so, I'm not sure I follow your argument very well.
i think we got young earth theory mixed up with old earth theory.
the pseudo-scientific community isn't pseudo because it uses evidence and facts. I think that's great and I'm glad scientists are gathering evidence. the pseudo part is in the fact that the larger the theory, the more evidence it requires to back it up, and the pseudo scientists are the ones that are ignoring this rule and assuming a few hundred years of evidence is sufficient to theorize reliably about billions of years. we need more time... which is itself evidence, and direct observation of what happens over such a time period. at the same time, those scientists are still gathering evidence and that is still scientific and supportable.
i'll answer the rest later.
-
Why do you still believe in God/your faith?
When I was 11, I had a certain dream, which led me to sought help - and this brought me to God. I don't know how it did, but it did. To this day, I'm still very thankful for this event. I prayed just about every night since then til I was 14. It was when I started resenting God. Simply because I hated the fact that some people who considered themselves religious would discriminate the nonreligious ones.
Half a year later, every part of me was crying. And I knew in my heart that I needed God in my life. It was then that I realized 2 things. One was that religion is really only a person's relationship with whoever or whatever they believed in - and the other was: God has a set of ideals and how his followers choose to interpret these ideals are up to them. It's not his fault if one of them decided to go psycho-killer and start a massacred in his name. That's not what he's preaching, at least, not in my heart. He teaches us love, and tells us to be kind to our neighbors - being EVERYONE, regardless of anything. However, this is only my interpretation.
The only things I know from the Bible, by heart, are: 1 Corinthians 13 and the Book of Esther. My relationship with God is my business. Not anyone's else. Though I will say that not all the things in the Bible are bad. People can certainly base their moral codes on it, whether or not they believe in God, provided they move with time.
And
Do you believe in creationism?
I'm open about how Earth was started, and I have neither accepted nor denied any theories.
Though there is one thing I would like to point out... you make all the religious people look bad. Did you know that not all nonreligious people are the best of people either? People are people, regardless of what they believe in. And believing in God has absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging that he exists, at least, not to me. It's about sharing God's beliefs and carrying those ideals out in your everyday living. Even then, people get caught up in things and screw themselves over.
Another thing is, why are some people so into wanting to be proved that God exist? What does it matter, really? I always see it as something like this:
God-------------------------------------------------- Your teacher
You can't see him --------------------------------- You can see him
So you can proof that your teacher exists, but does it really matter if you don't give a shit what the subject that your teacher dictates? No. If you care about God and believe in him, not being able to see it really doesn't matter. And there's always a chance that you will. I can't prove this and neither can you.
I remind everyone, if you start the "attack the debater," oxshit, there will be pruning in here. It's already started *looks at IronSolider*, so don't do it anymore or I'm going to have to do shit I don't particularly like doing.
Debate points and issues, not each other.
I see... so when Hyper says:
If your religious beliefs are only based solely on that flawed book and not say...personal experience or actual thinking on the matter that doesn't just resolve to making up some oxshit based on a book that is not credible by scientific means...then I feel you are detrimental to our societies' progress.
We're not supposed to be offended. That's always nice to know.
-
Difference is Kenny admitted to trolling in the first post.
I don't have a particular problem until you start trolling individual people here. I never said you couldn't get offended. If anyone says they are totally not offended, I'd call them a liar. However, instead of responding by attacking the person, respond to the ideas.
Call it an exercise in honest to goodness debate. Plus if you can pull it off without resorting to Kenny's tactics, you get to hold it over his head.
-
Back to the first post where you bottom lined, and said that you're going to argue by videos that which were the most bigot piece's of arrogant shit I've ever seen makes me aware of the easily influenced mentality you must have for just what appears to be a great reasons that are actually very bad well portrayal. The fact is an actual intellectual: one who greatly questions his own opinion with great criticism from oneself knows that religion is impossible to be decisive about, because there's incredible arguments on both side of the spectrum: human beings are the most out of place thing in this entire universe, all things appearing to have originated from one common cell.
Brainless dinosaurs is one thing that I can understand coming from evolution, but us humans are out of place. Even if everything originated from one cell still we don't make sense. Human being are one extreme to another far far away unscaled extreme. Both ways don't be stupid, and just say that there's no god, but also be questionable - very very questionable with that god given free will, and thought.
FYI a college degrees are starting to become pieces of shit.
-
No. Not this again. I know how the last one turned out.
-
I am not religious, but i feel that religion has the right to their beliefs and such, as long as religion has no hold on politics, education, medical care, etc etc.
To me, the concept of faith is to blindly put ones trust into something, without truly knowing that it exists. It is the CHOICE to believe. So when you ask someone WHY they believe, it isn't fair, because they have faith. They dont KNOW it exists, but it is their choice to believe that it does.
-
First page reader.
<i>One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have.
-- Albert Einstein, echoing Robert Green Ingersoll ("I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the star-less night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains." from the Field-Ingersoll Debate), quoted from PhysLink.com</i>
"Question #5: Why is God such a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible?"
there's nothing wrong with slavery if it is consensual. as for forced slavery, i dont know if the bible god is a proponent of that. it's possible that society was not ready to give up slavery, and that the bible god did not ask them to be completely perfect, but just mitigated their imperfection. but who knows.
No widespread slavery has EVER been consensual. What are you talking about? And in the bible, it DEFINITELY promotes slavery, and hate. The bible specifically says to hate those who do things that are wrong, even though the gospel tells you to love everyone.
Another argument is that man wrote the bible... Which means that anything and everything has the oppurtunity to be completely infallible. It means that we can selectively pick and choose what parts of the bible we like and don't like, right? Sure, if that's what you want. But the whole point is that it could easily be fiction, because as you said, was written by man. There's nothing to say it was inspired by a divinity except thousands of people believing it is so and continuing to proliferate that fact. I say screw the bible, or atleast bring it back down to the level of the thousands of other meaningful works of literature.
I have a few questions of my own. Is it truly just for people to believe in a religion, simply because it will grant them heaven? Submitting to religion and a God out of fear and hope for reward is paganism, no different from the Incans, Aztecs, Greeks and Romans, whom we scoff at and call silly.
Why does God ask us to worship him? It just seems very egotistical and ridiculous, and without a point. The truth is that Christianity inherited this trait from the other religions it was born from.
I do, however, have the same views you do on Organized Religion.
Alright, time to read the other pages.
-
about the banana theorey it could be a possibility that it doesnt just fit perfectly for the mouth maybe god new there would be prozzies